These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

CONCORD, Hisec and ganking - a "what if" scenario.

Author
DSpite Culhach
#1 - 2014-02-14 08:41:52 UTC  |  Edited by: DSpite Culhach
EDIT: To try and wind this down, this is a PURELY THEORETICAL SITUATION to see under what stringent conditions, specifically to do with FREIGHTER pilots (if you're coming in from a link I put in the other thread) would accept being stopped in space and ganked when they also have rather simple mechanics available available to them to avoid it, but mechanics that would also increase drastically solo travel (because of extensive use of safe bookmarks in systems they pass through.

Ok, im done here (hopefully)

---

I'm not expecting this to be acted on, I'm just proposing a "what if" scenario, and it's something I thought of after a thread I was reading on how people are getting upset at getting their freighters ganked at gates after being bumped over and over.

First lets set up some baselines.

* We remove the ability of small objects to be able to bump much larger objects to a level that only a Battleship would be able to even nudge something like a freighter.

* We stop CONCORD from being able to warp "anywhere". They can only get to you if a celestial, or a gate, or an accelleration gate is nearby. This would work as it does now, except when say, a players makes a deep safe in the middle of nowhere.

* Every ship in the game has a unique ID, and that ID number is never repeated, which is technically not hard to do EVEN IF you assign some random 16 HEX string, after all, chances of dupes are rather remote.

* Scanning down a ship lets you see that unique ID, which for the sake of this mechanic, we can say that it's the scanned ship "engine energy signature", or a "shield frequency" like in Star Trek.

* We have a module that produces the same effect as a warp bubble, but usable in hisec.

What does this add up to:
* Any ship is now much more safe at gates, as bumping becomes a lot harder, especially attempting to gank a freighter, which becomes next to impossible by bumping alone.

* Players would be able to set up traps for specific ships anywhere in highsec after scanning them and dropping a bubble anywhere along a direct travel path when players travel directly from one gate to another. These "unique ID's" could be a number that can be programmed (ie pasted in) as the bubble is dropped. Such kills will NOT call CONCORD, so if a player suspects he's being hunted, he now has to make indirect jumps - like jump to an asteroid field and THEN jump to a gate, so as to not get caught in the middle of nowhere.

With this scenario, people piloting freighters will have zero excuses when ganked, as the pirates will have to do some more work for the ambush, and the pirates can pull off a clean ambush with ANY ships they like and not get CONCORD destroyed, also, freighter pilots that want to be "safe" need to spend more time in space making more jumps, so slowing down their isk/time ratio.

This would create a much more interesting and profitable cat-and-mouse game for gankers who could in a sense maintain "multiple spider webs" and then jump to them when something gets caught, while still maintaining high degree of safety for pilots that think ahead, and plot their travel via deep safes, which technically can still be scanned down and a trap dropped.

I apparently have no idea what I'm doing.

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#2 - 2014-02-14 09:43:26 UTC
No.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Mag's
Azn Empire
#3 - 2014-02-14 09:48:59 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
No.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

DSpite Culhach
#4 - 2014-02-14 09:49:31 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
No.


Fascinating. Almost as If I had posted a Dev changelog and wanted to weigh in player reactions.

What I'm trying to get as feedback is what players expectations on mechanics are, either in the current state, or as to possible changes.

CCP is never going to make drastic stuff like this as there's too many variables involved. I'm trying to see what long term players would see "breaking" in such a concept.

I apparently have no idea what I'm doing.

Seliah
Blades of Liberty
#5 - 2014-02-14 09:51:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Seliah
Rivr Luzade wrote:
No.


Agreed.

That unique id thingy is just an extra layer of complexity that is not needed, which could probably be abused in so many ways (like "i sold you this ship so i know your unique id so i can trap you when you undock or whatever"). And removing CONCORD intervention in safes in highsec sounds like a very bad idea. Highsec is supposed to be a place where you can't engage another player without being punished, unless it's consensual. Your bubble idea is worse than freighter bumping / ganking imo.

Edit : I'm all for making it impossible for small ships to bump much bigger ones though :)
DSpite Culhach
#6 - 2014-02-14 09:53:13 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
No.



