These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

Make Concord Consistent
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dirty Forum Alt
Forum Alts Anonymous
#1 - 2016-07-29 14:29:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Dirty Forum Alt
So this idea popped into my head as a direct result of arguing on another thread, and while I did post the following here:

Dirty Forum Alt wrote:
Ironically I think CCP could rebalance this fairly easily, if they were interested in doing so - and my solution is quite counter-intuitive:

What they need to do to re-balance this equation is to simply alter the CONCORD mechanics so that there is a *fixed* delay in their deployment, based solely on the security status of the system. And make them wait for this predefined period *even if they are already on grid*.

This would give the anti-gankers a fair chance at ganking the wreck - though they would still be at a slight disadvantage due to gate guns, it wouldn't be unreasonable.

It would also have the side-effect of saving mining ship gankers the trouble of pulling concord back out of the belt between ganks - probably saving a few of their pods in the process.

In terms of game lore, they could make CONCORD warp *back out* after enforcing their punishment - which would additionally save server resources not having hundreds of them orbitting random gates anyway.



Honestly I think this would be a win-win for everybody. Am I missing anything?

I wanted to re-post it as its own thread here where it *might* get taken seriously.


Seriously - we all know the gankers pre-spawn or relocate concord before most of their ganks already to maximize their time. And having concord on grid seriously hampers any/all counter-ganking attempts anyone might want to make. Is there any reason that CONCORD shouldn't simply be made consistent for all scenarios?



Also please guys, try to stay on topic. I know you gankers and anti-gankers loathe each other and almost every thread you post in together turns into a flame war - but please try to keep this one on topic and seriously discuss this issue. If the gankers and the anti-gankers actually come together and *both* support this, CCP might actually listen.

The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal.

Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)
Dirty Forum Alt
Forum Alts Anonymous
#2 - 2016-07-29 14:50:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Dirty Forum Alt
Dracvlad wrote:
The issue is that we have on one side the Goon and PL supported Gankers, massive wealth, huge number of accounts ability to move about pick their targets, running in fast to warp ships and able to warp in and blap.

Against solo or at most two account players who are mostly not very wealthy who have an alt or two that they were applying to help for no payment at all. The issue is that while the gankers will hit freighters and loot scoop if they win, earning a huge amount of ISK, the AG will earn 0 as you pointed out. Also the numbers of AG is fairly low, there is now way we can get 10 to 15 people in toons that are acceptable to go to -10 to gank a single wreck, nor can they afford the Tornado scenario.

The wreck was placed above their ability to gank in terms of skills and ships and numbers. The Goon here keeps saying unwilling to gank the wreck but he knows full well what the AG is. I have one anti-ganking gank toon and I just do not have the ability to put him in a Tornado and nor do I have the ability to fund that Tornado to the level that the gankers do.

While your suggestion is good, we are talking about structural issues, we have the professional level highly funded hisec alliances in a very organised way making vast amounts of ISK against a small group of militia type people who largely disorganised. CCP just handed total victory to them with this change.

And what gets me is that not a single one of the AG toons doing this got anywhere near -10, they stopped it that quickly..., initially I assumed it was fear over the market collapsing if the stuff was just destroyed, but it turned out to be worse, the lazyness of gankers.

Putting this here, again as it is (slightly) less likely to be buried in flames and CCP might see it:

Balancing concord would reduce your number of needed ships to 2-3 catalysts, or 1-2 vexors. I grant you it would still be an uphill battle for you - but it is far more doable than the current scenario, and I think it is the best you are likely to ever get for this.


edit: As they say, a good compromise is one where nobody is happy, but everyone can live with the outcome.

The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal.

Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)
Caco De'mon
The Conference Elite
The Conference
#3 - 2016-07-29 14:56:41 UTC
I really just don't see what's gained....any gain for the anti-gankers will simply be countered with more ships to counter the lost time.

*"See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand."
Dirty Forum Alt
Forum Alts Anonymous
#4 - 2016-07-29 14:58:38 UTC
Caco De'mon wrote:
I really just don't see what's gained....any gain for the anti-gankers will simply be countered with more ships to counter the lost time.

You misunderstand me. I'm not talking about less time. I'm talking about more time.

I want concord to consistently *remove* themselves from the battlefield so the time is always as if they had been pulled elsewhere under the current system.


I am literally proposing a *buff* to ganking, to help the anti-gankers fight ganking - with counter-ganking.


Yes, i am aware of the irony.

The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal.

Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)
Caco De'mon
The Conference Elite
The Conference
#5 - 2016-07-29 15:18:37 UTC
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:
You misunderstand me. I'm not talking about less time. I'm talking about more time.


Humm...Need more coffee clearly.


I'm not seeing it but then again I'm strictly a solo miner-blow-er-up-er....Would I like more time? Sure! Do I need it? No.


I think if you want to address this issue, you need to look at more fundamental changes.

*"See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand."
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#6 - 2016-07-29 15:26:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
The issue is that we are not really just racing CONCORD, but more to do with the race against their loot scoopers, timing is critical, that is why they won some contests to scoop the loot, also why they managed to gank some of the wreck gankers even at 500 ehp. If we had it at around 3 Catalysts then it could be at the level that AG could do from what I have seen in their most active TZ.

15,000 EHP, assume lower skilled gank toons so 450 DPS in a 0.5 system is possible with two Catalysts, that however is 22 seconds for 19,800 EHP

You cannot be in position for the wreck because they will gank you, you have to warp in as Concord comes in, if they have positioned their loot scoopers then you really are going to have fun. I think they will have about 30 seconds, if of course they have not positioned defenders.

The biggest issue was that it was just getting started, there was limited numbers of people who were doing it and no critical mass developed, if we had this 10k SP for shooting a rat still we might have the numbers, but I can't see that the AG players could do this systematically.

If they had not closed this off so quickly and enough people had developed this then the increased EHP might have been possible to deal with, but we did not get the critical numbers to deal with such a hike in EHP. If there had been a bit longer I think it could have been possible because enough head of steam would have been there to up their game, but this is like having a stillborn baby.

No the damage was that CCP applied this change too quickly and killed it stone dead. I could try and speak to those players doing it and see what they want to do, but they stopped completely at that point.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Dirty Forum Alt
Forum Alts Anonymous
#7 - 2016-07-29 15:28:25 UTC
Caco De'mon wrote:
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:
You misunderstand me. I'm not talking about less time. I'm talking about more time.


Humm...Need more coffee clearly.


I'm not seeing it but then again I'm strictly a solo miner-blow-er-up-er....Would I like more time? Sure! Do I need it? No.


I think if you want to address this issue, you need to look at more fundamental changes.

Well as a solo miner ganker it isn't really relevant to you - you just get the buff to your ganking as an unavoidable side-effect of the change.


The benefit to the anti-gankers is more geared towards larger ganks - where loot denial or even counter-ganking of looting ships become desirable.

While they would still face the same logistical hurdles faced by all other gankers, it would give them a level playing field for counter-ganks and loot denial, without having to deal with instantaneous concord responses from the concord ships already on grid from the original gank.

The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal.

Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)
Dirty Forum Alt
Forum Alts Anonymous
#8 - 2016-07-29 15:36:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Dirty Forum Alt
Dracvlad wrote:
The issue is that we are not really just racing CONCORD, but more to do with the race against their loot scoopers, timing is critical, that is why they won some contests to scoop the loot, also why they managed to gank some of the wreck gankers even at 500 ehp. If we had it at around 3 Catalysts then it could be at the level that AG could do from what I have seen in their most active TZ.

15,000 EHP, assume lower skilled gank toons so 450 DPS in a 0.5 system is possible with two Catalysts, that however is 22 seconds for 19,800 EHP

You cannot be in position for the wreck because they will gank you, you have to warp in as Concord comes in, if they have positioned their loot scoopers then you really are going to have fun. I think they will have about 30 seconds, if of course they have not positioned defenders.

The biggest issue was that it was just getting started, there was limited numbers of people who were doing it and no critical mass developed, if we had this 10k SP for shooting a rat still we might have the numbers, but I can't see that the AG players could do this systematically.

If they had not closed this off so quickly and enough people had developed this then the increased EHP might have been possible to deal with, but we did not get the critical numbers to deal with such a hike in EHP. If there had been a bit longer I think it could have been possible because enough head of steam would have been there to up their game, but this is like having a stillborn baby.

No the damage was that CCP applied this change too quickly and killed it stone dead. I could try and speak to those players doing it and see what they want to do, but they stopped completely at that point.

I'm not saying it would make wreck ganking as easy as it used to be by any means - and I certainly understand that there are significant logistical challenges in recruiting people willing to do it and timing and numerous other areas...

But it would give you a fighting chance. An option. Even if it is difficult, it is something. EVE shouldn't be a free, safe ride for anybody. Not the Gankers, and not the Anti-Gankers.



edit: Who knows, you might get more interest than you think....and if you can pull 20-30 stealth bomber pilots it would give you a legitimate option of ganking the loot freighter directly. Even if you didn't do it often, it would give the gankers/looters something to think about.

