EVE Search - CONCORD distress beacons

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

CONCORD distress beacons

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Esseter	Posted - 2009.07.29 20:37:00 - [1] It doesn't make a ton of sense that 0.4 would be ten times more dangerous than 0.0. And gankers are **s who should have their fingers cut off. Highsec gets boring, but the guarantee that you will be ganked by PCs who wouldn't know a fair fight if it bit their nuts off the second you go into lowsec makes it totally stupid. And naked ganking for it's own sake (as opposed to piracy, which is being an *** for profit) is more prevalent on highsec/lowsec borders than it is anywhere else, and it is specifically so they can prey on players who can't possibly defend themselves. This is all kinds of bass-ackwards. Perhaps a solution would be a CONCORD distress beacon module. An outlaw attacks you without provocation, you activate it, CONCORD comes to bail you out. (Assuming you aren't an outlaw yourself.) However, the further you are from the nearest highsec system/gate/dock and the lower sec you're in, the longer it takes and the less they send. If you're in 0.4 right on a gate that leads to 0.5, they show up in two seconds with enough force to crush your typical gate blob. If you're in 0.1 five jumps away from Empire, you'll be dead by the time CONCORD gets there, but the *s (sorry, pirates) will have to get out of dodge fairly quickly unless they have enough force to take out a police cruiser or two. Conversely, mounting more modules increases their reaction time and the amount of support they'll send, so if a zone is infested with ****s, a player can sacrifice more slots to ensure CONCORD's response will be all the more decisive. This would realign things with the way they should be, where 0.4 really is safer than 0.0. Piracy would still be possible, but it would be a lot riskier near Empire space, and would be something you'd need to do quickly. Gate blockades would still be possible in nullsec, but anywhere else it would require a lot of force to maintain at a single gate continuously (enough to take on the CONCORD ships that would eventually show up). But that's not the best part. Most of the the griefers won't read this far; they've already hit the reply button to type about how stupid this would be, but that's just it. They'd hate it because they'd be griefed. They'd be the victims of folks who would go out into 0.4 in ships rigged to look like clueless newbies that, in reality, were just loaded with tank and distress beacons, meant to lure in *****s for the express purpose of getting them blown up by CONCORD. Wouldn't that be awesome? If the consequence of griefing was being griefed?
Eagle Tarquinas Gallente Epiphyte Mining and Exploration	Posted - 2009.07.29 20:53:00 - [2] Edited by: Eagle Tarquinas on 29/07/2009 20:54:16 As much as i hate pirates myself, this idea is terrible. Gate guns are your "defense" against pirates. Also, 0.0 is more dangerous than 0.4 due to things like... oh.... warp disruption bubbles, Doomsday devices, etc. About the only thing i would support is an increase in the number of gate guns in 0.4, but even that is a bit much.
Ezevector	Posted - 2009.07.29 21:15:00 - [3] I got jumped yesterday at a gate, and the camper was fully within range of the gate guns. He was maybe 2000m from the gate altogether. I even got a message saying "So-and-so is ******ed and will die horribly for committing acts of aggression within range of the sentry turrets!" But the gate guns did almost no damage. I was tanked to oblivion and expecting to get jumped, and managed to get within jumping range of the gate in spite of being under a web or two in a ship that was already painfully slow. It was long enough for two of his buddies to warp in from the opposite side of the system. In all that time, he lost maybe a quarter of his shields to the sentries. And he wasn't in that big of a ship. So the theory that sentry guns work as a defense obviously fails in practice. They weren't enough to take out a single mid-sized ganker, or even tilt the odds. "lolz. Rationalize more, griefer."
Eagle Tarquinas Gallente Epiphyte Mining and Exploration	Posted - 2009.07.29 21:31:00 - [4] Sentry guns arent supposed to punish really, they are supposed to augment a defender's DPS and require an attacker to use a decent sized ship to survive the gate guns (battleships can essentially laugh at gate guns) causing more risk. Concord is meant to punish. In high sec. Easy way to fix your problem is.... dont enter below .5 systems. You even get a message saying DANGEROUS, ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO JUMP? before you jump in. EvE doesn't need that much more hand holding.
ArcticPrism	Posted - 2009.07.29 21:34:00 - [5] Edited by: ArcticPrism on 29/07/2009 21:34:22 So basically you don't want PvP to be possible in low-sec. Despite what you are saying, being able to summon concord takes it away. Taking any ship into low sec should be a risk. Fitting something with ridiculous tank just to be impossible for pirates to kill before CONCORD arrives is silly. Take something that can align fast, or use warp core stabilizers. Even better, get someone in a covert ops ship to scout for you so you don't get caught at gate camps. Part of what makes EVE unique is non-consensual PvP. There shouldn't be game mechanics to hold your hands every step of the way. A 0.0 gate camp is many times more dangerous than any low sec gate camp. For one, they can have interceptors to tackle, and in that case, there is no escape unless you are VERY fast, or can cloak. Don't forget about bubbles too. The golden rule of eve is "Don't fly what you can't afford to lose."