You can't possibly expect the current CONCORD mechanics to stay hardwired as they currently are forever. Has there ever been any notes anywhere that suggest, even remotely, what those changes might be?

When the new player made gates appear, surely CONCORD won't exist in the same state on the other side. Is there any mention of what that space might behave like?

I apparently have no idea what I'm doing.

Seliah
Blades of Liberty
#7 - 2014-02-14 09:58:15 UTC
DSpite Culhach wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
No.


You can't possibly expect the current CONCORD mechanics to stay hardwired as they currently are forever. Has there ever been any notes anywhere that suggest, even remotely, what those changes might be?


There are tons of topics on the same subject, including a 25 pages long one about freighter ganking in highsec, so people are definitely talking about the issues you're concerned about.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=318979&find=unread
djentropy Ovaert
The Conference Elite
The Conference
#8 - 2014-02-14 10:01:00 UTC
No.

WAY too many new layers and changes that would have to be made - and as you recall, even minor changes to the system tend to have massive ripples of unplanned effect that take weeks to even sort out the minor stuff. Take the recent ESS for example.
DSpite Culhach
#9 - 2014-02-14 10:01:42 UTC
Seliah wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
No.


Agreed.

That unique id thingy is just an extra layer of complexity that is not needed, which could probably be abused in so many ways (like "i sold you this ship so i know your unique id so i can trap you when you undock or whatever"). And removing CONCORD intervention in safes in highsec sounds like a very bad idea. Highsec is supposed to be a place where you can't engage another player without being punished, unless it's consensual. Your bubble idea is worse than freighter bumping / ganking imo.

Edit : I'm all for making it impossible for small ships to bump much bigger ones though :)


The ID thing I thought of as I've read in more then one place already that ships already have some sort of unique id. I'd have trouble finding it, as it was to do with probe scanning. Maybe that id is not supposed to normally be visible, and its a side effect.

As far as hisec being safe with CONCORD, I was under the impression that first, CONCORD is a hack job, and second, it does not actually stop anything, it just cuts it short, since people just use frigs with only base mods and 2 volleys worth of ammo, then just buy tags and buy back sec status. The only thing CONCORD is stopping is people using expensive ships, that's it, I simply took an extreme stance to get people to comment, so I do appreciate a reply with some actual content.

I apparently have no idea what I'm doing.

Mag's
Azn Empire
#10 - 2014-02-14 10:05:48 UTC
DSpite Culhach wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
No.



You can't possibly expect the current CONCORD mechanics to stay hardwired as they currently are forever. Has there ever been any notes anywhere that suggest, even remotely, what those changes might be?

When the new player made gates appear, surely CONCORD won't exist in the same state on the other side. Is there any mention of what that space might behave like?
Concord although OP in many regards, is a required evil to keep punishment levels right in high sec. I think your ideas would make things worse for high sec pilots, not better.

Forget bubbles. They would be to much for low and high sec.

Not sure what you're going on about in the rest tbh. High sec is high sec and low is low.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#11 - 2014-02-14 10:06:53 UTC
DSpite Culhach wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
No.



You can't possibly expect the current CONCORD mechanics to stay hardwired as they currently are forever. Has there ever been any notes anywhere that suggest, even remotely, what those changes might be?

When the new player made gates appear, surely CONCORD won't exist in the same state on the other side. Is there any mention of what that space might behave like?


My dear, CVA bunny, I don't expect anything, but what you suggest has been there before and it did not work and will never work. It has been stated and proven repeatedly in numerous topics about the same topic. Less CONCORD and less security in high sec cannot work and will never work, because the players are "extreme and use extreme methods" to exploit any more weakness of the high sec space. If you want less security, go and stay in low sec, Providence or the rest of 00. High sec is as insecure as it should get and already offers enough opportunity to kill players there or disrupt the high sec life. What you want is more 00, but that is not going to happen, is not going to work and is just destroying the fun a lot of players have in this game. If these players don't join you in Providence or in 00 in general, it's because Providence or 00 in general is not their desired place to live in. Forcing Providence or 00 onto them is not and will never change their minds, it just drives them out of the game. That cannot be what you want.

