These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

My Views On Hisec - CSM Platform

First post
Author
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#301 - 2015-09-08 13:14:11 UTC
Regarding FacPo & CONCORD:

I'd be okay with eliminating FacPo response to simply undocking in hisec with low sec status. Strictly speaking, it doesn't serve to protect anyone it only serves to limit the behavior of folks who's security status is too low. Some people may complain about taking away a punishment for low security status, but FacPo is generally more of a nuisance than a punishment once you learn how to deal with them so I don't think this should be a huge concern. The benefit here is driving player content as opposed to NPC content. With FacPo weakened or eliminated, criminals would be more likely to fly bigger ships in hisec, thus making it potentially easier for White Knights to track them down and engage them before CONCORD arrives.

I'm going to admit my own ignorance here for a moment and ask a question: if someone engages a -10 player in hisec, thus earning both players a limited engagement, can the -10 player retaliate without provoking CONCORD? If this is the case, then removing FacPo could open up a whole new world to folks who want to cruise around looking for fights: simply undock in hisec as a -10 and wait for folks to attack you. Talk about content! If this is not the case...why the heck isn't it?

As for CONCORD, I think it should be left as it is (i.e. untankable, unescapable NPCs, or UUNs) for now. One of the core dynamics of hisec is that if you criminally aggress someone, CONCORD relieves you of your vessel in very short order. This would be an awfully huge change to make (or, strictly speaking, un-make) and I'd like to consider other issues first, but I'm open to ideas. I think mechanics that allow players to more easily assist CONCORD would be fabulous though.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

admiral root
Red Galaxy
#302 - 2015-09-08 13:20:42 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
I'm going to admit my own ignorance here for a moment and ask a question: if someone engages a -10 player in hisec, thus earning both players a limited engagement, can the -10 player retaliate without provoking CONCORD?


As you're not posting in GD I think we can allow you to admit not knowing. :)

Yes, once someone engages a -10 player they can return fire without invoking a Concord response.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#303 - 2015-09-08 13:28:08 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
I'm going to admit my own ignorance here for a moment and ask a question: if someone engages a -10 player in hisec, thus earning both players a limited engagement, can the -10 player retaliate without provoking CONCORD?


As you're not posting in GD I think we can allow you to admit not knowing. :)

Yes, once someone engages a -10 player they can return fire without invoking a Concord response.

I'd rather admit my ignorance up front and ask than feign knowledge and prove my ignorance in a humiliating fashion.

Thanks.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#304 - 2015-09-08 16:37:30 UTC
Funfact: When CCP Greyscale originally proposed Crimewatch the system he had in mind was one in which neither suspect flagged characters nor low sec status characters would have been able to shoot back. When this was met with widespread criticism from basically everyone limited engagements were born.

CCP Greyscale was the kind of developer that the CSM exists to protect the playerbase from.
Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#305 - 2015-09-08 16:42:31 UTC
I agree that removing FacPo response to low sec status characters would be very cool for everyone involved. Low Sec Status players would still be free to shoot at, and you can gang up on them (as long as everyone shoots the same criminal, only one criminal can shoot back at a time without invoking Concord).

Without the imminent threat of FacPo gank fleets would be much more likely to sit in space while waiting for the perfect warpin (rather than warping around like they do right now) creating an opportunity for White Knight fleets to scan them down, land in the middle of them and start blapping nerds left right and center. I'd have to ask a White Knight, but I suspect that actually hunting us and killing us would be more entertaining than sitting on gates in logi boats wondering if we're actually going to gank this freighter that's being bumped or if, once again, it's a distraction and our actual target is in different system.

I don't think I can agree with nerfing Concord, not without serious changes to High Sec that I don't see happening for a very long time. I think nerfing Concord and putting more power in the hands of players would be an amazing change for Eve, but I don't think the game is ready for that right now, it would currently only break the game.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#306 - 2015-09-08 17:04:33 UTC
I think that incursions should affect concord response times.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#307 - 2015-09-08 17:14:31 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
I think that incursions should affect concord response times.

Now THAT is a fascinating idea. Keep the UUN (Unescapable, Untankable NPCs) nature of CONCORD, but delay their response times slightly where an Incursion is active. Fits the lore, adds some additional risk to balance the obscene income potential, and never impacts any one region of hisec for very long.

I like it. Have the additional delay start off at some base amount (10%? 15%? 20%? I think more than that would be excessive) and then decrease linearly as Sansha control decreases, until it is zero when Sansha influence is minimum.

Imagine Amarr and Jita when incursions hit The Throne Worlds and Kimotoro....

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#308 - 2015-09-08 17:53:14 UTC
CONCORD responses are fast enough that I think you could increase them by 100% without impacting gameplay in a substantial way. 10 or 20 percent is less than the difference between systems of different sec status.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#309 - 2015-09-08 17:55:43 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
CONCORD responses are fast enough that I think you could increase them by 100% without impacting gameplay in a substantial way. 10 or 20 percent is less than the difference between systems of different sec status.


