These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Delay CONCORD response time by factor 3x
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2012-04-30 16:00:16 UTC
TWHC Assistant wrote:
Nova Fox wrote:
I belive this person has failed to suicide gank.

No, I am hoping for some ganker tears as well as a bit of constructive thought.

Only works on three conditions

1. All ships BC and up...get 3x hitpoints. Hulks are excluded and recieve 10x the hitpoints of an Amarr titan.
2. Destroyers are nerfed to 5 guns and now require at least 60 days worth of skilling to jump into (more investment of time)
3. CONCORD Pods all the offending parties
4. Full Character death, character biomassed, account banned, and charge to the CC to start a new account.


Done, ganking is now harder, difficult, and costs more. Plus the tears of "I can't shoot it without repercussions" when the fact is...you can still shoot it peroid, it just doesn't die...makes the server fans where the forums locate kick into overdrive from the massive flood of whining Twisted
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#22 - 2012-04-30 16:04:54 UTC
Supported, with additional feature suggestion: Keystone Concord Cops

Concord should warp in with flashing lights and sirens blasting. Epic chase scenes should ensue across multiple systems with Concord ships smashing up vendor carts and upsetting patio furniture as they inevitably crash into one another.

Innocent bystanders at every gate should be encouraged to look panicky as they get bumped out of the way or accidently webbed or neuted by Concord.

At least one T1 hauler should get split in half by a Concord police cruiser barrel-rolling out of control.

The eventual sec-status hit should be inversely proportional to the damage done during the chase. Put on a good show and Concord lets you off easy. :)

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Serene Repose
#23 - 2012-04-30 16:07:30 UTC
Yes. Let us get away with murder. It's only fair.

We must accommodate the idiocracy.
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#24 - 2012-04-30 16:50:21 UTC
Posting in train wreck thread.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Yatama Kautsuo
Tencus
#25 - 2012-04-30 16:57:02 UTC
THE L0CK wrote:
concord should be removed. Ganking receives a 1 hour GCC that allows anyone to shoot on sight and -5 sec status makes you remain that way until status is upgraded.

Let us govern ourselves.


bäm, more than half of eve accounts unsubbed
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#26 - 2012-04-30 16:57:59 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
Only if the player's sec status immediately drops to -10 for willfully committing such a heinous, violent, murderous criminal act in civilized space. Even then there still needs to be some restitution made to the victim. Anything else is simply Welfare PvP.


Absolutely not. Being -10 should be something to brag about, a reward for those of us who truly care about harvesting the frozen corpses of the innocent. It is absolutely unacceptable to give this reward for a single pathetic highsec gank.
The Crushah
Yarrtards With Epeen
#27 - 2012-04-30 17:01:29 UTC
I think it would be cool to be able to "bribe" CONCORD and the Faction Police. A payment that lets them look the other way briefly while you do your dirty deed. You can make the bribe sufficiently high that it cannot be a regular thing, but for that carebear that absolutely, positively needs to die, you get a 2 minute window.
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
#28 - 2012-04-30 17:04:01 UTC
I seem to recall dozens of dead jump freighters and normal freighters this weekend from ganks. And there is a problem... where exactly?
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
#29 - 2012-04-30 17:08:20 UTC
Yatama Kautsuo wrote:
THE L0CK wrote:
concord should be removed. Ganking receives a 1 hour GCC that allows anyone to shoot on sight and -5 sec status makes you remain that way until status is upgraded.

Let us govern ourselves.


bäm, more than half of eve accounts unsubbed



You got the evidence to back that claim up or are you just assuming that many others would puss out like you?

Do you smell what the Lock's cooking?
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#30 - 2012-04-30 17:12:18 UTC
THE L0CK wrote:
You got the evidence to back that claim up or are you just assuming that many others would puss out like you?


You seem to misunderstand: the 50% that would be leaving would be the highsec carebears who would be constantly ganked without CONCORD, not the gankers who would be in paradise for a few days until all of the faction-fitted mission battleships are dead.
Gerald Taric
NEO DYNAMICS
#31 - 2012-04-30 17:15:30 UTC
TWHC Assistant wrote:
What gankers need to learn is no one's business but the gankers'. Do not make CONCORD the teachers of gankers.
Nor want the carebears being teached by the gankers, how to play the game. EVE is not only 100% PvP.

Ganking is not desired in HighSec, but somehow "allowed" with the payment of loosing your ship. And it's working pretty fine the way it is implemented now - according to "Jita burning", isn't it? HighSec = Empire space unter strong control of empire state forces. A state would not get you away with murder and or damage to foreign property.

