These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2012-04-30 18:26:42 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.

you really sure that victim will be satisfied by killing 10-20 t1 frigates after loosing freighter with cargo? Shocked

problem is: "pvp"-er simply doesnt' worth his damage to victim in 100% cases. That;'s why kill rights and bounties don't work these days....

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Scien Inkunen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#42 - 2012-04-30 18:45:01 UTC
TWHC Assistant wrote:
TrollSuggestion Of The Day:

Delay CONCORD response time by a factor of 3, leaving gankers more time to deal damage, but let CONCORD confiscate/destroy the wreck of the victim as well as that of the ganker's ship. No loot for anyone.

Discuss.



Remove everything that limits in any way and let the anarchy begin.

Read the "Fart file" and you will understand the meaning of life !
TWHC Assistant
#43 - 2012-04-30 18:48:28 UTC
Gerald Taric wrote:
It is relevant.

No, it is not. Why should CONCORD care for either side? It is only stupid. You might as well have CONCORD call your mom and tell her that you got into an accident.
Gerald Taric
NEO DYNAMICS
#44 - 2012-05-01 00:24:59 UTC
TWHC Assistant wrote:
Gerald Taric wrote:
It is relevant.

No, it is not. Why should CONCORD care for either side?
They care for no side. They care, because the agressor broke the rule of not doing illegal agression. Illegal is defined as "not in war with victim" and "having no killrights" and "did not stealed from you" in HighSec empire space. CONCORD holds up this rule, like a police in empire.

Removing limiting rules named "CONCORD interterence" will end up in an unlimited ganking massacre. Sound also "not professional" - and fatal for the game. I wrote it already: I was able to watch such a situatuion already in another game. It failed horribly.
TWHC Assistant
#45 - 2012-05-01 00:34:15 UTC
Gerald Taric wrote:
They care for no side. They care, ...

They do not care, but they care? ...

Come back when you know how to make sense.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#46 - 2012-05-01 00:35:33 UTC
TWHC Assistant wrote:
TrollSuggestion Of The Day:

Delay CONCORD response time by a factor of 3, leaving gankers more time to deal damage, but let CONCORD confiscate/destroy the wreck of the victim as well as that of the ganker's ship. No loot for anyone.

Discuss.



no gives the loot to the ganked...

kinda silly that concord comes to your rescue and does not even bother collecting stranded crew/mods...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
TWHC Assistant
#47 - 2012-05-01 00:39:29 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
no gives the loot to the ganked...

kinda silly that concord comes to your rescue and does not even bother collecting stranded crew/mods...

No. The ganker could be a carebear who snapped and the victim could be a ganker who only bumped into him. You never really know which side did what. Therefore shall no one get anything.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2012-05-01 00:40:16 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.

Liking this idea, maybe an intermediate phase where players could sign up to receive notifications of criminal acts and intervene coupled with reduced responsiveness from concord. Concord would still show up but take longer. Seems interesting, but who knows if it will ever work since the sandbox that allows everyone to do as they wish makes most of us pirates.
Boomhaur
#49 - 2012-05-01 01:06:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Boomhaur
Removing concord would turn empire into low sec. As fun as it sounds it would ruin our economy and lead to our destruction even if you try to get us to police ourselves we simply won't as it's too much work and too annoying to do. Especially to kill some person in a lousy t1 BC or dessie with cheap mods so you don't even gain a profit form the kill assuming you even get the loot and somoene doesn't ninja it.

Welcome to Eve. Everyone here is an Evil Sick Sadistic Bastard who is out to get you. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either trying to scam you or use you.
Gerald Taric
NEO DYNAMICS
#50 - 2012-05-01 09:06:30 UTC
TWHC Assistant wrote:
Gerald Taric wrote:
They care for no side. They care, ...

They do not care, but they care? ...

Come back when you know how to make sense.

They care neither for victims side nor for the side of the ganker, they care for the rule being uphold. What a bummer you completely ignore the other arguments, especially that important one, that removing (or weakening to meaninglessness) limitation rules was ruinous in an other game, which i wrote down now for a third time here.

You're trolling very good.

Have fun furthermore.
TWHC Assistant
#51 - 2012-05-01 09:13:07 UTC
Gerald Taric wrote:
They care neither for victims side nor for the side of the ganker, they care for the rule being uphold. What a bummer you completely ignore the other arguments, especially that important one, that removing (or weakening to meaninglessness) limitation rules was ruinous in an other game, which i wrote down now for a third time here.

You're trolling very good.

Have fun furthermore.

Why would anyone care for your experience with another game?

