Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Xiantra
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 21:37:00 -
[1] - Quote
Given the slope of the EVE learning curve, first time offenders of certain questionable yet not out-rightly aggressive acts in hi sec should be shown some leniency. As an example, the use of a 'Cetus' ECM Shockwave I currently causes instant destruction by CONCORD. For a first time user of this device, which can easily be mistaken as a purely defensive device, this is an obvious shock. The loss of one's ship, fit, and cargo is annoying enough, the loss of significant security status however is unwarranted. This is a clear over-reaction on the part of CONCORD.
For the more sadistic EVE players who prefer to respond to proposals like these with the usual derision - you might want to pause and realize that the more care-bear fodder floating around in the game, the more your piratical activities will net...
The burst ECM may be a special case and thus easy to patch, however I want to encourage an attitude shift on the part of CONCORD (and perhaps EVE devs?) in general. A 15-20 second warning for players who have not repeatedly committed the same type of aggression would be a respectable yet decisive way to handle unintended hi sec aggression.
There are a number of ways to implement with this issue but I propose that a field be added in each potentially aggressive device type per player that records the number of transgressions with the use of this type of device so that CONCORD can react based on a player's history. The degree of reaction can then be gauged appropriately.
|
Krios Ahzek
Juvenis Iratus
243
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 22:07:00 -
[2] - Quote
Does the burst ECM feature a warning? The only warrior on this battlefield who isn't an alt.
|
Drake Draconis
Shadow Cadre Shadow Confederation
125
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 22:12:00 -
[3] - Quote
Scuse' me?
This has to be the most utterly hillarious request I've seen yet.
First time offenders by CONCORD are quite funny and very light in comparsion to what you elude or imlpy.
My first time was more of an accident but I WAS WARNED prior to said action.
Your full of crap good sir...kindly take it to the bio room where it belongs.
Not supported.
*walks away laughing* |
Xiantra
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 23:19:00 -
[4] - Quote
I received no warning of any kind - activated the device and the ship was gone. This is not a gratuitous proposal. |
Krios Ahzek
Juvenis Iratus
244
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 23:30:00 -
[5] - Quote
Well it'll be gratuitous when we can get one free gank per 10 hour hero The only warrior on this battlefield who isn't an alt.
|
Velicitia
Open Designs
175
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 23:34:00 -
[6] - Quote
IIRC, any module where you get concordokken will show a warning ...
now, if you disabled them already (because you were trying to gank a miner, say) ... that's your own damn fault. |
Goose99
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
299
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 01:27:00 -
[7] - Quote
Your own fault, but still supported.
First offense should carry very little sec penalty, which get exponentially higher on subsequent offense in highsec. Penalty remains flat at initial small amount in lowsec. |
Drake Draconis
Shadow Cadre Shadow Confederation
125
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 01:28:00 -
[8] - Quote
Xiantra wrote:I received no warning of any kind - activated the device and the ship was gone. This is not a gratuitous proposal.
Bullcrap.
If its like any other device of any kind you got 1 warning when you initially triggered it and chose to ignore for any number of random reasons.
Heck even a Smart Bomb triggers an warning even if there's nothing near by to strike.
And IF this is your first time getting CONCORDOKENED... then you don't have alot to throw a fit about.
This has to be a stealth thread for nerfing CONCORD or a trollthread. |
King Rothgar
Autocannons Anonymous
55
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 03:56:00 -
[9] - Quote
My first experience with concord was when I tried to kill a mining ship of some sort with my thrasher. I thought I could kill it and get away before concord showed up. I was wrong on both counts. I'd been playing for maybe 24 hours at that point. And no, I have nothing constructive to say about this proposal. |
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
207
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 14:44:00 -
[10] - Quote
There should be a tutorial mission which warps you somewhere and shows you a popup "Click OK to have your ship destroyed, click Cancel to continue". If you click OK, you get promptly blown up in whatever ship you are (no refunds). The mission restarts and you can't continue until you complete it. Maybe that would teach people to read. |
|
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks Petition Blizzard
382
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 19:00:00 -
[11] - Quote
I wouldn't object to the notion that "repeat offenders" should lose more sec status. It would mirror the way we treat real-life criminals.
