These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CONCORD, lowsec, and the hunted
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
TheBreadMuncher
Protus Correction Facility Inc.
#41 - 2012-09-23 11:09:40 UTC
Lots of people here seem to be stupid.

The OP isn't asking for no punishment from CONCORD, merely for the ability to escape CONCORD. Which should be very difficult but also possible, because it adds a dynamic to crime in the game. The current system of Lock+F1+BlueFlash+ScoopLoot isn't particularly interesting past the rush of making a mining barge asplode. The ability to be a genuine criminal and do some awesome getaways would be brilliant.

"We will create the introduction thread if that is requested by the community. Also, we will have an ISD Seminar about the CCL team in the coming weeks in which you can ask your questions about the CCL team and provide some constructive feedback to us." - Countless pages of locked threads and numerous permabanned accounts later, change is coming.
Pipa Porto
#42 - 2012-09-23 11:15:50 UTC
TheBreadMuncher wrote:
Lots of people here seem to be stupid.

The OP isn't asking for no punishment from CONCORD, merely for the ability to escape CONCORD. Which should be very difficult but also possible, because it adds a dynamic to crime in the game. The current system of Lock+F1+BlueFlash+ScoopLoot isn't particularly interesting past the rush of making a mining barge asplode. The ability to be a genuine criminal and do some awesome getaways would be brilliant.


And our point is that if it's possible due to skill rather than something like "CONCORD insta-gibs you 50% of the time instead of 100%," people will learn to do it every time.

Instead of "Lock+F1+BlueFlash+ScoopLoot," you'd have " Lock+F1+RedExplosion*+ScoopLoot" or similar.

*Cyno Jump effect

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
TheBreadMuncher
Protus Correction Facility Inc.
#43 - 2012-09-23 11:20:59 UTC  |  Edited by: TheBreadMuncher
Pipa Porto wrote:
And our point is that if it's possible due to skill rather than something like "CONCORD insta-gibs you 50% of the time instead of 100%," people will learn to do it every time.

Instead of "Lock+F1+BlueFlash+ScoopLoot," you'd have " Lock+F1+RedExplosion*+ScoopLoot" or similar.

*Cyno Jump effect


You seem to be stalking me and shooting my stuff down today.

And so what if people learn to do it every time? That's through player proficiency more than anything. Surely it's the same as earning trillions of isk per month through tech moons? Slightly gamebreaking, but because it came through work and effort it's fine? The OP does not mention BLOPS jumps, he talks about awesome chases through highsec systems. Why not implement a system where you can't simply jump out from a cyno when GCC'd but instead have to leeroy through gates?

"We will create the introduction thread if that is requested by the community. Also, we will have an ISD Seminar about the CCL team in the coming weeks in which you can ask your questions about the CCL team and provide some constructive feedback to us." - Countless pages of locked threads and numerous permabanned accounts later, change is coming.
Pipa Porto
#44 - 2012-09-23 11:25:27 UTC
TheBreadMuncher wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
And our point is that if it's possible due to skill rather than something like "CONCORD insta-gibs you 50% of the time instead of 100%," people will learn to do it every time.

Instead of "Lock+F1+BlueFlash+ScoopLoot," you'd have " Lock+F1+RedExplosion*+ScoopLoot" or similar.

*Cyno Jump effect


You seem to be stalking me and shooting my stuff down today.

And so what if people learn to do it every time? That's through player proficiency more than anything. Surely it's the same as earning trillions of isk per month through tech moons? Slightly gamebreaking, but because it came through work and effort it's fine? The OP does not mention BLOPS jumps, he talks about awesome chases through highsec systems. Why not implement a system where you can't simply jump out from a cyno when GCC'd but instead have to leeroy through gates?


If people learn to do it every time, no matter what that process is, the cost of Suicide Ganking drops to zero. That means aggression in HS no longer comes at a cost. That means HS becomes essentially no different from LS.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
TheBreadMuncher
Protus Correction Facility Inc.
#45 - 2012-09-23 11:29:06 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
If people learn to do it every time, no matter what that process is, the cost of Suicide Ganking drops to zero. That means aggression in HS no longer comes at a cost. That means HS becomes essentially no different from LS.


Sure, and I'm sure if everybody is doing it every time, then people will learn to adapt. Darwinism would easily be applicable in this scenario, much the same as in any kind of sec. Aggression always comes with a cost, which in this case could be reduced sec status gain from ratting and increased sec status loss from the gank and escape. Besides, nobody said evading concord should be easy.