Instead of demanding less security for high sec, start demanding more content and meaning for low sec and 00. There are tons of suggestions and ideas floating around this forum on how to improve these areas without stomping high sec into the ground. Support them instead of posting yet another topic about changing mechanics in a way that cannot work out well.

God damnit, and now I posted another long answer although I was sure a simple "No" would be enough. Evil

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

DSpite Culhach
#12 - 2014-02-14 10:11:44 UTC
Seliah wrote:
DSpite Culhach wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
No.


You can't possibly expect the current CONCORD mechanics to stay hardwired as they currently are forever. Has there ever been any notes anywhere that suggest, even remotely, what those changes might be?


There are tons of topics on the same subject, including a 25 pages long one about freighter ganking in highsec, so people are definitely talking about the issues you're concerned about.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=318979&find=unread


Yea, but I actually have no issues with those freighters being ganked, because the current space mechanics we have are weird as hell, and messing with those ...

Off topic for example, having "doors" in space that always drop you in 30KM sphere seems as stupid as hell, especially when you just got launches at ludicrous warp speeds on a 30 AU trip. Even minor angles in directions would land you thousand of KM's off, but this is game so ... we have what we have.

It would be nice to get some more varies mechanics injected. Not MY ideas definitely, but be nice to hear some new ones.

I apparently have no idea what I'm doing.

suid0
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#13 - 2014-02-14 10:15:34 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
No.


the entire enemy support fleet is dead except for one interdictor a titan could easily finish off with drones  - Commander Ted

DSpite Culhach
#14 - 2014-02-14 10:22:00 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
DSpite Culhach wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
No.



You can't possibly expect the current CONCORD mechanics to stay hardwired as they currently are forever. Has there ever been any notes anywhere that suggest, even remotely, what those changes might be?

When the new player made gates appear, surely CONCORD won't exist in the same state on the other side. Is there any mention of what that space might behave like?


My dear, CVA bunny, I don't expect anything, but what you suggest has been there before and it did not work and will never work. It has been stated and proven repeatedly in numerous topics about the same topic. Less CONCORD and less security in high sec cannot work and will never work, because the players are "extreme and use extreme methods" to exploit any more weakness of the high sec space. If you want less security, go and stay in low sec, Providence or the rest of 00. High sec is as insecure as it should get and already offers enough opportunity to kill players there or disrupt the high sec life. What you want is more 00, but that is not going to happen, is not going to work and is just destroying the fun a lot of players have in this game. If these players don't join you in Providence or in 00 in general, it's because Providence or 00 in general is not their desired place to live in. Forcing Providence or 00 onto them is not and will never change their minds, it just drives them out of the game. That cannot be what you want.

Instead of demanding less security for high sec, start demanding more content and meaning for low sec and 00. There are tons of suggestions and ideas floating around this forum on how to improve these areas without stomping high sec into the ground. Support them instead of posting yet another topic about changing mechanics in a way that cannot work out well.

God damnit, and now I posted another long answer although I was sure a simple "No" would be enough. Evil


I have no idea why people keep making massive assumptions. I barely play atm. I joined CVA as a mate is down there, and when I had bad standings, so I had to switch to not get shot at, you're assuming i'm some sort of Provi-pro-agenda-agent. Not the case.

I'm not pushing to have safer or less safer anything, I'm trying to point out that we have a bunch of incredibly stupid mechanics that exist as a knee jerk reaction to players being, well, a-holes to other players - which is generally in the spirit of eve - and I have not heard anything actually coherent from for example much older players, other then "working as intended" and what not.

And would be nice to stop saying I'm after a change of mechanics. I've been trying to get people to point out where the idea would break, I think I was very clear on that in the first paragraph.


I apparently have no idea what I'm doing.

DSpite Culhach
#15 - 2014-02-14 10:27:59 UTC  |  Edited by: DSpite Culhach
suid0 wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
No.





Lol Yea, this did go much as expected, I had actually being hoping for comments from the freighter guys. I just wanted to see if given other options, they would still consider it a problem with such a rule change.

This is what I had it point from, I put it in F&ID to keep it out of that page.

I apparently have no idea what I'm doing.