That said, I do find it a little troubling that it's possible to draw concord without a warning. CCP has several times made changes in order to PREVENT people being surprised by aggression or GCC, and this is an instance that might warrant a look.
edit: it seems other people have had warnings when they fired AOE weapons. If that's the case, I have no sympathy for the OP. |
Drake Draconis
Shadow Cadre Shadow Confederation
127
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 19:21:00 -
[12] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:I wouldn't object to the notion that "repeat offenders" should lose more sec status. It would mirror the way we treat real-life criminals.
That said, I do find it a little troubling that it's possible to draw concord without a warning. CCP has several times made changes in order to PREVENT people being surprised by aggression or GCC, and this is an instance that might warrant a look.
edit: it seems other people have had warnings when they fired AOE weapons. If that's the case, I have no sympathy for the OP.
I once had an member that fired a smart bomb WITH a warning issued only to get CONCORDED due to fireing one at a an asteriod in a mission.
I was equally warned repeatedly for each time I fired a smart bomb for grins in various areas.
The OP is trolling.
It's way too obvious.
If it was that big of a deal it would be a rampant outcry from various sources...not some "face in the crowd" |
Xiantra
The Scope Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 20:22:00 -
[13] - Quote
Years ago I fired an AOE and immediately got blasted: obvious and reasonable. No complaints there. Here no damage of any kind was done.
Seems some people can't read - I received no warning and I've disabled no aggression popup windows. Multiple complaints: - CONCORD over reacted to the use of a non-destructive device - many hours worth of security standing lost in a first time "offence" |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks Petition Blizzard
382
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 20:50:00 -
[14] - Quote
Fire an ECM burst in the middle of an Incursion logistics fleet and find out how harmless it is.
No seriously, do it. It's hilarious |
Endovior
Brothers At Arms Intrepid Crossing
66
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 01:57:00 -
[15] - Quote
Unless you've disabled warnings, there should have been a warning. If things did, in fact, happen to you as you describe, then that's a bug; petition it. That said, since there is a warning, you should already be aware of the consequences when you activate the module, so no change or leniency is needed. |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
2
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 02:04:00 -
[16] - Quote
Goose99 wrote:Your own fault, but still supported.
First offense should carry very little sec penalty, which get exponentially higher on subsequent offense in highsec. Penalty remains flat at initial small amount in lowsec. Supported by goose99, always a clear sign that any thread should be quietly taken out back and shot. |
Drake Draconis
Nexus Advanced Technologies Fidelas Constans
137
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 02:46:00 -
[17] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:Goose99 wrote:Your own fault, but still supported.
First offense should carry very little sec penalty, which get exponentially higher on subsequent offense in highsec. Penalty remains flat at initial small amount in lowsec. Supported by goose99, always a clear sign that any thread should be quietly taken out back and shot.
In-spite of his reputation...he had a valid point...an exponential increase with repeat offenses is a good idea.
But its like throwing a gas can in the preverible fire pit.
As for a "smaller penalty"
Bull####.
The penalty for first offense is praticaully nothing...easily resolved in a bit of level 4 missioning and most noobs don't even understand or feel the heat at that rate. |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
4
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 19:30:00 -
[18] - Quote
Drake Draconis wrote:Simi Kusoni wrote:Goose99 wrote:Your own fault, but still supported.
First offense should carry very little sec penalty, which get exponentially higher on subsequent offense in highsec. Penalty remains flat at initial small amount in lowsec. Supported by goose99, always a clear sign that any thread should be quietly taken out back and shot. In-spite of his reputation...he had a valid point...an exponential increase with repeat offenses is a good idea. But its like throwing a gas can in the preverible fire pit. As for a "smaller penalty" Bull####. The penalty for first offense is praticaully nothing...easily resolved in a bit of level 4 missioning and most noobs don't even understand or feel the heat at that rate. An exponential increase isn't really necessary, if someone is going to keep doing it their sec will go down pretty fast and soon they'll be unable to enter high sec. If they've just done it the once, the sec status hits won't even effect them. |
Drake Draconis
Nexus Advanced Technologies Fidelas Constans
137
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 19:57:00 -
[19] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:Drake Draconis wrote:Simi Kusoni wrote:Goose99 wrote:Your own fault, but still supported.
