These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Make Concord Vulnerable to Make HiSec Better
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Quihote
Derp Company
Get Off My Lawn
#1 - 2016-09-19 17:14:27 UTC
HiSec systems with a security rating of 0.8 or higher will prevent PVP actions until Concord is attacked and beaten back. There would be beacons, or Concord checkpoints, containing ships from frigates to battleships that would need to be cleared. Concord's strength would be scaled back from what it is today but would still require a highly concentrated effort from players to push them back. Once Concord is suppressed, the system becomes a 0.0 (TempNull) security system for 60 minutes. Lawlessness takes over and resources in system (e.g. belts, anomalies) improve to mirror those in NullSec but with limits such as no escalations.

After the 30 minute suppression window is over, Concord returns to expel any hostile players but Concord can still be pushed back. The cycle repeats all day but each time Concord regroups, they come back with tougher tanks and deal more DPS. Once players initiate an attack on Concord, they have 30 minutes to clear all Concord ships from system before Concord reinforcements arrive. A failed attack on Concord generates 20% more checkpoints in the system.

Concord ships will drop modules with the following chances: T1 - 85%; T2 - 10%; faction - 3%; officer - 1%; low-grade implants - 0.8%; high-grade implants - 0.2%.

Concord salvage will be 90% T1, 10% T2.

When players attack Concord, they will receive criminal flags and will take a 0.1 security standing hit, capped at a 2-point security standing loss each day. Players with criminal flags can be attacked by other players and will gain Concord LP for assisting Concord. The LP payout will be determined by the size and tier of the ship destroyed. (E.g. Stabber - 250 LP, Stabber Fleet Issue - 350 LP, Vagabond, 450 LP).

Cynos would be allowed in TempNull systems. If there are any non-tethered or undocked capital ships in system when the security rating changes back to 0.8+, they will be flagged as criminal and will be attacked by Concord.

This system would draw pilots that may want to create a short cut for capital migrations. HighSec bears would have the choice of trading income for security. Gankers would have the opportunity to create a lawless space.

Constructive thoughts?
Hesod Adee
Perkone
Caldari State
#2 - 2016-09-19 17:25:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Hesod Adee
Who exactly is this change for ?

The people who want protection from gankers won't go there because they don't want to be there when system becomes temporary nullsec.

Gankers won't go to that system because they go where their victims are.

People who want nullsec content are already in nullsec. They won't come to highsec for temporary nullsec.

So all you have left is nullsec players coming in and stomping all over high sec as they are passing through. Would it even save them any travel time ?
Isaac Armer
The Soup Kitchen
#3 - 2016-09-19 17:46:09 UTC
why?
Christopher Mabata
Northern Accounts and Systems
#4 - 2016-09-19 18:01:11 UTC
Everytime this idea comes up of attacking CONCORD it gets shot down, theres a reason they exist and CCP intend to keep them there.

INB4 ISD Threadlock for redundancy

♣ Small Gang PVP, Large Fleet PVP, Black Ops, Incursions, Trade, and Industry ♣ 70% Lethal / 30% Super-Snuggly / 110% No idea what im doing ♣

This Message Brought to you by a sweet and sour bittervet
Black Pedro
Mine.
#5 - 2016-09-19 18:09:18 UTC
Wouldn't this "prevent PVP actions" ability you are giving CONCORD break one of the core ideas of the game - that you are never 100% safe? Wouldn't players just flock to >=0.8 systems and fly invulnerable max-yield mining and missioning ships with no danger of loss, at least until they got a warning that the 'CONCORD beacons' or whatever were offline and then docked up or moved a system over to avoid PvP?

And why would pirates want to shoot NPCs anyway instead of other players?

All-in-all this seems a convoluted mess that favours players interacting with and shooting NPCs, rather than the player-player interactions that CCP is trying to promote. Maybe there is some system somewhere in which CONCORD isn't the magical, omnipotent space police, but this isn't it, so -1.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#6 - 2016-09-19 18:59:54 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Maybe there is some system somewhere in which CONCORD isn't the magical, omnipotent space police, but this isn't it, so -1.

Begs the question why they should not be magical omnipotent in the first place. The game consists of 4/7 Null sec space, 1/7 low sec space and maybe 2/7 high sec space. There is already more than enough space available for unrestricted. player-driven, player-controlled activities. And most of this space is empty or barely used (not that I mind my personal system in Null sec without having to pay rent, don't get me wrong.). What this idea creates is a playground for people who like to victimize others as well as even more of that empty space. Seems very counter intuitive to me to create more barely used vacuum. Instead of this kind of garbage, CCP should find ways to make Low and Null sec more interesting so that people want to move out of High sec, not come back to high sec to turn it into the same garbage filled wasteland they came from.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#7 - 2016-09-19 19:52:42 UTC
Concord should just become a remote self destruct system. Not actual ships that spawn.
This both removes the argument that they should be vulnerable & the spawn lag when you use smart bombs or the like in a crowded space.

However as for your idea and what it would create, research MOO & the great blockade. And now realise that there are groups in EVE with thousands of times the resources who have similar temperaments. Especially with them dropping officer mods & the like it would be a farm.
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#8 - 2016-09-20 05:35:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Zan Shiro
Quihote wrote:

Cynos would be allowed in TempNull systems. If there are any non-tethered or undocked capital ships in system when the security rating changes back to 0.8+, they will be flagged as criminal and will be attacked by Concord.



