These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Player CONCORD

First post
Author
Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#21 - 2014-09-03 20:11:15 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
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?

Sorry. Shouldn't have been taken as a real criticism. Overview spikes happen all the time. It's not that big a deal, and I'd assume these beacons would be their own separate category in the overview, so if you didn't want them to pop up, they wouldn't.

Which, actually, could be the argument against them now that I think about it. A distress beacon that pings so frequently people start blocking it is not an effective distress beacon. Meh.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#22 - 2014-09-03 20:11:42 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.

Lol wasn't a serious suggestion
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#23 - 2014-09-03 20:26:43 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
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


Is this content generating or compelling game play?

The content I see it generating would center around breaking concord, or making them less effective. As you stated though, this is not your intent.

It is pretty easy to find criminals to shoot. Just go to Niarja or Uedema or Aufay and wait. Follow CODE. to any ice belt system, etc.

Your idea, out of necessity, removes the hunt and adds instant-action. To be honest, I think instant action PvP would be harmful to EvE in general.

Does it create compelling game play? I don't particularly see how. You don't have to train into the concord ships, you don't risk anything by assuming the concord role., you don't change the outcome of Concordokkens (unless its in the abuseable manner where you prevent Concord from effectively performing their task). What is compelling about this?

If you want to be a white knight, you already can be. Get in a griffin and jam out gankers in the freight pipes. Get in an RR vessel and attempt to save them. See what works, see what doesn't. I don't see this proposal helping anyone out other than gankers, in which case it is neat but also breaks game balance in the exact manner you want to avoid.

Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#24 - 2014-09-03 20:40:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

Is this content generating or compelling game play?

The content I see it generating would center around breaking concord, or making them less effective. As you stated though, this is not your intent.

It is pretty easy to find criminals to shoot. Just go to Niarja or Uedema or Aufay and wait. Follow CODE. to any ice belt system, etc.

Your idea, out of necessity, removes the hunt and adds instant-action. To be honest, I think instant action PvP would be harmful to EvE in general.

Does it create compelling game play? I don't particularly see how. You don't have to train into the concord ships, you don't risk anything by assuming the concord role., you don't change the outcome of Concordokkens (unless its in the abuseable manner where you prevent Concord from effectively performing their task). What is compelling about this?

If you want to be a white knight, you already can be. Get in a griffin and jam out gankers in the freight pipes. Get in an RR vessel and attempt to save them. See what works, see what doesn't. I don't see this proposal helping anyone out other than gankers, in which case it is neat but also breaks game balance in the exact manner you want to avoid.


The randomness injected into ganking calculations would be compelling content. Instead of 'I am ganking in a 0.5 system, against ship 'x', fit 'y' so I need 'z' catalysts'..done. It would also be..."Damn, I wonder if a player CONCORD will cyno in the moment the gank starts..." Formulaic and repetitive ganking where no white knights are in-system, would be transformed...

1) Ganker doesn't know if he will get a player CONCORD hot drop prior to normal NPC arrival times
2) Ganker gets a shot at ruining a white-knights day, by evading detonation by him (or even zapping his CONCORD ship?)

Yes, someone can today white-knight, but the ability to role-play a CONCORD cop, in a CONCORD ship, is compelling in itself I would argue to many people. Given the choice of sitting in a griffin with ECM's and waiting for someone near you to go GCC, and the option to sit in a CONCORD ship with your CONCORD buddies, and cyno on top of a criminal across the map...I know what I would want to do. That in itself would inspire more die-hard PVE'ers to try white-knighting and PVP, which is good for the game IMHO.

F
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#25 - 2014-09-03 22:30:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Domanique Altares
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:

1) Gankers will die anyway, detonated by NPC Concord


As they should. Leave insta-gib mechanics to the NPCs.

Quote:

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?


Because CONCORD is not a PvP mechanic. An AI controlled ship shutdown is not a PvP simulator. Knowing that CONCORD NPCs are coming to do the job behind them does not teach PvP skills; it teaches bad habits and complacency.

Quote:

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


This does not address those goals. In PvP you don't prevent ship loss by flying an invincible ship. Giving clueless carebears CONCORD style mechanics to play with does not teach them to survive. It does not teach them fitting, it does not teach them range control, damage mitigation, damage selection, tank management, cap management, situational awareness, it does not teach them to do anything except lock target and strike F1, because they are flying in god mode.

You can 'Naysayers' all you want. People **** on this idea when it pops up because CONCORD is god mode. The NPCs are invincible. So either you roll that back to the days of yesteryear where CONCORD can be permatanked and a player flying a god ship can be killed (or ganked) or you put the white knight in a position to learn exactly the opposite of what you claim to want to teach them. They learn how to shoot at a neutered, immobile, defenseless target. This is exactly what most highsec gankers are after, only you want it mechanically enforced by AI.
Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund
Goonswarm Federation
#26 - 2014-09-03 22:56:17 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:

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

you say that, but then we read your posts and are forced to conclude not only are you not thinking you're also lying
Angeal MacNova
LankTech
#27 - 2014-09-03 23:23:18 UTC
I've always toyed with the idea of something like this. The thing is that this couldn't be another game profession that anyone can pick up and do. It would have to be something along the lines of being a CSM, ISD, or one of those knowledgeable players who get to stay in rookie chat. You give CCP an appication and get approved. This would give you access to CONCORD ships. However, you assume the role and with it the responsibility. So no taking it into missions (wanna solo an incursion anyone?) and no camping your corp's mining op.

However, I can see players following gankers around to "keep an eye on them" which those that gank would have a huge issue with.

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.

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#28 - 2014-09-04 02:51:00 UTC
Quote:
23. Post constructively.

Negative feedback can be very useful to further improve EVE Online provided that it is presented in a civil and factual manner. All users are encouraged to honestly express their feelings regarding EVE Online and how it can be improved. Posts that are non-constructive, insulting or in breach of the rules will be deleted regardless of how valid the ideas behind them may be. Users are also reminded that posting with a lack of content also constitutes non-constructive posting.

Thread closed.

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Senior Lead

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

Previous page12