These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[CONCORD] Have Faction standing and Sec status affect response times.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Anonymous Forumposter
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1 - 2014-05-09 18:59:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Anonymous Forumposter
This is a suggestion inspired by myself and others over in this reddit post:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/255bvk/concord_protection_racket/chdu4tt


Here's the overall idea:

  • Slightly nerf existing response times to make room for this system.

  • Provide some improvement in reaction time for players that dedicate time to grinding standings and include greater risk for those that don't.

  • Concord takes various factors into consideration for their response times like Faction Standing, Security Status (Of all players involved), Perhaps character age? (Help keep the new players from experiencing overwhelming losses at young ages causing them to leave and never come back.)



Here's some ways this could be meaningful game play.

  • It would encourage miners to experience other types of game play (Combat) to impact another type of game play (mining) helping them experience more of what the game has to offer.

  • It would offer rewards for more effort.

  • It would provide less protection to players with lower sec status providing more high sec gank targets (Easier to gank before concord shows up)

  • It would create greater demand for tags so gankers can keep their sec status up.
Sipphakta en Gravonere
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2014-05-09 19:19:19 UTC
Anonymous Forumposter wrote:
Concord takes various factors into consideration for their response times like Faction Standing, Security Status (Of all players involved), Perhaps character age? (Help keep the new players from experiencing overwhelming losses at young ages causing them to leave and never come back.)


CONCORD isn't the faction police, the latter already chases people with a bad enough security rating/standing.

Quote:
It would encourage miners to experience other types of game play (Combat) to impact another type of game play (mining) helping them experience more of what the game has to offer.


Most miners chose mining because they have a hard and demanding job and they need mining to cool them off. Or they have physical needs that prevents them from paying attention to the game, making other forms of gameplay hard. You can see a great many reasons why people mine on minerbumping.com and requiring them to experience other forms of PvE may not be well received by the miner community.

Don't take safety away from miners who don't want to grind missions.

Quote:
It would provide less protection to players with lower sec status providing more high sec gank targets (Easier to gank before concord shows up)


That would discriminate against players who choose to venture into low-sec to do PvP.

This change wouldn't provide interesting gameplay and a buff to high-sec mission runners is certainly not needed.
Anonymous Forumposter
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3 - 2014-05-09 19:53:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Anonymous Forumposter
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
CONCORD isn't the faction police, the latter already chases people with a bad enough security rating/standing.

While true, Having higher standings could be regarded as diplomatic significance which could influence the likely hood of the Empires putting political pressure on concord to protect those that are important to them in a more timely manner. There are lots of ways it could be written in to be logical.

Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
Most miners chose mining because they have a hard and demanding job and they need mining to cool them off. Or they have physical needs that prevents them from paying attention to the game, making other forms of gameplay hard. You can see a great many reasons why people mine on minerbumping.com and requiring them to experience other forms of PvE may not be well received by the miner community

Don't take safety away from miners who don't want to grind missions.


CCP has a long standing tradition of giving greater rewards to players that are more active. Space is a dangerous place. If it wasn't, EVE would wither and die.

Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
That would discriminate against players who choose to venture into low-sec to do PvP.


It would discriminate against players that are prone to being the instigators in conflicts against non pirates. Additionally, Pilots that are more familiar with PvP will be more likely to fit their ships effectively and act appropriately during a gank attempt increasing their chances of surviving.

Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
This change wouldn't provide interesting gameplay and a buff to high-sec mission runners is certainly not needed.


Ganking is a very common game play, there's very little thought that goes into wether or not you're going to gank someone. Ship fit A will always kill ship fit B.

Adding additional factors into the equation that aren't simply perceivable by looking at what ship you're flying would require more consideration before simply ganking. This in itself will in no way deter ganking as it's not uncommon for them to scout targets as is. But it will require more meaningful decisions to be made as to who you're going to gamble on ganking.
Sipphakta en Gravonere
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2014-05-09 20:36:49 UTC
Anonymous Forumposter wrote:
CCP has a long standing tradition of giving greater rewards to players that are more active. Space is a dangerous place. If it wasn't, EVE would wither and die.


