These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Player CONCORD

First post
Author
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#1 - 2014-09-03 17:56:18 UTC

Suspend disbelief and naysaying, long enough to peruse this.

I thank you.

F
Kell Braugh
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2 - 2014-09-03 18:09:35 UTC
This idea... is horrible.

Couple things:
- Post your ideas here on the forum, not on your lil' blog.
- Think before you post. Your idea is bad-- not as in "I don't agree" but as in bad for the game and against all that the developers have ever even hinted to as far as the roles of CONCORD and the mechanics of how they spawn.
- Giving players, no matter what security status/standings required, the ability to wield super-pwnage ships and insta spawn on top of other players is more than just ripe for abuse, it is a clear sign that you don't play that same game we do.
- If you wanna PvP-- great. Grab a ship and join the rest of us.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#3 - 2014-09-03 18:16:30 UTC
Kell Braugh wrote:
This idea... is horrible.

Couple things:
- Post your ideas here on the forum, not on your lil' blog.
- Think before you post. Your idea is bad-- not as in "I don't agree" but as in bad for the game and against all that the developers have ever even hinted to as far as the roles of CONCORD and the mechanics of how they spawn.
- Giving players, no matter what security status/standings required, the ability to wield super-pwnage ships and insta spawn on top of other players is more than just ripe for abuse, it is a clear sign that you don't play that same game we do.
- If you wanna PvP-- great. Grab a ship and join the rest of us.

Hai Kell,

Your not reading the suggestion fully before sperging is what's horrible actually. I did think before I posted, advice you should have taken to heart yourself...

F
Lugh Crow-Slave
#4 - 2014-09-03 18:16:31 UTC
first for lore reasons no



then i enjoy how it admits it can be abused but hardly touches on it. "i know i'm a bad idea but implement me anyway"?


Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#5 - 2014-09-03 18:23:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
first for lore reasons no

then i enjoy how it admits it can be abused but hardly touches on it. "i know i'm a bad idea but implement me anyway"?

re: Lore reasons. If players can play Amarrians, Galente's, etc...why not CONCORD. Your point doesn't make sense.

Also, nice spin, but I hardly said "im a bad idea but implement anyway'....

Still waiting for some serious commentary, and someone actually familiar with the brainstorming and idea-generation process.

F
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#6 - 2014-09-03 18:27:56 UTC

OMG, this would be crazy abused.

My first thought was to get into a concord ship and get summoned to Jita's gate, then gank as many freighters as possible before my concord supership goes boom. You seem to limit this with a forced green safety setting. bah humbug.

Alternate thoughts: Simply hold fire when summoned to the scene of a crime. I'd purposely wait until the guy I'm "saving" is dead and podded before popping the criminal. We could share the profits and be really happy.

Finally, I'm a firm believer in do unto others, meaning if you shoot them, they should be able to shoot back. If you can cause them economic damage, they should be able to do the same. In other words, I don't support players getting into a fight where they don't even put their ships in danger!
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#7 - 2014-09-03 18:34:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

OMG, this would be crazy abused.

My first thought was to get into a concord ship and get summoned to Jita's gate, then gank as many freighters as possible before my concord supership goes boom. You seem to limit this with a forced green safety setting. bah humbug.

Alternate thoughts: Simply hold fire when summoned to the scene of a crime. I'd purposely wait until the guy I'm "saving" is dead and podded before popping the criminal. We could share the profits and be really happy.

Finally, I'm a firm believer in do unto others, meaning if you shoot them, they should be able to shoot back. If you can cause them economic damage, they should be able to do the same. In other words, I don't support players getting into a fight where they don't even put their ships in danger!

(sigh)

I give up, you guys are hopeless.

F
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#8 - 2014-09-03 18:35:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Gizznitt Malikite
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

OMG, this would be crazy abused.

My first thought was to get into a concord ship and get summoned to Jita's gate, then gank as many freighters as possible before my concord supership goes boom. You seem to limit this with a forced green safety setting. bah humbug.

Alternate thoughts: Simply hold fire when summoned to the scene of a crime. I'd purposely wait until the guy I'm "saving" is dead and podded before popping the criminal. We could share the profits and be really happy.

