These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Obsolete CONCORD - Could It Work?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#21 - 2013-10-19 01:18:13 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
ShahFluffers wrote:
Since the OP seems to honestly believe that his idea will work despite all history and evidence pointing otherwise... I challenge the OP move down to low-sec and live there full time without ever getting anything from high-sec.

Why this challenge? Because it simulates what high-sec might more or less be like under this proposed system.


empty? Cool

Ooooooooo... nice burn. Lol

I was imagining more of a panicked OP running a la "Waterworld."

How did you Veterans start?
Angeal MacNova
Holefood Inc.
Warriors of the Blood God
#22 - 2013-10-19 01:49:24 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
Since the OP seems to honestly believe that his idea will work despite all history and evidence pointing otherwise... I challenge the OP move down to low-sec and live there full time without ever getting anything from high-sec.

Why this challenge? Because it simulates what high-sec might more or less be like under this proposed system.


That's funny...

Gigan Amilupar thinks my idea will do the opposite.

The school system has clearly gone downhill hard in the past 13 years.

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/goodnight-sweet-prince/

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/the-untold-story/

CCP's true, butthurt, colors.

Because those who can't do themselves keep others from doing too.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#23 - 2013-10-19 02:19:17 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Angeal MacNova wrote:
ShahFluffers wrote:
Since the OP seems to honestly believe that his idea will work despite all history and evidence pointing otherwise... I challenge the OP move down to low-sec and live there full time without ever getting anything from high-sec.

Why this challenge? Because it simulates what high-sec might more or less be like under this proposed system.


That's funny...

Gigan Amilupar thinks my idea will do the opposite.

The school system has clearly gone downhill hard in the past 13 years.

*sigh*

Gigan is referencing one aspect of it... the raw mechanics of your idea. They are arbitrarily restrictive* and don't really jive with the whole "sandbox" concept**.

I'm coming at this from a different angle... what people would actually do under this system.
As someone who is close to -10 security status I can tell you that it is EASY to lose all your security status. Just grab a smartbombing battleship and sit next to a heavily trafficked gate... you'll be below -5.0 in about an hour or less. Or (under your system) steal cans from fellow alliance members and they do the same from you.
Once that is done... grab gank frigates and swarm everything (did you know that it takes about a minute to melt a 200k ehp battleship with 15-20 Atrons?).



*(specifically the "you can't shoot anyone unless..." and "you can't fly this ship or larger into these systems because...")
**(which is: "there is nothing mechanically stopping you from doing whatever you want to do as long as you accept the consequences").

How did you Veterans start?
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#24 - 2013-10-19 05:16:45 UTC
Angeal MacNova wrote:


You'll be able to turn your safety to yellow in .1 to .4 space

Flipping other people's cans and wrecks as well as stealing people's drones would be changed to result in a security status hit.


You can then go to any .1 to .4 system, switch to yellow, steal some ****, and once you get your sec status down a bit (-.5 or maybe -1.0), you can now go to any .5 to 1.0 sec system and do some more stealing there. Get a -5 security status and now you can switch to red and do some ganking.



So sec status would no-longer have anything whatsoever to do with shooting people? Why would that be good?

In fact, why should such a MASSIVE change to the very nature of EVE be a good thing?
Siobhan MacLeary
Doomheim
#25 - 2013-10-19 06:30:54 UTC
Angeal MacNova wrote:
Could this game go without CONCORD?

I know some of you are thinking "hell no, I'd quit" while some of you are drooling at the thought. Well, the following will change those thoughts (probably 180).

First thought is to remove CONCORD but in turn, make use of the safety feature instead. It's simple. .5 to 1.0, you are forced green. In .1 to .4, you are allowed yellow (you just can't go red). In 0.0 and lower, you are not restricted.

See what I mean by 180 where those that thought "hell no" are probably the ones drooling while those that were drooling are now the ones saying "hell no"?

But wait, the next thought allows ganking to still happen, and even without CONCORD coming!

If your security status is below 0 but above -5, you can set your safety to yellow in .5 and higher sec systems. You just can't set it to red. If your security status is -5 or lower, you can set your safety to red in any space (even hi-sec) but since you have a sec status of -5 or lower, you can be attacked by anyone at any time. Even by people who have their safety set to green. The fact that you are a suspect or a criminal would show in local (can't remember off hand right now if it's already like that or not).

Hi-sec space can now refer to .1 and higher instead of .5 and higher. Systems that are -0.1 to -1.0 would now be refered to as low-sec.

War dec'ing is so that you can engage non criminals in hi-sec without having to change your safety and without taking a hit to your sec status (basically the status quo).

If this proves to be too much freedom for ganking (droves of -5 sec people enter hi-sec and gank without consequence), then a gate restriction on ship class might work. The higher sec system you enter as a criminal, the smaller class ship you have to use.