Your suggestion would make Eve safer for most mission runners and reduce the likelihood of someone doing pvp in low-sec. Eve needs more dangers, not less.

Quote:
It would discriminate against players that are prone to being the instigators in conflicts against non pirates. Additionally, Pilots that are more familiar with PvP will be more likely to fit their ships effectively and act appropriately during a gank attempt increasing their chances of surviving.


Every player already has the possibility to fit their ship to be more gank-hardened and/or not profitable to target in the first place. We should encourage more people to get into corporations that teach new players valuable lessons about correct ship fits and how to prevent ganks. (Using d-scan, keeping an eye on local, utilizing scouts, forming fleets etc).

Quote:
Ganking is a very common game play, there's very little thought that goes into wether or not you're going to gank someone. Ship fit A will always kill ship fit B.


Well, that's simply not true. Many ganks I've been part of were unsuccessful, for a number of different reasons:

- suddenly, Falcon.
- Remote-Reps
- Off-grid boosters
- Refit from mobile depot to warp core stabs and fleeing
- Warping off as soon as we land due to using dscan
- Getting volleyed off the field by hurricanes/tornadoes.

It already takes a non-trivial amount of work to successfully gank, Burn Jita showed that a small defense fleet can easily defend a jump freighter from a 100 man catalyst gang 3 times. Of course, the JF pilot needs to be active to make use of that defense.

Quote:
Adding additional factors into the equation that aren't simply perceivable by looking at what ship you're flying would require more consideration before simply ganking. This in itself will in no way deter ganking as it's not uncommon for them to scout targets as is. But it will require more meaningful decisions to be made as to who you're going to gamble on ganking.


Ganking is incredibly rare already due to the numerous nerfs to that style of play in the past couple of years, why do you feel that it needs to be made harder by introducing a "random" element to CONCORD response time?
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#5 - 2014-05-09 20:39:07 UTC
Concorde shouldn't care how much you've kissed the Caldari State's ass.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Beofryn Sedorak
#6 - 2014-05-09 20:44:19 UTC
Batelle wrote:
Concorde shouldn't care how much you've kissed the Caldari State's ass.


This isn't about how much you've kissed Caldari States ass. It has to do with politics. If you're important to Caldari State, They're more likely to lobby on behalf of those capsuleers for greater protection. Using their size, Significance and influence to benefit themselves by keeping you more productive. Makes sense to me.
Joe Boirele
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2014-05-09 21:39:14 UTC
Beofryn Sedorak wrote:
Batelle wrote:
Concorde shouldn't care how much you've kissed the Caldari State's ass.


This isn't about how much you've kissed Caldari States ass. It has to do with politics. If you're important to Caldari State, They're more likely to lobby on behalf of those capsuleers for greater protection. Using their size, Significance and influence to benefit themselves by keeping you more productive. Makes sense to me.


You just said the exact same thing as him, but with more words.

Enemies are just friends who stab you in the front.

"We will not go quietly into the night! We will not vanish without a fight!"
Beofryn Sedorak
#8 - 2014-05-09 21:52:59 UTC
Joe Boirele wrote:
Beofryn Sedorak wrote:
Batelle wrote:
Concorde shouldn't care how much you've kissed the Caldari State's ass.


This isn't about how much you've kissed Caldari States ass. It has to do with politics. If you're important to Caldari State, They're more likely to lobby on behalf of those capsuleers for greater protection. Using their size, Significance and influence to benefit themselves by keeping you more productive. Makes sense to me.


You just said the exact same thing as him, but with more words.