Finally, I'm a firm believer in do unto others, meaning if you shoot them, they should be able to shoot back. If you can cause them economic damage, they should be able to do the same. In other words, I don't support players getting into a fight where they don't even put their ships in danger!

Yay, another comment from someone who didn't read the proposal.

Did I not specifically mention locking safeties to GREEN? How is that a bad thing?

You guys do know how to read, right? You know how to take a good concept forward, without killing it in vitro 'just because' right?

Christ.

F


lol... Oh the irony!!!
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#9 - 2014-09-03 18:36:52 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
3 things come to mind:

- what is the point? Whether it is players or NPCs, the point and purpose of CONCORD is functionally the same (enforcing cost on a "PvP act"). All you will be doing is feeding kills to people who wait in a que and saying "it's PvP!" without the player having done nothing to actually earn the kill in the first place.

- If you are trying to expand CONCORD's role beyond its current one using players' "best judgement" then you are opening it up to abuse. Players may just join CONCORD with with as many alts as possible, jump into a gank in progress, and then sit back and let it happen. When the gank is successful, THEN they gank the offending ships and call it a day.
And no... computerized mechanics cannot understand intent with very high accuracy. The same person who "let" the gank happen could merely be fumbling with the controls... or lagging out and can't do anything.
If that player gets kicked out of CONCORD then just sign up on another character/account and rinse-repeat.

- if gankers (who are typically below -5.0) are flying around in space then you can ALREADY shoot them down using the tools that are currently available.
If they are not below -5.0 but not 0.0 then you cannot automatically assume they are up to no good. Again... a computer mechanic cannot infer intent. To open up the ability for a player CONCORD to shoot someone they suspect of being a ganker (but does not have sufficiently low security status) means that a player CONCORD can technically be allowed to shoot EVERYONE with a weapon attached to their ship.


Also... don't use a blog to propose an idea here. Not everyone wants to wade into that crap.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#10 - 2014-09-03 18:37:01 UTC
Bah humbug is not an argument.

F
Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#11 - 2014-09-03 18:54:14 UTC
There are enough 'white knighting' and 'capsuleer police force' suggestions and threads here. This is nothing new .. maybe you should have cared to read those first.

Yours goes even farther in breaking the game and making things annoying, not to mention unbalance a lot of things. There were some suggestions I could have run with, yours are just beyond ... even arguing about those points is not worth it, since you kindly forgot to consider almost everything. And we (I) are not here to explain to you your own suggestion.

-1
Lugh Crow-Slave
#12 - 2014-09-03 18:55:01 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
first for lore reasons no

then i enjoy how it admits it can be abused but hardly touches on it. "i know i'm a bad idea but implement me anyway"?

re: Lore reasons. If players can play Amarrians, Galente's, etc...why not CONCORD. Your point doesn't make sense.
F



CONCORD was formed to prevent capsule pilots from becoming to powerful and causing untold damage to mortals since mortality means nothing to us as such opening CONCORD up to every bum joe who has killed enough rats and never got the bug to go pop someone makes little seance



as for you hardly said "i know i'm a bad idea but implement me anyway"

at the beginning of the blog it is stated that the writer knows it would be abused
Lugh Crow-Slave
#13 - 2014-09-03 18:58:14 UTC
Why not just make it so if a pilot goes criminal (not suspect) anyone in system can warp to him like a beacon to get in on the CONCORD KM.

Now i don't know how good of an idea this is because from the gankers stand point he may now have less time to kill you b4 he loses his ship so this idea may not be a good one but i like it better then CONCORDian
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#14 - 2014-09-03 19:00:20 UTC

We seem to be having a communication problem.

When I was reading your blog idea, my mind kept drifting to fun ways to abuse your proposal, absolutely loving the idea of (ab)using the Concord ships to destroy innocent players. Then, in the second to last sentence of your 3-page thesis, you ruined my ******* Christmas. I acknowledged this by specifically mentioning your "forced green security" setting with a "Bah Humbug" comment. That wasn't me arguing against your proposal.

The following section explained how I would still abuse your system within the scope of your limits. That was to point out how it would be abused.

The final section explained why I'm against your proposal in principle. I believe you should have to risk your own assets when attacking someone else.

Shah Fluffers did a good job of outlining why its a bad idea from a mechanics point of view, and how intent is difficult to determine from a design perspective.