First offense should carry very little sec penalty, which get exponentially higher on subsequent offense in highsec. Penalty remains flat at initial small amount in lowsec. Supported by goose99, always a clear sign that any thread should be quietly taken out back and shot. In-spite of his reputation...he had a valid point...an exponential increase with repeat offenses is a good idea. But its like throwing a gas can in the preverible fire pit. As for a "smaller penalty" Bull####. The penalty for first offense is praticaully nothing...easily resolved in a bit of level 4 missioning and most noobs don't even understand or feel the heat at that rate. An exponential increase isn't really necessary, if someone is going to keep doing it their sec will go down pretty fast and soon they'll be unable to enter high sec. If they've just done it the once, the sec status hits won't even effect them.
Your missing the point of my motive.
People do it these days without even complaniing all that much about sec ratings...that means they don't partiicllary care or have an easy solution...they go rat in some place without a great deal of concern or care.
Granted an exponetial incraese may accomplish nothing...but it does make people think twice about entering into that sort of career.
But even then... I do agree with your point...it won't really accomplish much. |
Ethereal 3600
665 Almost Evil Serenity.
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 03:50:00 -
[20] - Quote
first off please excuse my grammar i realise its bad i have to agree there are some problems with when 1 is considered aggressed examples
1. the guy using smart bombs in a mission gets concorded when a fleet member from his own alliance happens to alow his to wounder into the smart bomb regardless to alliance and fleet
2. a ganker that sends 5 heavy drones after you from 40 km you pop his drones as there heading straight at you and hence you can track them but you get poped because the drones are not considered hostel till after they close range and start firing
the bigger ishue here thou is that eve is a realistic universe with realistic market and hence you must earn your ships and such throu lots of time and so on but unrealistic negitaves for breaking the rules of said world
the guy who earned a trafic ticket gets the same treatment as the mass murder
that said the simplest way to fix the problem is take away inshurance payouts to death by concord make concord kill pods apon repeat offenders and standing drop increses more after each offence
while ganking is still do able your resons need to be more worth it no more greving newbs and truning them away from the game |
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
191
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 19:33:00 -
[21] - Quote
No leniency. No way, no how.
Yes to education. Have the Devs cook up a new tutorial session where person is given a ship by Concord and instructed to do something Darwinian .. throw in a bunch of text to explain what happened and why. - Zero chance of exploitation (you know it will happen sooner or later) and the NPE guys gets something new to get their nerd on.
PS: Have Devs trawl the code to make sure there are not some modules/actions that are somehow evading the warning-popup. |
Rico Minali
Sons Of 0din Fatal Ascension
193
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 15:08:00 -
[22] - Quote
Computer says no. Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks Petition Blizzard
403
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 17:42:00 -
[23] - Quote
Ethereal 3600 wrote:2. a ganker that sends 5 heavy drones after you from 40 km you pop his drones as there heading straight at you and hence you can track them but you get poped because the drones are not considered hostel till after they close range and start firing
Okay, problems I see with this scenario:
1) What ship are you flying that you can't track heavy drones, yet are at risk of being ganked by them before Concord supplies you with a free flight of heavy drones to scoop?
2) What ship is the ganker flying that can point you at 40 km, preventing you from escaping?
3) Why are you trying to target and shoot a full flight of drones rather than simply aligning so you can warp out as soon as the drones fire a shot and concord is triggered?
If you EVER die to a ganker from 40 km away and they didn't alpha you, it's because you are TERRIBLE at Eve. |
Drake Draconis
Nexus Advanced Technologies Fidelas Constans
140
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 18:14:00 -
[24] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Ethereal 3600 wrote:2. a ganker that sends 5 heavy drones after you from 40 km you pop his drones as there heading straight at you and hence you can track them but you get poped because the drones are not considered hostel till after they close range and start firing Okay, problems I see with this scenario: 1) What ship are you flying that you can't track heavy drones, yet are at risk of being ganked by them before Concord supplies you with a free flight of heavy drones to scoop? 2) What ship is the ganker flying that can point you at 40 km, preventing you from escaping? 3) Why are you trying to target and shoot a full flight of drones rather than simply aligning so you can warp out as soon as the drones fire a shot and concord is triggered? If you EVER die to a ganker from 40 km away and they didn't alpha you, it's because you are TERRIBLE at Eve.
Why did he bother engaging the drones in the first place?
Wait it out....shooting them makes it worse. |
Cid SilverWing
Grim Determination Clockworks Inc. Nulli Tertius
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.17 08:13:00 -
[25] - Quote
You get told to your face that if you trip an offensive module against a player or you're trying to assist an aggressed player.