You are free to gank with less serverside party involvement in LowSec and no involvement in NullSec ( no empire, no state forces ). That's your area of operation, if you do not want to take the risk of losing your ship to CONCORD.

That's not fun enough, because the "nullsec carebears" are more well-fortified than the highsec carebears? Oh ... surprise ...
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
#32 - 2012-04-30 17:18:15 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:
THE L0CK wrote:
You got the evidence to back that claim up or are you just assuming that many others would puss out like you?


You seem to misunderstand: the 50% that would be leaving would be the highsec carebears who would be constantly ganked without CONCORD, not the gankers who would be in paradise for a few days until all of the faction-fitted mission battleships are dead.


No I understood it completely as to who would leave and why, but I hate it when people give me make believe numbers.

Do you smell what the Lock's cooking?
TWHC Assistant
#33 - 2012-04-30 17:26:00 UTC
Gerald Taric wrote:
TWHC Assistant wrote:
What gankers need to learn is no one's business but the gankers'. Do not make CONCORD the teachers of gankers.
Nor want the carebears being teached by the gankers, how to play the game....

It is irrelevant. It is not the business of CONCORD to care for any of the parties beyond establishing peace and to eliminate the cause (=> loot).
Beckie DeLey
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2012-04-30 17:31:34 UTC
Yatama Kautsuo wrote:
THE L0CK wrote:
concord should be removed. Ganking receives a 1 hour GCC that allows anyone to shoot on sight and -5 sec status makes you remain that way until status is upgraded.

Let us govern ourselves.


bäm, more than half of eve accounts unsubbed


Indeed.



It would be glorious.

My siren's name is Brick and she is the prettiest.
Malamber
Venomous Cloud
#35 - 2012-04-30 17:54:45 UTC
THE L0CK wrote:
concord should be removed. Ganking receives a 1 hour GCC that allows anyone to shoot on sight and -5 sec status makes you remain that way until status is upgraded.

Let us govern ourselves.

Without CONCORD, would there be a point to security status?
Gerald Taric
NEO DYNAMICS
#36 - 2012-04-30 18:00:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Gerald Taric
TWHC Assistant wrote:
Gerald Taric wrote:
TWHC Assistant wrote:
What gankers need to learn is no one's business but the gankers'. Do not make CONCORD the teachers of gankers.
Nor want the carebears being teached by the gankers, how to play the game....

It is irrelevant. It is not the business of CONCORD to care for any of the parties beyond establishing peace and to eliminate the cause (=> loot).

It is relevant. It's the setting we are playing in. Otherwise the game would only constist of Null-Space and no empire at all.

Some of us are obiously pissed because of some restrictions in their freedom.
But i claim, that they conveniently ignore the freedom of the other-minded.

There's a area in the game especially designed for the hardcore PvPers needs: unrestricted PvP in NullSpace.

There's also a area designed for the ones called "carebears", where they enjoy the game with less, but at least some risk - the HighSec.

I personally dislike this batant tries to conquer the others areas - both hardcore-PvPers and carebears.

- - - - - -

In the past i also played another MMORPG. There was a high demand for a PvP-only server with no secure areas.
The game developer at least introduced such a server. At the beginning there was a high peek in the player activity, but it very fast dropped to nearly zero ... for - in my opinion - obvious reasons. The server had been abandoned some time later.
Super Chair
Project Cerberus
Templis CALSF
#37 - 2012-04-30 18:08:12 UTC
Where's the ignore bad poster button? I shouldn't have to see their threads when they start one.
stoicfaux
#38 - 2012-04-30 18:10:46 UTC
Super Chair wrote:
Where's the ignore bad poster button? I shouldn't have to see their threads when they start one.

Try "/unsub internet". It's worked for me in the past.


Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Gerald Taric
NEO DYNAMICS
#39 - 2012-04-30 18:11:59 UTC
Super Chair wrote:
Where's the ignore bad poster button? I shouldn't have to see their threads when they start one.

hm .. you might click on the posters name on the left, where you should get an "hide posts" option.

But i don't know, if this also hides threads startet by the ignored person. Usually i do not ignore persons because of having other opinions than mine.
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
#40 - 2012-04-30 18:18:03 UTC
Gerald Taric wrote:
Super Chair wrote:
Where's the ignore bad poster button? I shouldn't have to see their threads when they start one.

hm .. you might click on the posters name on the left, where you should get an "hide posts" option.

But i don't know, if this also hides threads startet by the ignored person. Usually i do not ignore persons because of having other opinions than mine.



He could always try the age old tactic of paying more attention to the thread creator name and choose not to enter though self restraint is a skill not often trained.

Do you smell what the Lock's cooking?