Assembly Hall

I agree with FloppieTheBanjoClown (looks like Crusty The Clown has competition) in regards to the post made by foksieloy. Not only is it complicated, but such complexity allows for griefing and exploiting.

Keep it simple.

Although, I got a question for the OP. When you said "outpost", to what do you refer to? An NPC station or a dead space structure that you stay close to like a POS? Frankly, I would prefer the dead space format. After all, if there is ever an aggression, undocking will take too long. A POS-like dead space structure is convenient because then you can quickly warp out in a shorter notice.

EDIT:

Perhaps a little fleet bonus as well with this kind of feature such as improved align time or improved warp speed (AU/sec).

Ah, I see. I guess I missed that bit in the first post.

I was hoping to make it relatively simple, reusing the control bunker concept and then the overview wouldn't be that different from a cyno field appearing on overview. Besides, this is big enough that it would be an expansion in itself, especially if they included their long-promised bounty system fix since it fits with the theme. Call it "Enforcement".

Here's an idea just to motivate CCP, you could make NeX items that would require Concord LPs as well as aurum. I bet some people would cash in a PLEX if they could get a Concord uniform exclusive to deputies.

Perhaps you could add pod killing being allowed for people with bounties, this would make bounty hunting a viable option as well...?

Eve: Enforcement
An overview of an idea for a major expansion to the Eve universe

---

Deputizing Lowsec

This idea began as an effort to reinvigorate those areas of lowsec not presently used for faction warfare. At the same time, it was intended to give those players who want to be "the good guys" a way to participate in PVP with a feeling of purpose.

The core of the idea is this: Concord has taken an interest in expanding their enforcement into lowsec. Out of necessity they will steer clear of the established battlegrounds of the Faction Wars. The problem is, they don't have the manpower to provide the 24/7 enforcement that would represent a true increase in the security level of a system. Instead, they have opted to involve capsuleers in the project.

To this end, Concord places a Concord Relay Station in each non-FW lowsec system. A CRS would behave similar to the control bunkers in faction warfare, in that they would be captured by a corporation or alliance by putting them into structure. If you need a reason for Concord wanting you to shoot their structure to capture it, let's just say they want to verify you can field and organize sufficient firepower to actually do the job. A corp or alliance that holds a CRS would then become Concord Deputies.

Any deputies in a system they control would see GCC alerts on screen and on their overview. This would be similar to the way a cyno field alert occurs. So long as the GCC timer is active on a player and they are in system, a warp-to beacon would follow them. GCC timers in a deputy-controlled system would prevent you from docking at stations--unless you were in a pod--but you would be able to jump out of system according to normal gate mechanics. It would be possible to outrun depties for 15 minutes by continuously warping between celestials.

Rules of engagement: Deputies can ONLY fire on known pirates (people with -5 or lower) and anyone with GCC timers. Pods would be exempt from GCC, but a -5 security status would invalidate this protection and allow deputies to pod you on sight.

Any deputies violating the rules of engagement will be attacked by a special Concord fleet dispatched to deal with corrupt deputies. Abuse of power will not be tolerated. Corporate CEos would be informed via notification of any such action, and warned that repeated actions by the same member would cause the corp to lose its deputy status. Three offenses by a single deputy would cause the corp to lose all deputy status.

Any player who has triggered such a loss of status will be permanently flagged an outlaw deputy by Concord, making it easy for deputy corps to avoid recruiting known violators. Corporations employing outlaw deputies would not be able to captures a CRS, only neutralize it. This mechanic would be designed to minimize griefing.

Entities with an average security status below -1 would not be able to capture a CRS. If they hold one and their average status drops below -1, they lose their deputy status and the CRS goes neutral. A negative-status corp will be able to attack the CRS and put it back to neutral by putting it into structure.

---

Bounty Hunting

In keeping with the theme of law enforcement and being the good guys, it's time to address the inadequate bounty system.