That's because response times were buffed some years back, probably because of carebear complaints. +1 for reversing that, at least partially, in incursion systems.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#310 - 2015-09-08 17:59:15 UTC
So double response time when Sansha have full control, and it scales towards normal at Sansha having no control. That would be blast. And it's not like it doesn't make sense either.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#311 - 2015-09-08 18:06:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Bronson Hughes
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
CONCORD responses are fast enough that I think you could increase them by 100% without impacting gameplay in a substantial way. 10 or 20 percent is less than the difference between systems of different sec status.


Tengu Grib wrote:
So double response time when Sansha have full control, and it scales towards normal at Sansha having no control. That would be blast. And it's not like it doesn't make sense either.

Baby steps. I want to get elected to the CSM, not run out of New Eden by the Incursion Running community. Blink


Although, thinking about it, coupling this with removing FacPo may be a White Knight's dream. Incursion gates would make a great choke point for a bunch of flashy battleships to get ganked by WKs.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#312 - 2015-09-08 19:01:45 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Baby steps. I want to get elected to the CSM, not run out of New Eden by the Incursion Running community. Blink


The incursion running "community" is inherently going to be against any candidate that is even remotely pro-highsec PVP because they are either massive carebears or alts of people whose mains reside in other types of space that want their isk grinding alts to be safe.

Those people won't support you unless you're either in favor of buffing incursions or are anti-highsec PVP. Your best bet is just to keep quiet about it, get elected then continuously mention it to CCP in private without ever saying anything about it in public ever again.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#313 - 2015-09-08 19:06:08 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Baby steps. I want to get elected to the CSM, not run out of New Eden by the Incursion Running community. Blink


The incursion running "community" is inherently going to be against any candidate that is even remotely pro-highsec PVP because they are either massive carebears or alts of people whose mains reside in other types of space that want their isk grinding alts to be safe.

Those people won't support you unless you're either in favor of buffing incursions or are anti-highsec PVP. Your best bet is just to keep quiet about it, get elected then continuously mention it to CCP in private without ever saying anything about it in public ever again.

That was meant as mainly tongue-in-cheek. I'm aware of just how much support I can realistically expect from hisec PvE communities.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Estella Osoka
Perkone
Caldari State
#314 - 2015-09-08 20:43:48 UTC
Any change to FacPo would possibly affect the FW player-base.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#315 - 2015-09-08 21:10:12 UTC
Estella Osoka wrote:
Any change to FacPo would possibly affect the FW player-base.

Faction Police and Faction Navies are two different things. The former respond to criminals, the latter respond to "enemies of the empire" based on your standings/FW status.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#316 - 2015-09-09 04:27:22 UTC
Faction navies are the reason casual highsec PVPers join marmite instead of joining faction warfare.
Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#317 - 2015-09-09 10:12:58 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Faction navies are the reason casual highsec PVPers join marmite instead of joining faction warfare.

THIS

Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment

Noragens basically the Chribba of C&P - Zimmy Zeta

Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop

ISD Buldath favorite ISD

'"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King Griffin

Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#318 - 2015-09-09 11:02:22 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:

Mittens will be ruling the galaxy from Jita within a few days, I imagine.


Roll

And of course, there it is.


I wouldn't care that much. Mittens seems like a cool dude. But he heads up the biggest, best organized blob in EVE and thus would be best positioned to become King of Highsec if CONCORD were changed to something that could be neutralized with sufficient resources.

I'm sure he'd keep James on as minister of something or other.

I swear I remember reading somewhere that CONCORD was made invincible after a group of players was able to basically perma-tank CONCORD, take over a highsec trade hub and kill everything that moved. Maybe someone here was around when that happened? Seems like it would just happen again.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#319 - 2015-09-09 11:13:21 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
I swear I remember reading somewhere that CONCORD was made invincible after a group of players was able to basically perma-tank CONCORD, take over a highsec trade hub and kill everything that moved. Maybe someone here was around when that happened? Seems like it would just happen again.


That would be awesome fun. It'd be even more fun if the whinebears put down their pitchforks and undocked to do something about it. After all, they outnumber us by tens of thousands.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#320 - 2015-09-09 12:45:53 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
I swear I remember reading somewhere that CONCORD was made invincible after a group of players was able to basically perma-tank CONCORD, take over a highsec trade hub and kill everything that moved. Maybe someone here was around when that happened? Seems like it would just happen again.


That would be awesome fun. It'd be even more fun if the whinebears put down their pitchforks and undocked to do something about it. After all, they outnumber us by tens of thousands.


There's scarcely more than thirty thousand people logged in at a given time, and over half of those are alts.