So, rather than making ironic ad hominem attacks, how about you address the problems with your proposal. Failure to address these obvious shortfallings is why your proposal's D.O.A.

Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#15 - 2014-09-03 19:21:37 UTC
This horrible idea again.

Why do you need to hide behind a veneer of game mechanics? You can already shoot and kill criminals anywhere in the EVE universe. No special added mechanics necessary.

What you seem to be looking for is the game to give you an invulnerability shield that lets you gank players who act in a manner that you don't like, with zero fear of retaliation.

Welcome to being worse than the criminals of EVE: You not only want to kill defenseless targets, you want their defenseless nature to be mechanically enforced.
Celthric Kanerian
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#16 - 2014-09-03 19:46:29 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

OMG, this would be crazy abused.

My first thought was to get into a concord ship and get summoned to Jita's gate, then gank as many freighters as possible before my concord supership goes boom. You seem to limit this with a forced green safety setting. bah humbug.

Alternate thoughts: Simply hold fire when summoned to the scene of a crime. I'd purposely wait until the guy I'm "saving" is dead and podded before popping the criminal. We could share the profits and be really happy.

Finally, I'm a firm believer in do unto others, meaning if you shoot them, they should be able to shoot back. If you can cause them economic damage, they should be able to do the same. In other words, I don't support players getting into a fight where they don't even put their ships in danger!

(sigh)

I give up, you guys are hopeless.

F


Well it's your own fault, you don't care about hearing any critics, all you want to hear is people who are on your idea.
Learn to take critism.
Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#17 - 2014-09-03 19:56:14 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Why not just make it so if a pilot goes criminal (not suspect) anyone in system can warp to him like a beacon to get in on the CONCORD KM.

I just weep for the overviews when 50 beacons simultaneously appear in Uedama.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#18 - 2014-09-03 20:04:04 UTC
My view is that the key to any new idea, be it player built stargates, wormholes or player CONCORD...is to take a first pass that only focuses on reviewing if said proposal is a) compelling gameplay, and b) player content generating.

If a concept passes the 'compelling gameplay' and 'content generating' smell test, you then try to come up with ways to conceptualize how it CAN be made to work, not to abort said idea in-utero with naysaying... There is always time to pick holes in an idea or mechanic, but even then I would tend to reserve that for outside of this forum, and for CCP design teams to explore.

Sure, comment on angles from the view of improving on a core concept, but don't just spew 'bad idea', 'cant do it', 'it would be abused' naysaying in a vacuum of first trying to help envision how it could work.

Again, if it passes the first 'compelling play', and 'content generating' smell test.

If everyone feels player CONCORD is not compelling gameplay, nor content generating, I will gladly bow to the collective. But so far all I am hearing honestly is naysaying and lack of vision on how it COULD work.

This is sad, and gives me a sad.

F
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#19 - 2014-09-03 20:05:02 UTC
Komi Toran wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Why not just make it so if a pilot goes criminal (not suspect) anyone in system can warp to him like a beacon to get in on the CONCORD KM.

I just weep for the overviews when 50 beacons simultaneously appear in Uedama.

Separate scrollable 'CONCORD HIT LIST' window, that can be resized and sorted in any number of ways. i.e. Range/distance, # of criminals in system, etc?
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#20 - 2014-09-03 20:08:20 UTC
Domanique Altares wrote:
This horrible idea again.

Why do you need to hide behind a veneer of game mechanics? You can already shoot and kill criminals anywhere in the EVE universe. No special added mechanics necessary.

What you seem to be looking for is the game to give you an invulnerability shield that lets you gank players who act in a manner that you don't like, with zero fear of retaliation.

Welcome to being worse than the criminals of EVE: You not only want to kill defenseless targets, you want their defenseless nature to be mechanically enforced.

1) Gankers will die anyway, detonated by NPC Concord
2) How is giving people who are locked in PVE and fear PVP, an opportunity to play a white-knight and experiment with PVP mechanics (tackling, webbing, neuting, damping, etc) a bad thing?

One of the underlying goals here is to help introduce and climatize more carebears to PVP mechanics, while addressing their core fears of ship loss, expense, etc; again, ganker would have died anyway, so why not?

Naysayers. Meh.

F
12Next page