First, to address the current issues:

- Bounty can only be applied to people with negative security standings. This means anyone willing to do a little ratting to bring their standings up gets a free pass on piracy.

- Bounties are tied to the character, meaning anyone can collect them. Got a 5 billion isk bounty? Get a friend to pod you and split the cash. Better yet, make an alt and pod yourself.

I propose two major changes to fix this.

First, create Bounty contracts. Remove the silly two-week limit to contracts so that bounties can be placed indefinitely (or at least for 3-6 months). Contracts can be to specific individuals, internal to corporations, or public...this means that bounties can be restricted to just the people you want. Remove the security status limitation so that bounties can be placed on anyone, allowing a corp at war to designate high-priority targets internally and attach rewards for killing them. Make the frozen corpse a condition of completing the bounty.

Second, making bounty hunting a legal occupation in highsec. As bounty contracts are not something you accept until you can deliver the goods (corpse), you would go to a Concord bounty office, pay a fee to declare a target which has an active bounty contract, and then be free to pursue and pod them anywhere.

Idea: Concord locator agents available only to registered bounty hunters who have active targets? Just a thought.

In order to protect people from being griefed by constant bounties being placed on their heads, only known criminals (people who have triggered a GCC) would be valid bounty targets in highsec. It would still be possible to wardec their corp or suicide gank them to get their pod.

---

Incarna stuff

We might as well accept that Incarna is here to stay and incorporate it into our ideas for improvements to the game.

Vanity items available exclusive to deputies and bounty hunters might actually generate some MT activity and give players something that's worth showing off.

This would be a good way to test profession-related info screens; it would be kind of cool if your CQ had a screen that showed recent GCC activity in a deputized system or bounty hunters could see relevant information.

---

Black Ops and Assault Frigates

This is a bit of a side bonus which I think we could tie in to the theme by saying these ships need updating to support the lowsec operations and bounty hunting profession. I won't go into greater detail on this here as there are literally years of discussion and debate on how best to fix/improve these

I like the level of detail you went into. Very well thought out. Although, I can imagine how complicated it will be for CCP to implement this idea since they're way too busy with Incarna.

Here is a question though, if a capsuleer were to initiate the GCC, how long do you propose for the flag to remain in their record before it is no longer on their record (thus rendering them as INactive pirates)? Personally, I would say an entire month (which I think is about the same duration as a kill right).

OP has a couple of interesting ideas, one significant misconception about current criminal/outlaw mechanics, and one mind-bogglingly stupid suggestion that would make a lot of piracy essentially untenable by eliminating the ability to use safespots.

Specifically, the clause about "anyone with a sec status under -5 [being] fair game to deputies at any time" is completely redundant - it's already the case that if your sec status is below -5, anyone can shoot you at any time without taking GCC or sentry aggro. While not in and of itself damning, the fact that the OP felt the need to include it strongly suggests that he doesn't really know what he's talking about or what lowsec is currently like.

Second, the idea of a beacon for a GCC event is kind of interesting (although also pretty redundant in a lot of cases, since non-terrible players can use the d-scanner to quickly find out where things are happening in system). However, the idea of a warpable marker that follows you wherever you go while GCC'd would instantly kill any form of solo roaming piracy because the ability to warp to a safe/disengage after snacking on some hostile gang's bait or otherwise picking off a few of their members is fundamental to roaming pvp in general.

You're wrong about that. Currently I can go out to lowsec and pop and pod anyone I want if I'm willing to endure the loss of sec status, and maybe tank some sentry guns. I set up a scenario in which deputies are held to a higher standard, in that they can't do that without provoking serious consequences. Then I added the EXCEPTION that a sec status below -5 would allow them to carry out such an act without those consequences.

Yes it's a bit redundant on normal rules of engagement, but I felt the need to spell it out as I was rewriting those rules a bit for the "good guys" who would be taking on this role.





