These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

CONCORD should be run by players...
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Muse of Minmatar
Doomheim
#1 - 2011-10-25 18:28:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Muse of Minmatar
Now imagine a couple of thousand toons applying as CONCORD pilots, maybe after some kind of prerequisites such as certificates or whatever.

Then each time someone violates the engage rules in highsec, a CONCORD pilot would warp to place and easily be able to kill the offender thanks to the 200AU/s warping machine and so on, you get the idea.

This would make highsec more interesting, as there would be some kind of insecurity, and obviously highsec botters say goodbye to their profits Pirate

Even there might pop some kind of "mafias" and corrupted CONCORD agents which could wink at crimes over determined systems, previously paid by pirates lol... a new world of possibilities for high and low sec.

Think of this CCP.
Morganta
The Greater Goon
#2 - 2011-10-25 18:31:43 UTC
Muse of Minmatar wrote:
Now imagine a couple of thousand toons applying as CONCORD pilots, maybe after some kind of prerequisites such as certificates or whatever.

Then each time someone violates the engage rules in highsec, a CONCORD pilot would warp to place and easily be able to kill the offender thanks to the 200AU/s warping machine and so on, you get the idea.

This would make highsec more interesting, as there would be some kind of insecurity, and obviously highsec botters say goodbye to their profits Pirate


why bother?

if someone does something to get concorded you can join in on the fun without needing to be a member of concord

and did something change to make botting a concord offense?
or are you saying players could choose to turn a blind eye to ganks against botters and not respond?

either way its a bad idea imo
Adelphie
The Lone Wolves.
#3 - 2011-10-25 18:35:43 UTC
Muse of Minmatar wrote:
Now imagine a couple of thousand toons applying as CONCORD pilots, maybe after some kind of prerequisites such as certificates or whatever.

Then each time someone violates the engage rules in highsec, a CONCORD pilot would warp to place and easily be able to kill the offender thanks to the 200AU/s warping machine and so on, you get the idea.

This would make highsec more interesting, as there would be some kind of insecurity, and obviously highsec botters say goodbye to their profits Pirate

Even there might pop some kind of "mafias" and corrupted CONCORD agents which could wink at crimes over determined systems, previously paid by pirates lol... a new world of possibilities for high and low sec.

Think of this CCP.


That to me is the idea of nullsec, just in standard ships.

Players should act as the concord of their own space...
Calapine
Xeno Tech Corp
#4 - 2011-10-25 18:38:13 UTC
*laughs* Player concord! What could possibly go wrong! Roll

Absolutely for it, but remember to make players swear a pledge promising to be always impartial and fair and not abuse their powers in any way! That should alleviate any concernsTwistedTwisted

Cala

Pain is short, and joy is eternal.
Billy Colorado
Evasion Gaming
#5 - 2011-10-25 18:41:07 UTC
Weird idea.

Though I think that criminal status mechanics need to be seriously looked at. Concord shouldn't insta-kill criminals if they enter High Sec. Players should.

GCC, well, yeah, that's different.

Fix that up a bit, CCP, and I imagine Low Sec activity would improve, at least moderately.
Cpt Fina
Perkone
Caldari State
#6 - 2011-10-25 18:44:33 UTC
Maybe implement a nerfed version of that to some low-sec and 0,0 systems to help sovholders police the space.

Maybe a "jump to" function when a crime has been commited in that constellation. Dont know hoe OP that would be, interesting idea nonetheless.
Botleten
Perkone
Caldari State
#7 - 2011-10-25 18:53:54 UTC
This would be an amazing idea... I can imagine it now: Massive fleet of ships from a 0.0 alliance comes flying into hisec, quickly destroys the player run concord in the system and starts ravaging helpless hisec carebears. Jita would become a lot more fun as fleets of nullsec ships sit on undock popping everything in sight without any concord to be seen.

+1
Barbara Nichole
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#8 - 2011-10-25 18:55:44 UTC
Cpt Fina wrote:
Maybe implement a nerfed version of that to some low-sec and 0,0 systems to help sovholders police the space.

Maybe a "jump to" function when a crime has been commited in that constellation. Dont know hoe OP that would be, interesting idea nonetheless.



yes, if you have an aching needs to do concords job you can in low sec right now.. just let it be known that you are concord.. and then if something happens, you can fly in an administer justice.

  - remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not  "afk" cloaking -

[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]
Karadion
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#9 - 2011-10-25 18:57:18 UTC
Player CONCORD: Where the only targets are goons.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#10 - 2011-10-25 18:59:03 UTC
One of the fixes to Faction Warfare being proposed by CCP Soundwave and discussed by the players in the Faction Warfare fixes thread is the removal of ALL faction NPC's from higsec, very similar to your idea of replacing concord ships with players.

Basically, the idea is to open up higsec to faction war by having players enforce the standings differences, not NPCs. For example, if you entered Jita but had poor Caldari standing, than all players in Jita with high Caldari standings could nuke you, similarly to if a pirate with low sec status had entered the system.

If you have an opinion on the issue, please share your feedback, but remember if you're posting in that thread keep it to Faction Warfare discussions, and if you're posting here lets keep it about Concord.

But its an interesting parallel idea though....