Sec .1 - You can enter with any ship at any time as a criminal
Sec .2 - You can't bring in a titan
Sec .3 - You can't bring in a super cap
Sec .4 - You can't bring in a cap
Sec .5 - You can't bring in a BS
Sec .6 - You can't bring in a BC
Sec .7 - You can't bring in a Cruiser
Sec .8 - You can't bring in a Destroyer
Sec .9 - You can't bring in a Frigate


The exceptions would be non combat ships (Pod, Shuttle, Freighters). If you dock up in, say, Dodixie and think you can just buy and fit a combat ship. You can, but you'll be denied when you try and undock with it.

What's to stop someone from bring a ship into a system inside a freighter then? The stargate would prevent the freighter from entering the system based on ships in any cargo hold, hanger, etc.


This is basically an implementation of game-wide consensual PvP.

“Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.” - CCP Soundwave
Velicitia
XS Tech
#26 - 2013-10-19 11:11:08 UTC
Siobhan MacLeary wrote:
Angeal MacNova wrote:
(stuff)


This is basically an implementation of game-wide consensual PvP.


We already have that. It's labelled "Play" on the launcher.

If you circumvent the launcher, I believe it's still labelled "Login".

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Maliandra
Doomheim
#27 - 2013-10-19 11:13:44 UTC
I like elements of the idea but not sure how this could be implemented. It would be nice to have more "roles", to essentially have more of an obvious divide between who are the good guys and bad guys. It's impossible to trust anyone technically at this point in time and while that's the point of the game, hi-sec space specifically could use more structure IMO. There's a lot of other space for that sort of freedom and that space has better rewards too.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#28 - 2013-10-19 11:13:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Velicitia
ShahFluffers wrote:
Velicitia wrote:
ShahFluffers wrote:
Since the OP seems to honestly believe that his idea will work despite all history and evidence pointing otherwise... I challenge the OP move down to low-sec and live there full time without ever getting anything from high-sec.

Why this challenge? Because it simulates what high-sec might more or less be like under this proposed system.


empty? Cool

Ooooooooo... nice burn. Lol

I was imagining more of a panicked OP running a la "Waterworld."


Oh, so hisec would be like the atolls (I think? The floating cities of scared people...) and "The rest of eve" would be like, well, the water.

Would the goons take the role of the smokers?

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Maliandra
Doomheim
#29 - 2013-10-19 11:16:56 UTC
Saber1 wrote:
Not supported.

Someone wants a different kind of game that caters to them.

Biomass yourself. Big smile
And I suppose every idea you have means you want the game to cater to you.

Biomass yourself.
Angeal MacNova
Holefood Inc.
Warriors of the Blood God
#30 - 2013-10-19 21:59:26 UTC
Maliandra wrote:
I like elements of the idea but not sure how this could be implemented. It would be nice to have more "roles", to essentially have more of an obvious divide between who are the good guys and bad guys. It's impossible to trust anyone technically at this point in time and while that's the point of the game, hi-sec space specifically could use more structure IMO. There's a lot of other space for that sort of freedom and that space has better rewards too.


Finally someone with understanding and comprehension.

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/goodnight-sweet-prince/

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/the-untold-story/

CCP's true, butthurt, colors.

Because those who can't do themselves keep others from doing too.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#31 - 2013-10-19 22:31:39 UTC
Posting to confirm I initially started thinking "Oh hell no" and after reading was still thinking "Oh hell no".
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2013-10-20 00:41:09 UTC
OP I don't know if you realize this but your suggestion would make all empire space into pretty much bubble-less nullsec, as you would have tons of outlaws running around scoring easy kills--that is assuming a way to lose sec status were put into the game in addition to your suggestion. It would essentially also reward people for being at a lower sec status while affording them no penalty for it.

Now if you adjusted it to remove allowing outlaws free ganks, it would make lowsec safer than highsec currently is. Fifteen red blinky targets around me won't convince me to open fire on them. I'm gonna keep on mining this giant hedbergite in my untanked covetor and pretend those guys don't exist, and there's not a damn thing they can do about it.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Angeal MacNova
Holefood Inc.
Warriors of the Blood God
#33 - 2013-10-20 01:21:51 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
OP I don't know if you realize this but your suggestion would make all empire space into pretty much bubble-less nullsec, as you would have tons of outlaws running around scoring easy kills--that is assuming a way to lose sec status were put into the game in addition to your suggestion. It would essentially also reward people for being at a lower sec status while affording them no penalty for it.

Now if you adjusted it to remove allowing outlaws free ganks, it would make lowsec safer than highsec currently is. Fifteen red blinky targets around me won't convince me to open fire on them. I'm gonna keep on mining this giant hedbergite in my untanked covetor and pretend those guys don't exist, and there's not a damn thing they can do about it.