Nope.
Alternative Splicing
Captain Content and The Contenteers
#9 - 2014-05-09 22:42:50 UTC
This is very contrived and a bit silly. Honestly you'd probably troll miners more by implementing this - what do you mean I need to get my standings sky-high and train ships I wouldn't care for normally? I had standing 8.0+ and they still got me, this is madness! halp meh!

As most ganks are preventable by following simple rules, the onus of being ganked lies solely on the gankee, not the ganker.

Faction standings should be a niche thing - reducing their general relevance is a good thing, and this proposed change seems to just want to breathe new life into a mechanic that is gradually losing any relevance.

The best mechanics to look at if you want to see less hi-sec ganking are, in fact, low and null mechanics. Give pirates and gankers something to do out there. The choice is easy if you want to gank now - go to hisec, and watch the herds of miners and freighters line up like sheep.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#10 - 2014-05-09 23:20:00 UTC
Obviously we should remove the market then so PvP'ers & Gankers have to build their own ships & mine, so they 'have to' experience mining also.
Anonymous Forumposter
State War Academy
Caldari State
#11 - 2014-05-10 00:17:54 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Obviously we should remove the market then so PvP'ers & Gankers have to build their own ships & mine, so they 'have to' experience mining also.


The difference is your "suggestion" would require them to engage in those play styles.

This suggestion would not require miners to do anything in addition to what they already need to do (Train skill, buy ship). They would benefit from doing more. But would not be required to.

Your "suggestion" is ridiculous and illogical, and I assume it's intentionally so. Had you any worthwhile argument, you would have likely went with that instead of what you posted.
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#12 - 2014-05-10 00:25:02 UTC
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
Anonymous Forumposter wrote:
Concord takes various factors into consideration for their response times like Faction Standing, Security Status (Of all players involved), Perhaps character age? (Help keep the new players from experiencing overwhelming losses at young ages causing them to leave and never come back.)


CONCORD isn't the faction police, the latter already chases people with a bad enough security rating/standing.

Quote:
It would encourage miners to experience other types of game play (Combat) to impact another type of game play (mining) helping them experience more of what the game has to offer.


Most miners chose mining because they have a hard and demanding job and they need mining to cool them off. Or they have physical needs that prevents them from paying attention to the game, making other forms of gameplay hard. You can see a great many reasons why people mine on minerbumping.com and requiring them to experience other forms of PvE may not be well received by the miner community.

Don't take safety away from miners who don't want to grind missions.

Quote:
It would provide less protection to players with lower sec status providing more high sec gank targets (Easier to gank before concord shows up)


That would discriminate against players who choose to venture into low-sec to do PvP.

This change wouldn't provide interesting gameplay and a buff to high-sec mission runners is certainly not needed.


Hate to agree with a goon, but when what they say makes perfect sense... I find myself completely agreeing here with Sipphakta.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#13 - 2014-05-10 07:58:40 UTC
Anonymous Forumposter wrote:


The difference is your "suggestion" would require them to engage in those play styles.

This suggestion would not require miners to do anything in addition to what they already need to do (Train skill, buy ship). They would benefit from doing more. But would not be required to.

Your "suggestion" is ridiculous and illogical, and I assume it's intentionally so. Had you any worthwhile argument, you would have likely went with that instead of what you posted.

My point was to demonstrate how ridiculous basing anything on 'lets get miners to experience another part of the game by using a stick on them if they don't' was.
Carrots are fine. Sticks to try and force people into other play styles are not. There is nothing wrong with the current mining meta, it is NOT afk play despite what certain players would have you believe. If you multibox and ore mine you are certainly not afk.
Darin Vanar
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2014-05-10 08:04:53 UTC
Is there any benefit to having a high security status currently?

Like 5.0+

Apologies if this is off topic. I just don't know if there is one.
Gawain Edmond
Khanid Bureau of Industry
#15 - 2014-05-10 10:04:39 UTC
yes but aslong as if someone with -10 standing ganks someone with +5 standing they get the same responce times as now