"We will create the introduction thread if that is requested by the community. Also, we will have an ISD Seminar about the CCL team in the coming weeks in which you can ask your questions about the CCL team and provide some constructive feedback to us." - Countless pages of locked threads and numerous permabanned accounts later, change is coming.
Pipa Porto
#46 - 2012-09-23 11:52:51 UTC
TheBreadMuncher wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
If people learn to do it every time, no matter what that process is, the cost of Suicide Ganking drops to zero. That means aggression in HS no longer comes at a cost. That means HS becomes essentially no different from LS.


Sure, and I'm sure if everybody is doing it every time, then people will learn to adapt. Darwinism would easily be applicable in this scenario, much the same as in any kind of sec. Aggression always comes with a cost, which in this case could be reduced sec status gain from ratting and increased sec status loss from the gank and escape. Besides, nobody said evading concord should be easy.


1. You don't need to rat up your Sec status to go ganking. Or did you not read my "How to BLOPs Gank" guide?
2. What cost would ganking and running impose on an Outlaw who knew the mechanics?
3. If it's possible and non-random, people will do it every time. If it's random, it makes for a pretty ****** story ("And the RNG liked me, so I got to keep my ship")
4. How do you adapt a Freighter to a free aggression, high population environment? (Think OMS, Tama, or Ammamake, but everywhere and no possibility of becoming friendly with the residents).
5. Cost, in this case, is not referring to any risk of loss to other players, but to mechanically enforced costs by the way.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
TheBreadMuncher
Protus Correction Facility Inc.
#47 - 2012-09-23 12:00:46 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
1. You don't need to rat up your Sec status to go ganking. Or did you not read my "How to BLOPs Gank" guide?
2. What cost would ganking and running impose on an Outlaw who knew the mechanics?
3. If it's possible and non-random, people will do it every time. If it's random, it makes for a pretty ****** story ("And the RNG liked me, so I got to keep my ship")
4. How do you adapt a Freighter to a free aggression, high population environment? (Think OMS, Tama, or Ammamake, but everywhere and no possibility of becoming friendly with the residents).
5. Cost, in this case, is not referring to any risk of loss to other players, but to mechanically enforced costs by the way.


1. You shouldn't be able to use BLOPS jumps while GCC'd in high. Or did you not read my second last post fully?
2. An inability to visit major hubs, having to circumvent highsec entirely, yadda yadda...
3. Who said anything about random..?
4. Scouting ahead. Check the gates for big groups of panthers before jumping through 'em - it should be a dead giveaway.
5. Taking away the ability to use jump drives means that there is indeed a risk of incurring a loss.

"We will create the introduction thread if that is requested by the community. Also, we will have an ISD Seminar about the CCL team in the coming weeks in which you can ask your questions about the CCL team and provide some constructive feedback to us." - Countless pages of locked threads and numerous permabanned accounts later, change is coming.
Gillia Winddancer
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2012-09-23 12:18:29 UTC
CONCORD limits EVE.

'nuff said.
Pipa Porto
#49 - 2012-09-23 12:21:22 UTC
TheBreadMuncher wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
1. You don't need to rat up your Sec status to go ganking. Or did you not read my "How to BLOPs Gank" guide?
2. What cost would ganking and running impose on an Outlaw who knew the mechanics?
3. If it's possible and non-random, people will do it every time. If it's random, it makes for a pretty ****** story ("And the RNG liked me, so I got to keep my ship")
4. How do you adapt a Freighter to a free aggression, high population environment? (Think OMS, Tama, or Ammamake, but everywhere and no possibility of becoming friendly with the residents).
5. Cost, in this case, is not referring to any risk of loss to other players, but to mechanically enforced costs by the way.


1. You shouldn't be able to use BLOPS jumps while GCC'd in high. Or did you not read my second last post fully?
2. An inability to visit major hubs, having to circumvent highsec entirely, yadda yadda...
3. Who said anything about random..?
4. Scouting ahead. Check the gates for big groups of panthers before jumping through 'em - it should be a dead giveaway.
5. Taking away the ability to use jump drives means that there is indeed a risk of incurring a loss.


1. Sitting next to your gank ship or sitting logged off(the reason there's no need to rat to gank) works for any gank ship. Try to keep up.
2. How does a low Sec status impose any of those costs? And Sec Status hits is the cost of LS aggression, not HS aggression.
3. It's either non-random (i.e. skill based) and I'll be able to do it every time, or it's random and the "cool story" is gone.
4. So scout every system for logged off Gank ships... wait... I think there may be a problem with that plan. Since there's no need to scan targets (as your cost is [Ammo]), you have your bump Mach cloaked near the gate and your Gank ships logged off in a safe.
5. As I said, if it's possible and non-random, people will do it every time.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
TharOkha
0asis Group
#50 - 2012-09-23 12:31:03 UTC
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
CONCORD limits EVE.

'nuff said.