Why? game currently does allow for the support of caps in empire space. With restrictions. That cap/super doesn't shoot another person, its all good. want to mine in a cap....go right ahead. CCP has been lucky here. PLayers don't mind (seems so anyway) when the GM on petition made a mistake and spawned cap reimbursement in empire.

And to keep up their end of the bargain (and to not lose a nice prize to sell since empire caps when sold have sold for a few isk) empire cap owners don't go shooting people.

How would ccp differentiate between a sanctioned and known cap in empire from one stranded the other issue. Not seeing CCP go down the roster of known empire caps to give them a special bit value stat set to do not concord.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#9 - 2016-09-20 06:26:09 UTC
So you want M0o back?
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#10 - 2016-09-20 13:08:28 UTC
Going a little off the wall here with the response but what the hell it makes as much sense as the OP.

OP if you are looking for a PvP content driver perhaps we need to turn your idea around a bit.
The more PvE (read farming for ISK / LP) there is the higher the sec status would go, once it reaches the magic threshold of .05 Concord moves in and takes control. Image that a game system that actually REQUIRES people to shoot others in the face just so they have the right to shoot others without Concord intervention. A game system that requires players to shoot each other in the face to prevent losing their cushy nul sec homeland to the empires.

I understand the whole not safe anywhere thingy, and I understand that means PvP in high sec and I am OK with that but still.
One has to wonder, if all the people like the OP that want to turn high sec into a PvP playground actually went to the PvP playgrounds we already have what would those areas be like? How many others would be there for you to shoot in the face?
Old Pervert
Perkone
Caldari State
#11 - 2016-09-21 01:25:05 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Concord should just become a remote self destruct system. Not actual ships that spawn.
This both removes the argument that they should be vulnerable & the spawn lag when you use smart bombs or the like in a crowded space.



GIant XL cruise missiles with warp drives, that move at about 30km/s, have a blast radius of 5 meters and a blast velocity of 50km/s.

You'd get to watch that puppy land on grid and come sailing toward you from say... 100km out. Impending doom in 3... 2... 1...

That is of course if a change is needed. It isn't. But if they were to change concord that's what I'd want. Gankers would have a bit of time to gank, and then the rest of us would get a good light show.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#12 - 2016-09-21 01:45:31 UTC
Old Pervert wrote:


GIant XL cruise missiles with warp drives, that move at about 30km/s, have a blast radius of 5 meters and a blast velocity of 50km/s.

You'd get to watch that puppy land on grid and come sailing toward you from say... 100km out. Impending doom in 3... 2... 1...

That is of course if a change is needed. It isn't. But if they were to change concord that's what I'd want. Gankers would have a bit of time to gank, and then the rest of us would get a good light show.

Except then why don't they use the technology to destroy every other threat also. Which is part of the problem with concord as they are now. And it still causes spawn lag.
And also watch someone work out how to tank it and then screw Jita over for 24 hours at least.

Hence the point behind the remote self destruct of our ships. They don't have mystical unbeatable technology then. They just have a hardwired built in override switch. Which if you tamper with (ala hacking the game to evade concord) they revoke your pod license (ala ban). Simple reasonable technology (Though people will complain that they aren't the special snowflake who can evade it and not be detected)
And it causes no additional entities to appear on grid, which means no sudden lag spikes from spawning NPC's.
Tabyll Altol
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#13 - 2016-09-21 12:28:53 UTC
Quihote wrote:
HiSec systems with a security rating of 0.8 or higher will prevent PVP actions until Concord is attacked and beaten back. There would be beacons, or Concord checkpoints, containing ships from frigates to battleships that would need to be cleared. Concord's strength would be scaled back from what it is today but would still require a highly concentrated effort from players to push them back. Once Concord is suppressed, the system becomes a 0.0 (TempNull) security system for 60 minutes. Lawlessness takes over and resources in system (e.g. belts, anomalies) improve to mirror those in NullSec but with limits such as no escalations.

After the 30 minute suppression window is over, Concord returns to expel any hostile players but Concord can still be pushed back. The cycle repeats all day but each time Concord regroups, they come back with tougher tanks and deal more DPS. Once players initiate an attack on Concord, they have 30 minutes to clear all Concord ships from system before Concord reinforcements arrive. A failed attack on Concord generates 20% more checkpoints in the system.

Concord ships will drop modules with the following chances: T1 - 85%; T2 - 10%; faction - 3%; officer - 1%; low-grade implants - 0.8%; high-grade implants - 0.2%.

Concord salvage will be 90% T1, 10% T2.

When players attack Concord, they will receive criminal flags and will take a 0.1 security standing hit, capped at a 2-point security standing loss each day. Players with criminal flags can be attacked by other players and will gain Concord LP for assisting Concord. The LP payout will be determined by the size and tier of the ship destroyed. (E.g. Stabber - 250 LP, Stabber Fleet Issue - 350 LP, Vagabond, 450 LP).

Cynos would be allowed in TempNull systems. If there are any non-tethered or undocked capital ships in system when the security rating changes back to 0.8+, they will be flagged as criminal and will be attacked by Concord.

This system would draw pilots that may want to create a short cut for capital migrations. HighSec bears would have the choice of trading income for security. Gankers would have the opportunity to create a lawless space.

Constructive thoughts?


How would this improve Highsec ?

-1