YOU
WILL
AGGRESS/GET CONCORDOKKEN'D
Uninstall EVE if you can't read warnings |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
192
|
Posted - 2011.12.17 13:33:00 -
[26] - Quote
Last time I experimented with ECM burst I got the aggression from hitting just about anything, be it asteroids, invisible beacons, accel gates etc. Was before there were pop-ups for everything though so may have changed or maybe the warning only kicks in when/if another ship is near by .. wouldn't put it past the devs to have missed some instances where the pop-up system fails to activate. |
Xiantra
The Scope Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.22 23:55:00 -
[27] - Quote
Follow up:
1. (concerning lack of a popup): filed a petition and got a response - CCP "can't verify" that I did or did not get a popup so they won't act. (annoying but I won't loose any sleep over this - it just reflects badly on CCPs willingness to work toward an equitable game)
2. (concerning how aggression is handled in hi sec): CCP (support) says "your disagreement with the 'one-size-fits-all punishment' is something you'll need to take to the CSM or Dev's as we merely explain the rules, we don't make them."
So a final comment on the EVE universe for this CSM proposal:
Games have to be fun to be profitable - both for the Devs and the players - obviously players can choose not to play and no one wants to play a dying MMPOG. Game choices either encourage players or discourage them - the goal (actually requirement) is that more things must encourage than discourage players to keep subscriptions rising or keep them steady and active. As an example the permanent-loss-of-ships paradigm in EVE is perhaps the biggest and most controversial Dev choice - quoted by many as an encouragement (it is realistic) and yet it is dramatically expensive and puts many players off. Yet ship loss is a defining characteristic of EVE and overall attracts a significant number of game players who dislike the shallowness of many other MMPOGs.
The extent of this proposal however is small in respect, thus the issue it challenges has been generally ignored. And yet, with deference to the random sociopath (sociopathic features include: grandiose sense of self, callousness, lack of empathy, "rarely in difficulty with the law, but seek out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired" [1]), in game "law enforcement" over reaction to game violations will have no encouraging effect and thus will only decrease player numbers if it has any effect at all. *** There is absolutely no rational reason to NOT temper CONCORDs reaction to first time offenders *** and in fact attention to details like these will only improve the encouragement players receive regardless of their level of experience.
What it comes down to is what type of and how many active players do you want in the game? Respect people and more will follow. No tutorial. Make the game fun.
This is a general attitude that should be maintained throughout the game's design, and although it was spurred by a relatively insignificant event, many other issues will fall under this proposal.
[1] http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_know_if_someone_is_a_sociopath#ixzz1hIUHRDdt |
Drake Draconis
Nexus Advanced Technologies Fidelas Constans
164
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 00:28:00 -
[28] - Quote
Get this through your very dense armored head.
CONCORD is doing exactly what its designed to do.
First time offenses are harmless and rather funny if at all abrupt and people learn very quickly what they can and cant do.
The punnishment as such is very small and hardly considered a dent to ones sec status let alone anything else.
What you propose here is so gradiose and preposterous that its nothing more than an insult more so than a troll.
Stop waisting your time and filling this thread with garbage.
If you can't read the warning messages or get click happy..the only thing wrong at that point is the person behind the keyboard.
Stop blaming ccp for human error initated on the part of the user.
TLDR: Adapt or die....or get out if you can't handle the consequences of your actions.
Case and Point - I once engaged a can flipper in my younger days in a hauler in the same corp as the victim...I got concord'd...but I ignored the window assuming it was just saying it because it was...and tha agression would open up to corp members in the same fleet.....never mind how or why...it didn't..and I paid the price.
You don't see me bitching about it....and you wont see anyone else doing the same. |
Thredd Necro
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
85
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 15:32:00 -
[29] - Quote
TL,DR:
Most ways to get concords attention come with warnings. Those warnings are there to allow you reconsider your choice, which frankly I think is very nice of CCP since they don't have to and really shouldn't have to.
Seriously, if I was at walmart and reached for a magazine and a warning box popped up that said, "If you attempt to read this magazine your head will explode", I would put the magazine back on the rack not flip to page three. Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. - Douglas Adams |
Vertisce Soritenshi
Varion Galactic Tragedy.
270
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 16:34:00 -
[30] - Quote
lol...no...we all learned from CONCORD the hard way. Getting CONCORDOKKEN is how I figured out not to screw with CONCORD unless you want to lose your ship. EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX!
Support our boobies!-á[url]https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=24221&find=unread[/url]
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |