These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

Hiring CONCORD?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Barbie D0ll
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#21 - 2013-10-02 13:43:51 UTC
Alduin666 Shikkoken wrote:
just kinda laugh when people want to not be ganked in high sec because they think high sec is supposed to be safe.

If your ship gets shot up on the front lawn of Eve Online's equivalent of the White house and the gankers simply get their weapons taken away and slapped on the wrist, I'm sure there is something wrong with that. Even more so if you have an almost 10 faction standing in that faction space and 5+ SEC status.

Under current game mechanics, even with -10 SEC, and -10 faction standing, the only thing they can't do is stay in high sec very long in a ship, which doesn't really matter very much with their play style.

"Oh wow, a public enemy galactic criminal just shot up one of our loyal, lawful, and hardworking people who we routinely work with, what ever will we do?"
"Just confiscate their weapons, give them a slap on the wrist and let them go"

And that's pretty much all they do.

Don't fly around in your pod.
Try to fit a DC2 in most of your ships, and a reasonable buffer tank.
Don't haul anything more than 500 mil.
Don't use frigates if you have expensive implants.
Don't have hauler characters in war decced corps if it can be avoided.
Don't fly anything that doesn't/can't have a buffer tank.
Don't afk in Jita, Amarr, Rens, Amake, .5-.7 systems, etc. etc.
Kashmyta
HC - gizmos Gizco
#22 - 2013-10-02 15:12:20 UTC
SalubriousSky Rinah wrote:
How about giving us the ability to hire out CONCORD for mining ops in high sec to protect against gankers?

You know, we pay CONCORD per hour to protect a ship or fleet (price increases with each ship you want to protect etc), or we pay them to reduce the response time to that of a higher security class system depending on the amount we pay them...i.e. mine in a 0.5 system, but pay CONCORD to respond to threats as if it were a 1.0 system.

Too much protection? Or increasing the risk of the game...hmmm



what is this Mickey Mouse bs
SalubriousSky Rinah
Cryptic Spear
#23 - 2013-10-02 15:13:46 UTC
Kashmyta wrote:
SalubriousSky Rinah wrote:
How about giving us the ability to hire out CONCORD for mining ops in high sec to protect against gankers?

You know, we pay CONCORD per hour to protect a ship or fleet (price increases with each ship you want to protect etc), or we pay them to reduce the response time to that of a higher security class system depending on the amount we pay them...i.e. mine in a 0.5 system, but pay CONCORD to respond to threats as if it were a 1.0 system.

Too much protection? Or increasing the risk of the game...hmmm



what is this Mickey Mouse bs


lmao
Angeal MacNova
Holefood Inc.
Warriors of the Blood God
#24 - 2013-10-02 22:26:57 UTC
If they were to make a change to Concord in Hi-sec I would speculate something as followed;

If you belong to one of the npc corps of Hi-sec, you have the protection of Concord as it is already. However, if you make or join a player corp, the corp is required to pay (monthly?) for Concord protection. With the up coming change to custom offices being a possible loss in an isk sink, this could be an isk sink replacement. As per norm, the Concord protecion for player corps would only be within Hi-sec.


Possible Options:

-Concord for the NPC corps will protect all the way to .1 systems but not the case for player corps.

-The opposite to the first, where player corps are protected down to .1 systems but not NPC corps.

-The player corp must hold office within a system to be protected in that system. In other words, the corp must rent an office at one of the stations in the system. Due to such a restriction, the security status of the system could be ignored so long as the system the office is in is .1 or greater.

-A POS could be an alternative to renting an office. Since some systems (even in hi-sec) are without a stations.

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/goodnight-sweet-prince/

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/the-untold-story/

CCP's true, butthurt, colors.

Because those who can't do themselves keep others from doing too.
Mr Pragmatic
#25 - 2013-10-03 04:24:25 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
Mr Pragmatic wrote:

Hiring players to protect from ganks....Do tell how this is achieved.

Generally it's "Hi [group of players], I/we will pay you XXX million ISK per [op|hour|week|month] to sit and watch over our miners. "

Optional addition "We will also provide you with the (fitted) T1 ships of your choice, ammo, modules, etc. that you require for this post. Other special-order equipment [can|will] be provided at [price]"

Where [price] would be something like "5% below local market" or "Build Cost" or a fixed price for ship class (e.g. frigates = 250k, dessies = 1m, cruisers = 5m, etc" [I'm just making up numbers here] )



So when the catalysts come and hi sec how are the mercs gonna save you? Pre gank?

Super cali hella yolo swaga dopeness.  -Yoloswaggins, in the fellowship of the bling.
Katrina Oniseki
Oniseki-Raata Internal Watch
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#26 - 2013-10-03 05:16:19 UTC
I fail to understand how mercs can do anything about NPC corp gankers. Player corp gankers can be fought, and should be fought. But NPC corps? You can't wardec them. Short of pre-ganking anyone in a catalyst, it doesn't really make much sense to me.

The only real solution is to not mine in highsec at all.

Katrina Oniseki
Omar Alharazaad
New Eden Tech Support
#27 - 2013-10-03 08:41:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Omar Alharazaad
Mercs can interfere with ganks just fine, it's just taxing. The problem is maintaining alertness over extended periods of inactivity... it's a pain. However, if said guards are alert, watching their D-Scans, using scouts (ideally cloaked near the gates & stations), and keep their cool when it hits the fan they can interrupt a gank. [You know, intel and organization]
Fast locking ewar ships like Griffins can yellowbox that cat as soon as it lands on grid, no need to pregank em, just have them already locked when they go flashy so your ECM can make their first volley their last. Also... Falcon Punch?
From there it's the Popcorn and CONCORD show.
I do wonder sometimes how many of these threads are born from entitlement, how many are born from laziness, and how many are due to corps not willing to actually pay to maintain a security force that will let them mine in peace.

Come hell or high water, this sick world will know I was here.
My Dream
Doomheim
#28 - 2013-10-03 10:10:16 UTC
allways kinda liked the idea of hiring NPC wingmen but can understand why some folks dont like it
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2013-10-03 10:18:34 UTC
Elliavir wrote:
SalubriousSky Rinah wrote:
How about giving us the ability to hire out CONCORD for mining ops in high sec to protect against gankers?

You know, we pay CONCORD per hour to protect a ship or fleet (price increases with each ship you want to protect etc), or we pay them to reduce the response time to that of a higher security class system depending on the amount we pay them...i.e. mine in a 0.5 system, but pay CONCORD to respond to threats as if it were a 1.0 system.

Too much protection? Or increasing the risk of the game...hmmm


Would this be counterbalanced by letting the criminal element bribe CONCORD to *not* respond?

I mean, as amusing as the idea of filling my cargohold with doughnuts and coffee to keep the local law enforcement hanging out with me in my mining belt is... and I am amused... this seems a bit unbalanced if it's just allowing folks to essentially buy immunity. It kind of crosses the line from "ISK sink" to "P2W".

i think these 2 ideas together can add new layer to player interaction in the game.

just need to make CONCORD hiring/bribing procedure not as linear as "who paid more ISK wins" but with some "human-like" tricks

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Daimon Kaiera
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#30 - 2013-10-03 10:25:08 UTC
If you have a Hulk in one of these belts, I could still probably get an alpha nado to one-shot you and still be isk efficient.

.... . .-.. .--. / .. / .... .- ...- . / ..-. .- .-.. .-.. . -. / .- -. -.. / .. / -.-. .- -. -. --- - / --. . - / ..- .--. / ... - --- .--. - .... .. ... / ... .. --. -. .- - ..- .-. . / .. -.. . .- / .. ... / -. --- - / ... - --- .-.. . -. / ... - --- .--.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#31 - 2013-10-03 10:34:56 UTC
Mr Pragmatic wrote:
Velicitia wrote:
Mr Pragmatic wrote:

Hiring players to protect from ganks....Do tell how this is achieved.

Generally it's "Hi [group of players], I/we will pay you XXX million ISK per [op|hour|week|month] to sit and watch over our miners. "

Optional addition "We will also provide you with the (fitted) T1 ships of your choice, ammo, modules, etc. that you require for this post. Other special-order equipment [can|will] be provided at [price]"

Where [price] would be something like "5% below local market" or "Build Cost" or a fixed price for ship class (e.g. frigates = 250k, dessies = 1m, cruisers = 5m, etc" [I'm just making up numbers here] )



So when the catalysts come and hi sec how are the mercs gonna save you? Pre gank?


T2 gank cats are profitable to gank.
Lady Areola Fappington
#32 - 2013-10-03 12:05:05 UTC
Alduin666 Shikkoken wrote:
I may be an industrialist, but after playing as long as I have you inevitably get to the "death to high sec mentality" and just kinda laugh when people want to not be ganked in high sec because they think high sec is supposed to be safe. I suppose you want constructive criticism though, so I guess I will pass this little trick on from back in my carebear days . . .