CONCORD limits high-sec. Thats why we call it HIGH-SEC Roll

CODE. Venture hunt contest in a nutshell
Gillia Winddancer
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#51 - 2012-09-23 12:35:05 UTC
TharOkha wrote:
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
CONCORD limits EVE.

'nuff said.



CONCORD limits high-sec. Thats why we call it HIGH-SEC Roll


Well, yes, but now I am talking about the game as a whole here. Even if there technically isn't really any difference I guess.
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#52 - 2012-09-23 13:27:21 UTC  |  Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2
TheBreadMuncher wrote:
Lots of people here seem to be stupid.

The OP isn't asking for no punishment from CONCORD, merely for the ability to escape CONCORD. Which should be very difficult but also possible, because it adds a dynamic to crime in the game. The current system of Lock+F1+BlueFlash+ScoopLoot isn't particularly interesting past the rush of making a mining barge asplode. The ability to be a genuine criminal and do some awesome getaways would be brilliant.

Once techniques get into place, there will be no such thing as "very difficult". Once loop holes are found, everyone and their dogs rushes to use these techniques and the OP's story becomes common ground. And the rare stories become "silly me, I couldn't escape CONCORD haha!".

I would actually be OK with escaping CONCORD as a truly highly difficult event that could only happen with extremely high skill and luck (and without it being an exploit). But I've been playing this game long enough to realize that is not how it will turn out to be.

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#53 - 2012-09-23 14:21:20 UTC
TharOkha wrote:
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
CONCORD limits EVE.

'nuff said.
CONCORD limits high-sec. Thats why we call it HIGH-SEC Roll
“Limits” is the wrong word.
CONCORD defines highsec.

Without the enforced cost that CONCORD creates, highsec no longer exists. It becomes macaroni cheese without any pasta or dairy. This suggestion turns highsec into lowsec with slightly more aggressive station and gate guns, and it does it for no good reason. If people wanted the thrill of the chase, a proper bounty-hunting system could do that without removing highsec. If they wanted to be chased by NPCs, they could try going -10 and flying through highsec in plated battleships.

If they truly want to be chased by CONCORD (why?!) and have a chance of escaping, then the enforced cost needs to be remade so that aggression still costs as much in some other way — it cannot be removed. This would entail a mechanic such as the previously mentioned “GCC = the newfangled estimated cost of your ship and fittings is automatically deducted from your wallet; negative wallet = the character suffers final death”.
Shirley Serious
Gutter Press
#54 - 2012-09-23 14:44:11 UTC
If there is a way to evade Concord in highsec, then some players will:

Have an observer in the rookie systems, cargoscanning new players, watching for the ones with mission items for the tutorial missions that involve couriering an item.
Have a gank ship in the system next to the rookie system. When the new player jumps in, carrying their mission item, the gank ship will attack. The new player's ship is destroyed, and the mission item lost, or stolen.
(Argument here, is that it's "not in the rookie system, so not protected", to avoid the prohibition on harassing new players in the rookie system).
Then using whatever method, evade Concord.

This has the result of allowing some players to destroy new players before they finish the tutorial, preventing them from completing it. This would tend to reduce player recruitment, and also hugely increase GM workloads, for no good reason.

It's not like it would make any ISK, but people will do that.

Just the facts.
Cpt Gobla
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#55 - 2012-09-23 14:48:45 UTC
Bad idea.

Concord are NPCs. NPC AI, no matter how much effort you put into it, is dumb when compared to actual players.

If you do this then it'll be a month before players figure out a certain way to escape CONCORD and escape every single time without any consequence.

People will figure out exactly which ratio of warp speed to agility or something like that is needed to be certain of escape. People will figure out exactly how long they can shoot before they need to escape to low-sec. From that it's just a simple calculation of how many ships you need to kill a Freighter, Industrial, Pimped Battleship etc. And then you can start taking out any target without consequence.

This will basically remove high-sec and replace it with fast-sec, an area of space where you can only fly ships fast enough to escape other players and CONCORD. Slow ships, no matter their EHP, will eventually be be destroyed by a large enough gang of fast ships.
Gunnar Lange
#56 - 2012-09-23 16:01:22 UTC
Tippia wrote:
TharOkha wrote:
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
CONCORD limits EVE.

'nuff said.
CONCORD limits high-sec. Thats why we call it HIGH-SEC Roll
“Limits” is the wrong word.
CONCORD defines highsec.

Without the enforced cost that CONCORD creates, highsec no longer exists. It becomes macaroni cheese without any pasta or dairy. This suggestion turns highsec into lowsec with slightly more aggressive station and gate guns, and it does it for no good reason. If people wanted the thrill of the chase, a proper bounty-hunting system could do that without removing highsec. If they wanted to be chased by NPCs, they could try going -10 and flying through highsec in plated battleships.