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Noriko Mai
#11 - 2011-10-25 19:01:01 UTC
It's not the same but Fanfest '11- Contraband @1:26:30 (dunno how to link the time)

"Meh.." - Albert Einstein
Ammzi
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#12 - 2011-10-25 19:05:06 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:


Basically, the idea is to open up higsec to faction war by having players enforce the standings differences, not NPCs. For example, if you entered Jita but had poor Caldari standing, than all players in Jita with high Caldari standings could nuke you, similarly to if a pirate with low sec status had entered the system.


Oh god, that would be so awesome!!
Madam Steele
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#13 - 2011-10-25 19:05:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Madam Steele
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
One of the fixes to Faction Warfare being proposed by CCP Soundwave and discussed by the players in the Faction Warfare fixes thread is the removal of ALL faction NPC's from higsec, very similar to your idea of replacing concord ships with players.

Basically, the idea is to open up higsec to faction war by having players enforce the standings differences, not NPCs. For example, if you entered Jita but had poor Caldari standing, than all players in Jita with high Caldari standings could nuke you, similarly to if a pirate with low sec status had entered the system.

If you have an opinion on the issue, please share your feedback, but remember if you're posting in that thread keep it to Faction Warfare discussions, and if you're posting here lets keep it about Concord.

But its an interesting parallel idea though....


There is no way that players, especially new-ish ones in Jita, could hold a candle to the firepower and quick response time of Concord 23/7. This is pretty laughable, actually.

Edit: If this was in addition to Concord then yes but as a replacement, hell no.
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#14 - 2011-10-25 19:08:38 UTC
Muse of Minmatar wrote:
Now imagine a couple of thousand toons applying as CONCORD pilots, maybe after some kind of prerequisites such as certificates or whatever.

Then each time someone violates the engage rules in highsec, a CONCORD pilot would warp to place and easily be able to kill the offender thanks to the 200AU/s warping machine and so on, you get the idea.

This would make highsec more interesting, as there would be some kind of insecurity, and obviously highsec botters say goodbye to their profits Pirate

Even there might pop some kind of "mafias" and corrupted CONCORD agents which could wink at crimes over determined systems, previously paid by pirates lol... a new world of possibilities for high and low sec.

Think of this CCP.


Hundreds and hundreds of people have posted some really bad ideas on the forums.

Today, they have found their new king.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Morganta
The Greater Goon
#15 - 2011-10-25 19:09:09 UTC
Madam Steele wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
One of the fixes to Faction Warfare being proposed by CCP Soundwave and discussed by the players in the Faction Warfare fixes thread is the removal of ALL faction NPC's from higsec, very similar to your idea of replacing concord ships with players.

Basically, the idea is to open up higsec to faction war by having players enforce the standings differences, not NPCs. For example, if you entered Jita but had poor Caldari standing, than all players in Jita with high Caldari standings could nuke you, similarly to if a pirate with low sec status had entered the system.

If you have an opinion on the issue, please share your feedback, but remember if you're posting in that thread keep it to Faction Warfare discussions, and if you're posting here lets keep it about Concord.

But its an interesting parallel idea though....


There is no way that players, especially new ones in Jita, could hold a candle to the firepower and quick response time of Concord 23/7. This is pretty laughable, actually.


for faction though?
not really so, the fleets on the station and gates would have a legal reason to shoot more than WTs and somehow I don't think they would pass up the chance if it was given to them.

you would probably end up with factional gate camps in empire lol
Madam Steele
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#16 - 2011-10-25 19:12:15 UTC
Morganta wrote:
Madam Steele wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
One of the fixes to Faction Warfare being proposed by CCP Soundwave and discussed by the players in the Faction Warfare fixes thread is the removal of ALL faction NPC's from higsec, very similar to your idea of replacing concord ships with players.

Basically, the idea is to open up higsec to faction war by having players enforce the standings differences, not NPCs. For example, if you entered Jita but had poor Caldari standing, than all players in Jita with high Caldari standings could nuke you, similarly to if a pirate with low sec status had entered the system.

If you have an opinion on the issue, please share your feedback, but remember if you're posting in that thread keep it to Faction Warfare discussions, and if you're posting here lets keep it about Concord.

But its an interesting parallel idea though....


There is no way that players, especially new ones in Jita, could hold a candle to the firepower and quick response time of Concord 23/7. This is pretty laughable, actually.


for faction though?
not really so, the fleets on the station and gates would have a legal reason to shoot more than WTs and somehow I don't think they would pass up the chance if it was given to them.

you would probably end up with factional gate camps in empire lol


Oh if only for FW participants then yeah that sounds interesting.
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2011-10-25 19:13:54 UTC
Im picturing Concord being run by Goonswarm...

I think the general concensus of the EvE community would be something along the lines of "**** this I quit.".

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#18 - 2011-10-25 19:15:43 UTC
Player run CONCORD.


Do you really want Goons in CONCORD ships responsible for punishing criminal offenses in highsec?

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#19 - 2011-10-25 19:18:52 UTC
De'Veldrin wrote:
Player run CONCORD.


Do you really want Goons in CONCORD ships responsible for punishing criminal offenses in highsec?

Yes. That is what I want. I cannot imagine anything that would be more funny than that.
Madam Steele
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#20 - 2011-10-25 19:19:02 UTC
And then they can sit amongst all the wreckage of Jita with their 'Mission Accomplished' banner shortly before the plug is pulled.
12Next page