The point of the replies (all of em) are not lost (even if they are just trolls for which yours is NOT).

So to refine it....

Again, remove CONCORD and add the forced restriction on the safety setting. Can't go out of green in .5 and higher and can't go into red in .1 to .4.

Add in the npc corp idea that's been floating around. After reaching a 'yet to be determine' amount of sp, you are moved to an npc corp that is based on the race you chose to be (unless already in a player corp/ally). With 4 races there would be 4 of these npc corps and they would be in a perpetual 4 way war. Alternatively, the Gallente and Minmatar race based corps could be allies vs the Amarr and Caldari alliance.

Hi-sec players have the choice...

Be in the npc corp and run the risk of coming across war targets, but have the relative safety found with numbers (lots of players on your side) or be part of a player corp and take on both the benefits and risks associated with such.

Lastly, remove individual sec status.

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/goodnight-sweet-prince/

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/the-untold-story/

CCP's true, butthurt, colors.

Because those who can't do themselves keep others from doing too.
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#34 - 2013-10-20 01:59:59 UTC  |  Edited by: M1k3y Koontz
Posting in stealth nerf suicide ganking thread.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2013-10-20 03:21:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
You can do a lot of that stuff by joining faction warfare, or at least something similar to it.

I'd like to see NPC corps be in perpetual wars with other NPC corps, and have the tax be inversely proportional to the amount of overall enemy force any given corp has, so that players can pick their poison.

But the most important thing to realize is that people aren't supposed to be completely safe in space. It's supposed to always be possible to shoot ships. Even if you get jammed, you can still fire your bombs, smartbombs, and friend or foe missiles. It is one of the basic tenets of EVE Online.

--
M1k3y Koontz: I believe your signature should read: How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could derp herp?

alternatively, it could read: How much derp could a herp derp herp if a herp derp could herp derp?

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Akiko Sciuto
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#36 - 2013-10-20 08:03:44 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
M1k3y Koontz: I believe your signature should read: How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could derp herp?

alternatively, it could read: How much derp could a herp derp herp if a herp derp could herp derp?


He herped when he should have derped....
Velicitia
XS Tech
#37 - 2013-10-23 09:33:44 UTC
Angeal MacNova wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
OP I don't know if you realize this but your suggestion would make all empire space into pretty much bubble-less nullsec, as you would have tons of outlaws running around scoring easy kills--that is assuming a way to lose sec status were put into the game in addition to your suggestion. It would essentially also reward people for being at a lower sec status while affording them no penalty for it.

Now if you adjusted it to remove allowing outlaws free ganks, it would make lowsec safer than highsec currently is. Fifteen red blinky targets around me won't convince me to open fire on them. I'm gonna keep on mining this giant hedbergite in my untanked covetor and pretend those guys don't exist, and there's not a damn thing they can do about it.


The point of the replies (all of em) are not lost (even if they are just trolls for which yours is NOT).

So to refine it....

Again, remove CONCORD and add the forced restriction on the safety setting. Can't go out of green in .5 and higher and can't go into red in .1 to .4.

Add in the npc corp idea that's been floating around. After reaching a 'yet to be determine' amount of sp, you are moved to an npc corp that is based on the race you chose to be (unless already in a player corp/ally). With 4 races there would be 4 of these npc corps and they would be in a perpetual 4 way war. Alternatively, the Gallente and Minmatar race based corps could be allies vs the Amarr and Caldari alliance.

Hi-sec players have the choice...

Be in the npc corp and run the risk of coming across war targets, but have the relative safety found with numbers (lots of players on your side) or be part of a player corp and take on both the benefits and risks associated with such.

Lastly, remove individual sec status.


Fine, but take L3/4 missions out of this new "hisec", as well as every ore except Veldspar (and possibly Scordite). Also, "no red" in lowsec means no more pod-kills ... and well ... podding is kind of important (unless their medical station is right there, then it's like "dammitSad")

Hisec is perfectly safe the way it is -- yeah, there's always the possibility of the occasional gank, or someone stealing your mission trigger ... but honestly, this idea of guaranteed safety outside of a 'dec is pants-on-head stupid.

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
culo duro
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2013-10-23 10:34:45 UTC
dude i'm so happy to be at war with you right now.

I've starting blogging http://www.epvpc.blogspot.com 
Angeal MacNova
Holefood Inc.
Warriors of the Blood God
#39 - 2013-10-23 16:21:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Angeal MacNova
We're at war? I would have never have guessed considering I have never ever seen anyone from your corp in local at any of the systems I operate in.

But hey, if your corp/alliance wants to throw away the isk for nothing we have no problem with it. Roll

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/goodnight-sweet-prince/

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/the-untold-story/

CCP's true, butthurt, colors.

Because those who can't do themselves keep others from doing too.
Previous page12