If they truly want to be chased by CONCORD (why?!) and have a chance of escaping, then the enforced cost needs to be remade so that aggression still costs as much in some other way — it cannot be removed. This would entail a mechanic such as the previously mentioned “GCC = the newfangled estimated cost of your ship and fittings is automatically deducted from your wallet; negative wallet = the character suffers final death”.


What the OP was pointing out though is that this is not very exciting because as a matter of fact by attacking someone in highsec you're making a trade.

I'd like to ask you, just out of curiosity, what would you think about a system that replaced the certain cost we have now with an higher risk. For instance you might have, as a consequence for being killed in high security space while having a low security status or a 'warrant', something like being imprisoned in a prison station with that character for a resonable amount of time but at the same time being able to evade Concord; on the other hand getting out of prison would clear your security status. You could have some sort of incentive in a way similiar to faction warfare to reward player vigilantism so that what made a real difference would be player action rather than Concord or police.

It seems to me that bounties could have a meaning this way. You might think about some counters to this like evasion from prison or attacking prison stations in lowsec to free inmates.

Only a musing for a Sunday afternoon though; not that I think the games could be changed drastically.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#57 - 2012-09-23 16:45:51 UTC
Gunnar Lange wrote:
What the OP was pointing out though is that this is not very exciting because as a matter of fact by attacking someone in highsec you're making a trade.
…and what the rest of us is pointing out is “tough, deal with it”.
If he wants excitement, ask for means for players to hunt him. His being less than excited isn't reason enough to remove highsec so maybe he should aim for something more sensible. Hell, if he wants excitement and being chased, why not add CONCORD to lowsec using the mechanics he proposed?

Quote:
I'd like to ask you, just out of curiosity, what would you think about a system that replaced the certain cost we have now with an higher risk.
Unacceptable because it still removes highsec for no good reason.
Pipa Porto
#58 - 2012-09-23 22:16:46 UTC
Gunnar Lange wrote:
What the OP was pointing out though is that this is not very exciting because as a matter of fact by attacking someone in highsec you're making a trade.

I'd like to ask you, just out of curiosity, what would you think about a system that replaced the certain cost we have now with an higher risk. For instance you might have, as a consequence for being killed in high security space while having a low security status or a 'warrant', something like being imprisoned in a prison station with that character for a resonable amount of time but at the same time being able to evade Concord; on the other hand getting out of prison would clear your security status. You could have some sort of incentive in a way similiar to faction warfare to reward player vigilantism so that what made a real difference would be player action rather than Concord or police.

It seems to me that bounties could have a meaning this way. You might think about some counters to this like evasion from prison or attacking prison stations in lowsec to free inmates.

Only a musing for a Sunday afternoon though; not that I think the games could be changed drastically.


Risk is Magnitude of Loss*Probabilty. How does changing the Probability to some number less than 1* increase the risk?

If you can evade CONCORD, and it's not a "You win the RNG today" process, you will every time.

Prison just means more alts.

There's already an incentive to kill Outlaws; you get their stuff.

*Probabilities cannot be greater than 1, so any change must necessarily be a reduction.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Selinate
#59 - 2012-09-24 01:22:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Selinate
Tippia wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
Aggression costs in every sector.
…except for nullsec in lowsec. That leaves highsec as the part of space where aggression comes at a cost. Whether you choose to pay for it in ISK (wardecs) or items (suicide gank) is up to you, but it's only in highsec that these costs exist.


Aggression still costs in low sec; it costs in the form of sec status (which, after a while, prevents that character from accessing the major hubs on that character), and it can also cost you your ship if you're not careful on the gates/stations, since the increased DPS from the gate guns plus the ship that they're PvPing with.

It still costs something, just in a smaller way.
Pipa Porto
#60 - 2012-09-24 01:28:56 UTC
Selinate wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
Aggression costs in every sector.
…except for nullsec in lowsec. That leaves highsec as the part of space where aggression comes at a cost. Whether you choose to pay for it in ISK (wardecs) or items (suicide gank) is up to you, but it's only in highsec that these costs exist.


Aggression still costs in low sec; it costs in the form of sec status (which, after a while, prevents that character from accessing the major hubs on that character), and it can also cost you your ship if you're not careful on the gates/stations, since the increased DPS from the gate guns plus the ship that they're PvPing with.

It still costs something, just in a smaller way.


Potential for loss in PvP isn't the same cost we're talking about. Sec status isn't a particularly important cost (and it's trivial to escape by simply going -10).

The mechanics (broad strokes):
HS: Aggression costs ISK every time that it's not consensual.
LS: Aggression is free, but the defender might get some help.
Null: Aggression is free.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto