Crime & Punishment

make incursions corp/alliance activities only ;) (meaning you need to be in a player corp, or in a temp corp for the incursions). i still love the idea of having sansha loyalists being able to contest incursion runners by forming a defence (why can people help concord but people cant help sanshas, thats racist), but im nullsec so my opinion is pretty irrelevant. but your ideas sound pretty good. good luck

So much this. If people think suicide ganking is bad now...imagine what it was like before getting CONCORDED invalidated your insurance. With a cheap fit, virtually anything you ganked made a profit. (Of course, we didn't have ABCs back then, but still.)


I agree with you in principle, it would be great to allow anti-gankers and gankers more ways to interact beyond just the former sitting around waiting on the latter waiting to hop on CONCORD killmails, or for the former to become the latter just to beat them at their own game. These are both valid options and should remain, but something else in addition to those two options would be good. But the problem is coming up with some way to enable that interaction that doesn't invalidate the protection of CONCORD. Everything that I've seen proposed in this area would turn hisec into losec and I think that's way too far.

Im ok with CONCORD being invincible and untankable, but I think that the FACPO needs to go. They dont really DO anything but prevent interaction, and are very easily avoidable with the simplest of bookmarks. All they mean is that a gank boat isnt stopping anywhere to hang out... they definitely dont prevent any ganks from taking place.

Don't the faction police serve a purpose with regard to faction warfare? If so, I presume CCP could code (no pun intended!) them to leave everyone else alone, which would certainly be an improvement over the current situation.

Soundwave was on the right track when he said he wanted to get rid of Concord entirely and replace them with player tools. Invincible NPCs are the dumbest idea since solar powered torches (for our American-speaking brethren, those would be "flashlights" that are seldom used to flash :P ). Given that this is supposed to be a player-driven universe they make even less sense here than in other games.

I beg to differ. The impression that I get is that players living in NPC corps shouldn't be able to earn the kind of living that they are while players in player corps risk more without necessarily earning much more in return. One way to fix that would be, as you suggest, allow NPC corps to be vulnerable to wardec, thus increasing their risk. But this would reduce the viability of playing in an NPC corp too far I believe. I want to make NPC corps less profitable, not less appealing. Living out your life in an NPC corp, safe from wardec and other such player entanglements, should absolutely be an option if EvE truly is a sandbox. If you eliminate that, then you make EvE less of a sandbox.

The number of options for playstyle isn't broken, the relative rewards for perusing some of them is.



See above. Being a sandbox means keeping as many options open as possible. I feel that allowing wardecs against NPC corps reduces options, which I see as bad for the sandbox. Driving players away is more a consequence of human psychology and thus harder to quantify, but reducing options is pretty much black and white.

I think allowing new players to be in an NPC corp for a limited time only may be a solution to this. There are a few options for this. Automatic player corp creation after a certain time limit (this would necessitate the removal of basic corp creation skill requirements). This could be a fixed period after character creation, or alternatively based upon time played.

Alternatively the player's tax rate could be raised to a high level after a certain time period. This would therefore allow alts that aren't engaged in missioning or trading to continue to exist in NPC corps.

Some kind of beacon going up whenever a player goes GCC would be cool. I generally don't read blogs; are we talking about invincible Concord ships, or just a new line of ships that require Concord LP to source?

If you want to incentivize criminal AND law enforcement behavior, it's really quite simple.

The reason both of those things are so binary is because the NPCs do a better job of law enforcement than players ever could. Facpo shows up faster than any player ever could, with more precision too. So long as they exist at all, criminal style players will never expose themselves, because to do so would be folly. WIthout Facpo, crime and punishment content would be more prevalent, as in it would actually exist.

Secondly, Concord being both invincible and untankable devolves the mechanic into being something extremely binary on every level. It turns highsec aggression into a simple dps race. This has the effect of making numbers the only force multiplier involved in the mechanic. Either I bring enough dudes to get the kill, or I don't and I fail. Meaning gankers are 100% incentivized to go for overkill or creative means of holding a target in place, and to use ships that are nothing but the best isk/dps ratios. Things like bumping and hyperdunking/globbing exist solely because of Concord. Therefore, Concord should be made to be tankable, with increasing damage scaled over time. Basically like gate guns, but everywhere. Further, like real life police, they should only come when called. Say that they're busy with the Drifters and can't afford to watch our asses like hawks anymore.

If that were done, then ganking someone in a larger ship becomes more than a laughable concept. If my battleship can tank Concord for longer AND I'm not getting jumped eight seconds after I undock, then I would have more possibilty than zero of actually undocking in one.

Bingo, instant content, and buttloads of it as well, for both sides. Does this suck for miners and haulers? You betcha, but their lives are too easy as it is. Something has to give if you want meaningful criminal content in highsec.

The various massive buffs to CONCORD behavior all happened as kneejerk responses to specific events that happened. They weren't measured, well thought out changes intended to deal with widespread dis-satisfaction with previous iterations of CONCORD. They were all just plugs applied to stem the flood of carebear whining when some enterprising person found a new thing to do in highsec PVP.

It's a massive jump in logic to assume that a weaker version of CONCORD would leader to a loss of subscriptions when all previous versions of CONCORD have been weaker than the current version and that the cumulative changes that lead to CONCORD being this way weren't developed holistically.

Also FACPO and faction navies are ******* terrible and need to have been removed years ago. They do literally nothing but serve to be a barriers to gameplay. FACPO prevent low sec status characters being able to do anything in a ship worth shooting at, totally eliminating any possibility for player enforcement against low sec status characters and faction navies reduce faction warfare from potentially being highly accessible, high visibility PVP content that's pervasive throughout empire space to some crap people do in lowsec in t1 frigates.

And of course, there it is.