Pick a belt (or ice anom) you want to mine at and put a single barge there. Then get an alt, or person with a high sec status that doesn't mind waiting 15 mins, and have said alt, or person, get in a noobship and fire a volley at the barge. Concord will show up and do their thing and not leave for a good while. Then either continue on mining solo or bring in the rest of your barges if you happen to be doing an op.

For the duration of your mining you have concord at the belt and ready to fire upon any person with a bad sec status or fire on anyone that shoots you. Bear in mid that even this isn't a 100% foolproof idea because you can still be taken out by enough gankers because (as far as I know) concord only focuses on one target at a time, so 3-4 catalysts can still take out a barge even though concord is in the belt already.



It's my goal to educate over here on EVE-O, and I see this one repeated a lot.

Concord is trivial to move. We typically will have one person in a gank team go off and shoot a customs office if we see concord on-grid with miners, just to get the concord spawn off-grid for the incoming gank.


It also gets really edge-case on ToS, if you aren't careful. Sure, you can use an alt with a noob ship to spawn the spacepolice, just as long as you don't biomass it and create a new one the second that alt goes outlaw.

I've seen miners who tell folks "Ohh, it's OK to biomass the alt when it hits -5, as long as you aren't GANKING." That will get a GM visit quickly.


As for the topic on-hand, why do you want an NPC AI to protect you? There's plenty of PC groups willing to take your ISK to guard you. Hell, I even know of a group of gankers who'll leave you alone for a year if you pay them 10mil ISK.....

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#33 - 2013-10-03 13:14:37 UTC
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
Alduin666 Shikkoken wrote:
I may be an industrialist, but after playing as long as I have you inevitably get to the "death to high sec mentality" and just kinda laugh when people want to not be ganked in high sec because they think high sec is supposed to be safe. I suppose you want constructive criticism though, so I guess I will pass this little trick on from back in my carebear days . . .

Pick a belt (or ice anom) you want to mine at and put a single barge there. Then get an alt, or person with a high sec status that doesn't mind waiting 15 mins, and have said alt, or person, get in a noobship and fire a volley at the barge. Concord will show up and do their thing and not leave for a good while. Then either continue on mining solo or bring in the rest of your barges if you happen to be doing an op.

For the duration of your mining you have concord at the belt and ready to fire upon any person with a bad sec status or fire on anyone that shoots you. Bear in mid that even this isn't a 100% foolproof idea because you can still be taken out by enough gankers because (as far as I know) concord only focuses on one target at a time, so 3-4 catalysts can still take out a barge even though concord is in the belt already.



It's my goal to educate over here on EVE-O, and I see this one repeated a lot.

Concord is trivial to move. We typically will have one person in a gank team go off and shoot a customs office if we see concord on-grid with miners, just to get the concord spawn off-grid for the incoming gank.


It also gets really edge-case on ToS, if you aren't careful. Sure, you can use an alt with a noob ship to spawn the spacepolice, just as long as you don't biomass it and create a new one the second that alt goes outlaw.

I've seen miners who tell folks "Ohh, it's OK to biomass the alt when it hits -5, as long as you aren't GANKING." That will get a GM visit quickly.


As for the topic on-hand, why do you want an NPC AI to protect you? There's plenty of PC groups willing to take your ISK to guard you. Hell, I even know of a group of gankers who'll leave you alone for a year if you pay them 10mil ISK.....


Just want to point out that in febuary last year bat country were told that spawning concord for protection was not an intended mechanic and that CCP is of the opinion that players must protect themselves. This may have changed but there is nothing solid on this subject and we will continue to report such activities when we see them untill told by CCP that it is intended gameplay.
Lady Areola Fappington
#34 - 2013-10-03 13:20:26 UTC
baltec1 wrote:


Just want to point out that in febuary last year bat country were told that spawning concord for protection was not an intended mechanic and that CCP is of the opinion that players must protect themselves. This may have changed but there is nothing solid on this subject and we will continue to report such activities when we see them untill told by CCP that it is intended gameplay.



I stand corrected, good sir, looks like I'll need to up my reporting. I may just remember from an old thread, it wasn't the act itself, it was using throwaway alts to do it.

You have more recent info, so, I'd go with that.