Unless you want to make EVE like other games ...
Ziranda Hakuli
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#52 - 2012-05-01 09:23:19 UTC
I think OP failed at making a troll thread.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#53 - 2012-05-01 09:26:07 UTC
stop posting dumb ideas that only serve to kill off suicide ganking

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Killer Gandry
The Concilium Enterprises
#54 - 2012-05-01 09:27:40 UTC
Andski wrote:
stop posting dumb ideas that only serve to kill off suicide ganking


Only if you stop posting dumb idea's to make EVE one sided.
Rimase
#55 - 2012-05-01 09:31:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Rimase
There can be High-Sec rules and Low-Sec rules.

Low Sec changes are coming. We may know facts of concepts and definate upcoming changes though things are subject to change very much like the Micro-Jump Drive hinted in a recent TenTonHammer interview.

Low Sec changes are coming. But How?
Let's bring Concord into Low-Sec. Why the hell not? We have Null Sec so it's no big deal.
'Low Security' suggests there is security but highly limited unlike 'High Security's' lowly limited, more secured systems.


  • How can Concord perform differently in Low Sec systems?
  • How does Concord decide who to protect under constricting low-sec dangers?
  • How does Concord decide who to not protect under constricting low-sec dangers?
  • How can Concord be designed allow criminality to flourish in Low Sec, still?

Rimase wrote:
Redefining 'Low Security'

SUGGESTION - Revised game features:
(Security Status rules for High Sec)
  • All is safe and normal apart from suicide gankers.
  • Your low security status (≤ -5.0) neglects you from high sec. (Players can destroy your ship)
  • Your low security status (≤ -9.451) banishes you from high sec. (Concord will attack your ship but not chase you)

(Security Status rules for Low Sec)
  • You can still change security status in low sec.
  • You lose less security status as you operate in reducing security-level systems (≤ 0.3 Systems). This excludes pod-killing! (Eases pain of losing too much security status)
  • Concord operate in low-sec! (Unlike high-sec's Concord)
  • Your good security status rewards you with a level of Concord's responsiveness. (≥ 1.0)
  • Your neutral security status leaves you semi-vulnerable in low-sec! (-0.5- 0.9)
    • (Concord will protect you only if they're nearby. They don't hang around long.)
  • Your bad security status leaves you vulnerable in low-sec! (≤ -0.6)
  • Concord can not linger in low-sec after their protocol is achieved. (Too many criminal! D:)

(Low-sec firing Conditions)
  • Non-damaging attacks are ALLOWED for +0.0 players: Jammers, Webifiers, anti-Warp, Drainers, etc.
    • (Contributes to Piracy)
  • KEY PART OF WHOLE POST: Non-damaging attacks are DISCOURAGED for -0.0 players: Jammers, Webifiers, anti-Warp, Drainers, etc.
    • (Contributes to deception. Sub-sequently reduce Security Status)
  • Any physical damage unto a good-status player will have Concord jump-in to save them (slow-to-medium response).
  • Any physical damage unto a excellent-status player will have Concord jump-in to save them (medium-to-faster response).

(Protection speed in Low Sec)
  • Concord response in low-sec is conditional and at their own risk. They can only match the responsiveness of 0.5 High Sec providing you have ≥ 9.451 security status.

    • Thread: [Fanfest]: Low Sec changes

    Looking to join Caldari Faction Warfare corporation!
    Andski
    Science and Trade Institute
    Caldari State
    #56 - 2012-05-01 09:34:56 UTC
    Killer Gandry wrote:
    Andski wrote:
    stop posting dumb ideas that only serve to kill off suicide ganking


    Only if you stop posting dumb idea's to make EVE one sided.


    you'll always see the game as one-sided as long as dumb afk miners keep dying to suicide gankers ^_^

    Twitter: @EVEAndski

    "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
    Gerald Taric
    NEO DYNAMICS
    #57 - 2012-05-01 11:32:07 UTC
    TWHC Assistant wrote:

    Why would anyone care for your experience with another game?

    Unless you want to make EVE like other games ...

    *double-facepalm*

    ...
    Liam Mirren
    #58 - 2012-05-01 13:50:00 UTC
    Stop attention whoring with ****** troll threads and I just might.

    Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
    Fannie Maes
    Doomheim
    #59 - 2012-05-01 13:52:23 UTC
    Ganker making fun of care-bears then asks for more tools because they are the real noob?
    Solstice Project
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #60 - 2012-05-01 13:55:33 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.


    *LOL*

    That either is a troll, or you simply have no clue what a GREAT idea that is.

    In short, it would mean that there's no punishment at all. :D