^^^^ This. Also, I have already said in this thread it would be possible to outrun a deputy response by warping between safe points and celestials or even fleeing to a neutral system to wait out your GCC. It wouldn't negate the ability to run to a safe spot to avoid retaliation, it would just make criminals RUN from concord, not just warp off and idle.

Some stuff that was brought up by a corpmate:

There needs to be a way to abandon a CRS, or avoid capturing it if you don't want to be a deputy but don't have sufficiently low sec status.

People with sec status below -5 should get their own NeX goodies. Eyepatches, anyone?

Non-deputized systems should have penalties that make things a bit easier for pirates...extra incentive for neutralizing the Concord station:
- Stations have reduced docking radius and become kickout stations
- Sentries have lower sensor strength and do less damage (or maybe have lower rate of fire)
- The question was raised whether drop rates could be adjusted to give pirates better drops in neutral systems

Assign static bounties on each class of ship, and modify it based on the pilot's security status. This bounty would be specific to deputies. It should NEVER be more than the difference between the price of a ship and its platinum insurance value...this would avoid people making money by popping -10 alts in cruisers.

I like the general idea, but have several comments and suggestions:

1.) Stick to one subject in this post. Fixing bounty hunting, assault frigates, and adding incarna bling is NOT really relevant. These ideas will only sidetrack this topic and smother your main idea.

2.) I think your scope is too small. Controlling/patrolling one system is a little too limited and boring. Do you lose sight of a criminal once they switch systems? For better results, have bunkers provide constellation-wide benefits (at least). Perhaps expanding it to region-wide with multiple deputy corps, thereby allowing multiple (but limited) alliances to patrol a single region. If a corp feels they control a constellation, they are more likely to patrol the borders and hunt enemies within. Multiple alliances increase opportunities for anti-pirate activity across multiple timezones.

3.) I really like the warpable beacon that follows the GCC'd player for the duration of their GCC. Ideally, it should Only be visible to Concord Deputies; otherwise there isn't much of a reason to be a deputy, as anyone can shoot a GCC player and they don't have to deal with stringent guidelines. Note: This is best left as a double edged sword... warping to their beacon might land you on an unprepared pirate, or it might land you next to their Deathstar POS. This could also make deputized players very useful to low-sec fleet battles, as they can always provide a warp in to the GCC flagged...

4.) It should be possible to identify the concord deputies in local, just likes it’s possible to identify pirates and war targets.

5.) GCC's do not prevent a person from docking or jumping. All acts of aggression carry a 1 minute aggro timer that prevents docking and jumping. If you use the transferable GCC to prevent docking and jumping (not sure you can separate these two), you will alter a lot of RR activities in low-sec. Considering that most low-sec POS bashes generate GCC's for the parties involved, the implications of preventing a GCC'd player from docking are too far-wielding to support without serious further investigation.

6.) Assuming you do agree with a multi-system patrol, having a concord chat window that updates with the name of a GCC'd player and the system they received that GCC (within your patrol area) would go a long way to enable pirate hunting. Remember, every time a station/gate gun fires on a GCC'd player, their GCC is reissued, and an update would be provided. At first, I thought this would be too much anti-pirate info, but it could easily be used to divert attention away from some pirate strike, or perhaps even lure some deputies into a trap.

7.) I think increasing the sec status penalties for deputies is the best option to "deal" with deputies that violate the rules. If they have a +5 sec status and they pod a guy, so what.... just have them take a bigger hit than a normal player.

8.) Concord Bunkers: How can an existing concord deputized alliance prevent another wanna-be-deputized alliance from shooting their control bunker to negate their deputy status? Since both have high standings, attacking each other would generate a GCC? How does an existing concord deputized alliance forfeit their deputation? I think you need a better method of deputizing alliances. Be wary though, as you want only a limited number of deputies/area, becoming a deputy should be moderately challenging, maintaining deputy status should require sustained actiivty, and deputy status needs to be removeable.... somehow.... This is non-trivial!

9.) Why are the faction warfare zones excluded?