These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Incursions and CONCORD

Author
Enoch Throckmorton
Permanent Floating Riot Club
#1 - 2011-11-13 18:54:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Enoch Throckmorton
Would it be an interesting game mechanic if the level of system control in incursions affected concord response times? I though up two possible mechanics:


  • 0% control puts the system at a flat response time regardless of sec status, say something like 20 seconds. As system control goes back to 100% the system gradually goes back to the normal concord response time.
  • 0% control doubles the response time. As system control goes back to 100% the system gradually goes back to the normal response time.


I like the first method better because it is easy to chose a value that makes every system more dangerous than 0.5 without making the response time too long. For the latter idea, it is hard to chose the right multiplier that will make a 1.0 incursion system more dangerous than a 0.5 system without making the response time in a 0.5 incursion system too long. Even the 2x multiplier makes the response time too long in my opinion (26 seconds)


For the record, I am neither an incursion runner nor a suicide ganker, I just found this to be a rather interesting idea for a game mechanic. Having flown through many a highsec system with an incursion without giving two *****, I wondered if something else could be done to make the incursion itself hazardous to the constellation as a whole.

Edit: actually I mean to put this in Jita Speaker's Park to get more feedback. Although the CSM could take it if they wanted.
Endovior
PFU Consortium
#2 - 2011-11-13 21:34:35 UTC
This... would do precisely nothing but make it easier to gank Incursion runners.

(not sure if bad thing)
Jessie Gavin
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3 - 2011-11-13 22:52:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Jessie Gavin
Interesting idea. Would force incursion farmers to chose between farming the incursion and safety against gankers.

More interestingly it may do more to pit people who prefer prolonging the incursions for isk against those who prefer the safety of concord.
el alasar
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2011-11-13 22:56:31 UTC
how about you also factor in the security status of a victim into concord response time? maybe concord is less "motivated" to revenge the death of an almost criminal? maybe also faction navies would come to a victim's aid if his faction standing was high enough?

give your own standings more meaning!

check the moderated 10000 papercuts evelopedia page! http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Little_things_and_ideas_-_low_hanging_fruit_-_10000_papercuts comment, bump(!) and like what you like

FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#5 - 2011-11-14 22:55:03 UTC
Endovior wrote:
This... would do precisely nothing but make it easier to gank Incursion runners.

(not sure if bad thing)

Depends on who you ask.

Twisted

A while back I suggested a modifier to the concord response time so that they took longer to respond in incursions (as part of other changes to incursions). I realize that would grossly imbalance things in favor of griefers and would need a solid countermechanic, perhaps a unique ability in incursions where you can defend your fleetmates (since fleeting is the whole POINT of incursions) if they are attacked by gankers.

Then you could have some serious battles between incursion fleets and the gankers who try to take them down before concord arrives.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#6 - 2011-11-14 22:57:22 UTC  |  Edited by: FloppieTheBanjoClown
el alasar wrote:
how about you also factor in the security status of a victim into concord response time? maybe concord is less "motivated" to revenge the death of an almost criminal? maybe also faction navies would come to a victim's aid if his faction standing was high enough?

give your own standings more meaning!


This would mean that concord would be slower to respond to defend noobs than they would mission farmers. Also, those of us who found their PVE niche in w-space have lower-than-normal sec status. Instead of basing it on sec status, base is on the total negative sec status hits. Concord remembers all your GCC events and holds them against you. It would be a long-term penalty for excessive ganking that you could never completely repair.

edit: Can you get standings with concord right now? If not, let's add that and have it drop each time you gank someone, and go up each time you kill someone flagged as a criminal. NPCs would not affect this standing at all. This way only PVP activities would affect concord response times, and players would be rewarded for being the "good guy" by getting better protection. Gankers could flaunt their -10 standing with concord while others work hard to kill them to run up their own standings.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

el alasar
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2011-11-14 23:08:30 UTC  |  Edited by: el alasar
ideas for concord response time factors:
- why not factor in the victim's sec status?
- maybe also the aggressor's sec status?
- why is system sec status (even in highsec) static first place? shouldnt it depend on how "secure" (how many combats / non-consensual pvp) there has been recently?
- maybe you could also pay concord a weekly fee for faster response time?
- maybe you could bribe concord to arrive a little later?

ganking by definition means you cannot defend yourself against it. currently there is no counter to ganking/high alpha except fitting a high buffer yourself. even then i honestly feel ganking is too easily done - with too few isk invested (even if insurance payout was removed). look at how easily and often freighters are taken down, and ganking some pve BS is just scary easy to do. if a freighter having a break-even of about 1 bil at around 170k EHP, what are you "allowed" to fit on a pve-fit BS having around 60-140k EHP??? not to speak of a hulk at 30-40k EHP (and that is the buffer fit)... sure, you could say "dont fit those mods" and "prices are just market driven"... i favor those changes instead

check the moderated 10000 papercuts evelopedia page! http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Little_things_and_ideas_-_low_hanging_fruit_-_10000_papercuts comment, bump(!) and like what you like

Goose99
#8 - 2011-11-15 05:03:22 UTC
Go to lowsec if you want to gank people.

Introducing a new mechanic for the sole purpose of breaking an existing mechanic that's working as intended is pointless.