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
Par'Gellen
#35 - 2013-10-03 15:34:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Par'Gellen
Mara Pahrdi wrote:
Why not hire player groups to protect you?

Seriously, this is an mmo. One about conflicting interests. Without any safety zones. And you are asking for a paid NPC intervention to help you with your tasks?

The Concord you are paying for will not be the one, that is coming when a gank happens. It cannot be. What you will get is a nerfed version. One that can be overcome by the gankers in some way. Anything else would be completely unbalanced.

Edit: I shouldn't post early in the morning :/
Have you ever tried to get someone in an MMO to sit staring at their screen for hours waiting for something to happen that they probably can't do anything about anyway? Who the hell would want to play that game?

"To err is human", but it shouldn't be the company motto...
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
#36 - 2013-10-03 17:04:12 UTC
OP, please show us on the barge doll where the ebil catalyst gang touched you.





Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
SalubriousSky Rinah
Cryptic Spear
#37 - 2013-10-03 18:04:20 UTC  |  Edited by: SalubriousSky Rinah
So, this thread is getting off topic...so I'll rephrase the question(s) and add this to the original post:

(a) Would it make the game more interesting/risky to allow miners (for example) to pay CONCORD to reduce their SPAWN time in 0.5 system to that of, say, a 1.0 system?

(b) Would it make the game more interesting/risky to allow gankers (for example) to 'bribe' CONCORD (lol) to increase their SPAWN time in a 1.0 system to that of, say, a 0.5 system?

And should the ganker meet the miner who have both opted for these choices, then some form of balance between the spawn time would be activated.
Elliavir
Miskatonic Mercantile
#38 - 2013-10-03 19:03:17 UTC
SalubriousSky Rinah wrote:
So, this thread is getting off topic...so I'll rephrase the question(s) and add this to the original post:

(a) Would it make the game more interesting/risky to allow miners (for example) to pay CONCORD to reduce their SPAWN time in 0.5 system to that of, say, a 1.0 system?

(b) Would it make the game more interesting/risky to allow gankers (for example) to 'bribe' CONCORD (lol) to increase their SPAWN time in a 1.0 system to that of, say, a 0.5 system?

And should the ganker meet the miner who have both opted for these choices, then some form of balance between the spawn time would be activated.


If both were implemented, it might make a handy ISK sink, should CCP feel the need for one to balance something else in the economy.

There would be some side effects to allowing ISK to directly affects aspects of a systems sec status - rich players/corps would have an advantage. Mining ships would all need to be tanked like it was 0.5 space, because CONCORD response times would no longer be reliable - which might make ship balance & use not what CCP intended.

I would assume, however, that whoever paid the bribe first would get the effect, since averaging/balancing would probably come out to no visible effect, which would spawn an absolute tsunami of "the mechanic is broken" bug reports and forum posts.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#39 - 2013-10-03 19:21:36 UTC
The OP should read carefully what CCP Seagull has said, what has changed in the game, and the meaning of Rubicon. The OP should listen to the trailers. Listen carefully for the words describing the end of the racial empires, and the rise of the player controlled empires.

The null cartels have won.
Concord is being eliminated, slowly but surely. The differentiation between high sec, low sec, and null is being removed, slowly but surely.

It will take multiple iterations, but Seagull has a multi-year plan.
The high sec POCO's is just the tip of the iceberg.

Watch as more and more defences high sec has against the encroachment from the null sec cartels is eroded, with this release, and the subsequent ones. Words from devs and game designers matter. Listen to them. And watch what else changes on Nov 19th that will show up on Sisi next week.
SalubriousSky Rinah
Cryptic Spear
#40 - 2013-10-03 21:07:14 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
The OP should read carefully what CCP Seagull has said, what has changed in the game, and the meaning of Rubicon. The OP should listen to the trailers. Listen carefully for the words describing the end of the racial empires, and the rise of the player controlled empires.

The null cartels have won.
Concord is being eliminated, slowly but surely. The differentiation between high sec, low sec, and null is being removed, slowly but surely.

It will take multiple iterations, but Seagull has a multi-year plan.
The high sec POCO's is just the tip of the iceberg.

Watch as more and more defences high sec has against the encroachment from the null sec cartels is eroded, with this release, and the subsequent ones. Words from devs and game designers matter. Listen to them. And watch what else changes on Nov 19th that will show up on Sisi next week.


Hmmm...you seem to be missing the point, nvm.
Previous page123Next page