The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal.

Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)
afk phone
Repo Industries
#9 - 2016-07-29 15:42:12 UTC
This buff only makes ganking easier and AG activities more difficult.

This is one of the most poorly disguised 'pro AG' ideas ever. It makes me kind of sad.
Dirty Forum Alt
Forum Alts Anonymous
#10 - 2016-07-29 15:45:12 UTC
afk phone wrote:
This buff only makes ganking easier and AG activities more difficult.

This is one of the most poorly disguised 'pro AG' ideas ever. It makes me kind of sad.

I think you need to re-read and think about it more carefully. As I said, it is counter-intuitive...but in this case a *buff to ganking* doesn't significantly impact ganking at all....and opens up a lot of new options for counter-ganking of ships or even wrecks.

Both sides are skeptical. I get that. But honestly I'm taking that as a *good* sign - as I say it is a compromise P

The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal.

Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)
Vortexo VonBrenner
Doomheim
#11 - 2016-07-29 15:54:51 UTC
Whether one agrees or not, a question occurs to me: OP, iirc you said you are leaving EvE when your sub runs out...why do you care what direction the game goes?



EvE security zones in pictures

EvE quick reference pdf

EvE links
Dirty Forum Alt
Forum Alts Anonymous
#12 - 2016-07-29 16:02:25 UTC
Vortexo VonBrenner wrote:
Whether one agrees or not, a question occurs to me: OP, iirc you said you are leaving EvE when your sub runs out...why do you care what direction the game goes?

Well you never know, I might break down and come back some day - same reason I'm not biomassing my characters.

Also as long as I'm paid up through Oct. 13th I may as well make some use of it....and I prefer to be productive on the forums rather than merely trolling.

Finally, I actually enjoy solving puzzles and coming up with plans/etc - one of the reasons I've enjoyed EVE (overall) for the past 8 years.



Fair question though - I get that it is a bit weird. So am I. Bear

The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal.

Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)
afk phone
Repo Industries
#13 - 2016-07-29 16:40:10 UTC
Being that the ganking side of the equation picks the time and place - delaying concord can only help them. If that were not true, none of us would know what 'pulling concord' means.

There is nothing you can do to help AG. They are defense (reactive) only. They don't have the time to answer an AG ping, log in and get to the location. They have to be there. (if they have a dude on the inside, then game mechanics really don't favor one side over the other).

AG will never be able to just log in a -10 wreck ganking character to pop wrecks when needed, so their only real option would be to continually warp gate to gate to gate (insert infinite loop here) until a gank goes down. Hmmmm..... not reasonable. One side pings in to gank and the other is locked in an infinite warp around loop until the other side shows up.

The ONLY way you can stop ganking would be to just outright prevent it. That would ruin my eve, so let's not go there. The freighter bumping change didn't nerf ganking, it just took away the 'hold him for an hour until my nails dry' scenario. It removed convenience - that is all.
Dirty Forum Alt
Forum Alts Anonymous
#14 - 2016-07-29 16:47:03 UTC
afk phone wrote:
Being that the ganking side of the equation picks the time and place - delaying concord can only help them. If that were not true, none of us would know what 'pulling concord' means.

There is nothing you can do to help AG. They are defense (reactive) only. They don't have the time to answer an AG ping, log in and get to the location. They have to be there. (if they have a dude on the inside, then game mechanics really don't favor one side over the other).

AG will never be able to just log in a -10 wreck ganking character to pop wrecks when needed, so their only real option would be to continually warp gate to gate to gate (insert infinite loop here) until a gank goes down. Hmmmm..... not reasonable. One side pings in to gank and the other is locked in an infinite warp around loop until the other side shows up.

The ONLY way you can stop ganking would be to just outright prevent it. That would ruin my eve, so let's not go there. The freighter bumping change didn't nerf ganking, it just took away the 'hold him for an hour until my nails dry' scenario. It removed convenience - that is all.

You have some good points, and again I never said it would be easy, merely a fighting chance if they are interested in putting the effort into it.

However I will dispute your first statement:

afk phone wrote:
Being that the ganking side of the equation picks the time and place - delaying concord can only help them. If that were not true, none of us would know what 'pulling concord' means.

You can only pull concord if you are the one picking the time and place - and the gankers do it every single time.

So yeah, my change saves them 1 rookie ship loss to pull concord....but it gives the anti-gankers the equivalent of pulled concord *without* being able to pick the time and place to actually pull concord. See what I'm saying?

The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal.

Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#15 - 2016-07-29 19:36:49 UTC
Yay a buff to ganking thread!

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#16 - 2016-07-29 19:46:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
To make a clarifying point. I think what Dirty Forum Alt is suggesting is that CONCORD's response time is fixed in all instances.

So, no change to CONCORD response times based on system security level.

You'd still get that fast response in a 1.0 system which drops as the systems security status drops. So for example, lets use the following numbers.

System Sec Leve: 1 CONCORD response time: 2 seconds
System Sec Leve: 0.9 CONCORD response time: 3 seconds
System Sec Leve: 0.8 CONCORD response time: 5 seconds
System Sec Leve: 0.7 CONCORD response time: 9 seconds
System Sec Leve: 0.6 CONCORD response time: 13 seconds
System Sec Leve: 0.5 CONCORD response time: 18 seconds

Now, what Dirty Forum Alt is suggesting is that those times apply EVEN IF CONCORD IS ALREADY ON GRID.

Currently if CONCORD is on grid, they will respond much, much faster in the 0.5 system which is why gankers will "pull CONCORD".

This would give AG more time to gank wrecks.

HOWEVER, it would also be a buff to ganking in that no more pulling CONCORD.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#17 - 2016-07-29 20:06:57 UTC
Actually a better solution is to remove concord spawns utterly, and just make it a 'remote self destruct'.

This also eliminates any lag caused by mass spawning of concord, and helps immersion since it makes concord less an overpowered fleet of doom with 5,000 battleships spawned across high sec, and more a small force with a few neat tricks to help combat the overpowering nature of capsuleers.

This has the same effect of this proposal, but also solves things like smart bombing lag from so many spawns, so comes out ahead overall.
Dirty Forum Alt
Forum Alts Anonymous
#18 - 2016-07-29 20:18:39 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
To make a clarifying point. I think what Dirty Forum Alt is suggesting is that CONCORD's response time if fixed in all instances.

So, no change to CONCORD response times based on system security level.

You'd still get that fast response in a 1.0 system which drops as the systems security status drops. So for example, lets use the following numbers.

System Sec Leve: 1 CONCORD response time: 2 seconds
System Sec Leve: 0.9 CONCORD response time: 3 seconds
System Sec Leve: 0.8 CONCORD response time: 5 seconds
System Sec Leve: 0.7 CONCORD response time: 9 seconds
System Sec Leve: 0.6 CONCORD response time: 13 seconds
System Sec Leve: 0.5 CONCORD response time: 18 seconds

Now, what Dirty Forum Alt is suggesting is that those times apply EVEN IF CONCORD IS ALREADY ON GRID.

Currently if CONCORD is on grid, they will respond much, much faster in the 0.5 system which is why gankers will "pull CONCORD".

This would give AG more time to gank wrecks.

HOWEVER, it would also be a buff to ganking in that no more pulling CONCORD.

Correct ^^

The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal.

Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)
Dirty Forum Alt
Forum Alts Anonymous
#19 - 2016-07-29 20:19:25 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Actually a better solution is to remove concord spawns utterly, and just make it a 'remote self destruct'.

This also eliminates any lag caused by mass spawning of concord, and helps immersion since it makes concord less an overpowered fleet of doom with 5,000 battleships spawned across high sec, and more a small force with a few neat tricks to help combat the overpowering nature of capsuleers.

This has the same effect of this proposal, but also solves things like smart bombing lag from so many spawns, so comes out ahead overall.

I would be fine with that as well....but honestly I think some people in and out of CCP like the concept of the galactic police force CONCORD coming to punish the evil-doers...so I think it is less likely to be implemented any time soon.

The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal.

Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#20 - 2016-07-30 14:27:06 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Actually a better solution is to remove concord spawns utterly, and just make it a 'remote self destruct'.

This also eliminates any lag caused by mass spawning of concord, and helps immersion since it makes concord less an overpowered fleet of doom with 5,000 battleships spawned across high sec, and more a small force with a few neat tricks to help combat the overpowering nature of capsuleers.

This has the same effect of this proposal, but also solves things like smart bombing lag from so many spawns, so comes out ahead overall.

Very GOD like simply reach out over time and space and smite those who are evil and be done with it.
I rather like the idea from a lag reduction point of view, wondering what those steeped in the immersion factor of the game might think when they get blown up by nothing.
123Next pageLast page