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#16 - 2014-02-14 10:35:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
With regards to the topic it is not assumptions, it is facts. Regarding your relations to CVA, I don't care much what it is. Roll

You ARE pushing for a less safer space for an already insecure space (despite the name). You are pointing out "stupid" mechanics that are the only means that manage to keep "incredible stupid and simple minded" players barely at bay. If there was no or even less mechanics to hold down the "a-holes" in this game in at least a part of space, EVE would be a lot less enjoyable place to live in for many people. You don't hear that anymore because they are old and start to forget things like m0o or Burn Jita. Do your research on your own. Roll

That's what I did. Your idea breaks in this forum already, where you can see what changes to mechanics barely capable of keeping "a-holes" at bay would result in ingame. With this kind of players, any less security to high sec breaks the game instead of improving it. What you are looking for, is available in low sec and 00 sec. IF you cannot find it there, it is the fault of the players. Pushing that content, which is specifically designed for low sec and 00 sec, onto high sec does not change anything for the better, because the same habits from low sec and 00 sec will be employed there as well. Less secure space is not the answer, more meaningful content in low and 00 sec is part of the answer. The other part are the players who need to change their mindsets, in all parts of EVE, not only high sec or low sec or 00 sec.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Basil Pupkin
Republic Military School
#17 - 2014-02-14 10:37:59 UTC
DSpite Culhach wrote:
I'm not expecting this to be acted on, I'm just proposing a "what if" scenario, and it's something I thought of after a thread I was reading on how people are getting upset at getting their freighters ganked at gates after being bumped over and over.

First lets set up some baselines.

* We remove the ability of small objects to be able to bump much larger objects to a level that only a Battleship would be able to even nudge something like a freighter.

* We stop CONCORD from being able to warp "anywhere". They can only get to you if a celestial, or a gate, or an accelleration gate is nearby. This would work as it does now, except when say, a players makes a deep safe in the middle of nowhere.

* Every ship in the game has a unique ID, and that ID number is never repeated, which is technically not hard to do EVEN IF you assign some random 16 HEX string, after all, chances of dupes are rather remote.

* Scanning down a ship lets you see that unique ID, which for the sake of this mechanic, we can say that it's the scanned ship "engine energy signature", or a "shield frequency" like in Star Trek.

* We have a module that produces the same effect as a warp bubble, but usable in hisec.

What does this add up to:
* Any ship is now much more safe at gates, as bumping becomes a lot harder, especially attempting to gank a freighter, which becomes next to impossible by bumping alone.

* Players would be able to set up traps for specific ships anywhere in highsec after scanning them and dropping a bubble anywhere along a direct travel path when players travel directly from one gate to another. These "unique ID's" could be a number that can be programmed (ie pasted in) as the bubble is dropped. Such kills will NOT call CONCORD, so if a player suspects he's being hunted, he now has to make indirect jumps - like jump to an asteroid field and THEN jump to a gate, so as to not get caught in the middle of nowhere.

With this scenario, people piloting freighters will have zero excuses when ganked, as the pirates will have to do some more work for the ambush, and the pirates can pull off a clean ambush with ANY ships they like and not get CONCORD destroyed, also, freighter pilots that want to be "safe" need to spend more time in space making more jumps, so slowing down their isk/time ratio.

This would create a much more interesting and profitable cat-and-mouse game for gankers who could in a sense maintain "multiple spider webs" and then jump to them when something gets caught, while still maintaining high degree of safety for pilots that think ahead, and plot their travel via deep safes, which technically can still be scanned down and a trap dropped.



If only you proposed that for lowsec, i'd be all in. But hisec?

No.

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.

DSpite Culhach
#18 - 2014-02-14 10:45:46 UTC
Basil Pupkin wrote:
DSpite Culhach wrote:
I'm not expecting this to be acted on, I'm just proposing a "what if" scenario, and it's something I thought of after a thread I was reading on how people are getting upset at getting their freighters ganked at gates after being bumped over and over.

First lets set up some baselines.

* We remove the ability of small objects to be able to bump much larger objects to a level that only a Battleship would be able to even nudge something like a freighter.

* We stop CONCORD from being able to warp "anywhere". They can only get to you if a celestial, or a gate, or an accelleration gate is nearby. This would work as it does now, except when say, a players makes a deep safe in the middle of nowhere.

