These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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] Reconfigure concord to change behavior based on security status of a system.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Corian Teranos
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1 - 2012-05-01 13:10:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Corian Teranos
so far the grades of security status mean nothing you either have 5+ concord or 4- nothing. additionally since 1.0 - .8 systems have the same security level as 7-5 this makes operations such as burn jita not only possible but predictable.

my solution is simple.

1.0-0.8 Concord shows up faster and PODS criminals
0.7-0.5 concord delay increases the closer you get to low sec
0.4 -0.3 concord will send token ships with mission rat stats these are kill able and escalations are limited to a number of waves equal to security status of the system a minor deterrent that is as easily dealt with as a standard belt rat however jamming and scrambling may allow the victim time to escape but a well organized gate camp would be able to easily keep these at bay.

basically make the variations in security status actually matter rather than concord no concord.


before people start bashing me for wanting concord in low sec the increased delay-time will make suicide ganking much easier in 0.5 boarder systems and any alpha ganking build will be able to pop a concord rat in low sec with minimal damage. the purpose of lowsec concord is primarily electronic warfare rather than heavy fire support


additionally an idea i had earlier would be to add Crooked Cops in lowsec that a corporation can Pay off to disable concord spawns when their members engage in piracy
Arduemont
Rotten Legion
#2 - 2012-05-01 18:43:29 UTC
Interesting post.

I am inclined to support the notion that CONCORD response time should be marginally quicker when a high security status character is attacked, and I am inclined to support a smooth change in response times in varying system security statuses (rather than having it change suddenly between .8-.7, .5-.4 etc).

I don't support the CONCORD NPCs in lowsec yet because I think it requires a great deal of debating. Its a big change and shouldn't be supported lightly.

I'll keep an eye on this thread.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf
Michael Loney
Skullspace Industries
#3 - 2012-05-01 18:54:56 UTC
+1

Supported, clean and well thought out system to make CONCORD a police force not an uber DPS monster that cant move one system over to 0.4 space.
Corian Teranos
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#4 - 2012-05-01 20:25:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Corian Teranos
Arduemont wrote:
Interesting post.

I am inclined to support the notion that CONCORD response time should be marginally quicker when a high security status character is attacked, and I am inclined to support a smooth change in response times in varying system security statuses (rather than having it change suddenly between .8-.7, .5-.4 etc).

I don't support the CONCORD NPCs in lowsec yet because I think it requires a great deal of debating. Its a big change and shouldn't be supported lightly.

I'll keep an eye on this thread.



You have to remember that concord in lowsec will not be very dangerous in terms of dps. the low sec concord will be mostly specced for jamming and ewar to break warp scrambles and other tackling modules. the thing is that lowsec is Less safe than null sec. and it is supposed to be the other way around. if you make it past the gate camps in lowsec and actually make it to nul sec your basically home free unless you happen to hit an active system. and one of the reasons null sec is safer than low sec is because you can actually ue preemptive tactics without fear of sec loss.

speaking if preemptive tactis lets also add Jamming rights.

if you lock a players ship that player has 5 minuts in which they can jam you with no penalty. the only reason suicide ganking in high sec works is because the players targeted cant take preemptive measures without being penalized by the very system designed to protect them

to be honest nerfing concord overall in hignsec would improve security allowing more vigilante action and hunting of the outlawed players

it has gotten to the point where in some of my previous corporations mining operations we hired pirates in cloaked destroyers to hid in the belt and if any player targeted a barge for any reason the miner called on vent and one of the destroyers would gank the ship regardless of whether or not the intent was malicious
LinearBurn Aideron
Hells legion
#5 - 2012-05-01 22:11:13 UTC
well thought out +1
Brisco County
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#6 - 2012-05-02 07:41:45 UTC
The problem with reading things like this on the internet is that you cannot set them on fire.