* Every ship in the game has a unique ID, and that ID number is never repeated, which is technically not hard to do EVEN IF you assign some random 16 HEX string, after all, chances of dupes are rather remote.

* Scanning down a ship lets you see that unique ID, which for the sake of this mechanic, we can say that it's the scanned ship "engine energy signature", or a "shield frequency" like in Star Trek.

* We have a module that produces the same effect as a warp bubble, but usable in hisec.

What does this add up to:
* Any ship is now much more safe at gates, as bumping becomes a lot harder, especially attempting to gank a freighter, which becomes next to impossible by bumping alone.

* Players would be able to set up traps for specific ships anywhere in highsec after scanning them and dropping a bubble anywhere along a direct travel path when players travel directly from one gate to another. These "unique ID's" could be a number that can be programmed (ie pasted in) as the bubble is dropped. Such kills will NOT call CONCORD, so if a player suspects he's being hunted, he now has to make indirect jumps - like jump to an asteroid field and THEN jump to a gate, so as to not get caught in the middle of nowhere.

With this scenario, people piloting freighters will have zero excuses when ganked, as the pirates will have to do some more work for the ambush, and the pirates can pull off a clean ambush with ANY ships they like and not get CONCORD destroyed, also, freighter pilots that want to be "safe" need to spend more time in space making more jumps, so slowing down their isk/time ratio.

This would create a much more interesting and profitable cat-and-mouse game for gankers who could in a sense maintain "multiple spider webs" and then jump to them when something gets caught, while still maintaining high degree of safety for pilots that think ahead, and plot their travel via deep safes, which technically can still be scanned down and a trap dropped.



If only you proposed that for lowsec, i'd be all in. But hisec?

No.


Ok, but isn't there better tools and rules for this to happen in lowsec? Which parts did you think would make it better, just the bumping part, and the bubble catching part?

I apparently have no idea what I'm doing.

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#19 - 2014-02-14 10:50:28 UTC
Bubble mechanics in low sec? Why not allow bombs there as well and Doomsdays? Why not remove low sec and only have ... low sec (former highsec) and 00 sec ... or only 00 sec if we allow bubble mechanics in "high sec"? Roll Denial pointless because this is what it is in the end.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

DSpite Culhach
#20 - 2014-02-14 10:56:06 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
With regards to the topic it is not assumptions, it is facts. Regarding your relations to CVA, I don't care much what it is. Roll

You ARE pushing for a less safer space for an already insecure space (despite the name). You are pointing out "stupid" mechanics that are the only means that manage to keep "incredible stupid and simple minded" players barely at bay. If there was no or even less mechanics to hold down the "a-holes" in this game in at least a part of space, EVE would be a lot less enjoyable place to live in for many people. You don't hear that anymore because they are old and start to forget things like m0o or Burn Jita. Do your research on your own. Roll

That's what I did. Your idea breaks in this forum already, where you can see what changes to mechanics barely capable of keeping "a-holes" at bay would result in ingame. With this kind of players, any less security to high sec breaks the game instead of improving it. What you are looking for, is available in low sec and 00 sec. IF you cannot find it there, it is the fault of the players. Pushing that content, which is specifically designed for low sec and 00 sec, onto high sec does not change anything for the better, because the same habits from low sec and 00 sec will be employed there as well. Less secure space is not the answer, more meaningful content in low and 00 sec is part of the answer. The other part are the players who need to change their mindsets, in all parts of EVE, not only high sec or low sec or 00 sec.


And at the cost of going off topic ... once again, I'm not pushing anything. I did a link from the freighter bumping thread hoping to get the guys complaining about bumping to give me an idea of what they would consider "acceptable" rather then thme just yelling "its an exploit" and gave a situation. I was hoping to get a comment from "them". I already was aware what the usual suspects would say.

The day I actually start a topic where I really, really expect CCP to change something, rather then trying to collect some feedback from people, I'll let you know, so you can came back and try to tell me I'm doing something I'm not. Just because you keep insisting I am doing something does not make it factual.

I apparently have no idea what I'm doing.

123Next page