Eagle Tarquinas Gallente Epiphyte Mining and Exploration	Posted - 2009.07.29 21:35:00 - [6] Originally by: ArcticPrism Edited by: ArcticPrism on 29/07/2009 21:34:22 So basically you don't want PvP to be possible in low-sec. Despite what you are saying, being able to summon concord takes it away. Taking any ship into low sec should be a risk. Fitting something with ridiculous tank just to be impossible for pirates to kill before CONCORD arrives is silly. Take something that can align fast, or use warp core stabilizers. Even better, get someone in a covert ops ship to scout for you so you don't get caught at gate camps. Part of what makes EVE unique is non-consensual PvP. There shouldn't be game mechanics to hold your hands every step of the way. A 0.0 gate camp is many times more dangerous than any low sec gate camp. For one, they can have interceptors to tackle, and in that case, there is no escape unless you are VERY fast, or can cloak. Don't forget about bubbles too. The golden rule of eve is "Don't fly what you can't afford to lose." QFE
Rawbin Hood Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2009.07.29 22:56:00 - [7] i know the feeling... wish there was a way to undock safely, i get tired of toting around a alt with me just to check stations, and wait, and look, and wait, fake an incoming fleet, and wait, smack for a bit and realize thats entertainment, wait some more, (Skill training completed), and wait.... but other things are worse. ◄Brutor► The Movement Because the human race can do better as a whole (despite these forums, they don't count)
Kahega Amielden Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2009.07.29 22:58:00 - [8] .4 is many times safer than 0.0 if you're even remotely competent. Gate guns, plentiful stations, and no bubbles.
AtheistOfDoom Amarr The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2009.07.30 00:11:00 - [9] NO. Pew Pew Lazorz!!!
Ydyp Ieva Caldari Amarrian Retribution	Posted - 2009.07.30 07:29:00 - [10] Edited by: Ydyp Ieva on 30/07/2009 07:30:03 Originally by: Kahega Amielden .4 is many times safer to travel through than 0.0 if you're even remotely competent. Gate guns, plentiful stations, and no bubbles. There fixed it. To live in 0.0 is a lot safer then 0.1 - 0.4 with the right alliance. But then again the proposed module is bad indeed, don't want to see anything like it seen in the game. A small buff to the gateguns is in order though, it has gotten to easy to tank them. ---------------------------------- None of yet!
Durzel The Xenodus Initiative.	Posted - 2009.07.30 07:52:00 - [11] Edited by: Durzel on 30/07/2009 07:54:32 Originally by: Eagle Tarquinas Sentry guns arent supposed to punish really, they are supposed to augment a defender's DPS and require an attacker to use a decent sized ship to survive the gate guns (battleships can essentially laugh at gate guns) causing more risk. The guy already said that the pirate wasn't in a big ship though. I've been lit up by the gate guns on occasions because I've stupidly warped there (or just got too impatient or whatever) with a GCC and they don't seem to do an awful lot of damage. The OP has a point I think, as of now there really is little distinction between lower security systems besides how few of these gate guns exist, going from "almost total safety" of 0.5 to "effectively zero safety" of 0.4. e: The "CONCORD summoning" is a bit lame though, would be better I guess if there was some anti-pirate volunteer Police or something that worked a similar way to a FW corp. Perhaps they could even have some jurisdiction over things like killrights (e.g. people could transfer killrights to the "Police corp", collecting bounties, etc).
Lana Torrin Minmatar Republic Military Skool	Posted - 2009.07.30 07:52:00 - [12] Concord provides consequences, not protection.
Robert0288 Caldari g guild Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2009.07.30 08:11:00 - [13] I wouldn't mind seeing empire navies, or those ******ed dumb downed concord ships occasionally flying through lowsec on patrol. After all Lowsec still 'belongs' the the various empires. It would make things more interesting for pirates too as now you can also shoot at faction NPC ships that go around and can drop (faction?) loot and tags.
Eleana Tomelac Gallente Eclats de verre	Posted - 2009.07.30 08:55:00 - [14] If there was something to do for lowsec it's not concord killing the pirates. But, you're talking about being ganked at a gate by a pirate blob. What we could have is a warning from the gate before jumping. "outlaws at the exit of the gate", as there's a gate control on the other side too, it could warn people that would jump through. Other type of warning would be when undocking from a station owned by a corporation that follows concord regulations, they could warn you that there are outlaws outside. This could even be limited only to gates that jump from hisec to lowsec, once you're in lowsec, you're on your own, you've been warned! -- Fanfest memories : I looked in your eyes And I found the galaxy Now I'm stuck in eve.
Ydyp Ieva Caldari Amarrian Retribution	Posted - 2009.07.30 09:04:00 - [15] Originally by: Eleana Tomelac If there was something to do for lowsec it's not concord killing the pirates. But, you're talking about being ganked at a gate by a pirate blob. What we could have is a warning from the gate before jumping. "outlaws at the exit of the gate", as there's a gate control on the other side too, it could warn people that would jump through. Other type of warning would be when undocking from a station owned by a corporation that follows concord regulations, they could warn you that there are outlaws outside. This could even be limited only to gates that jump from hisec to lowsec, once you're in lowsec, you're on your own, you've been warned! Depends what you call a blob, it isn't hard to melt someone that jumped through in a cruiser. And no I wasn't in a blob or overly fit tanked BS. I was in all alone in a battlecruiser when that lonely cruiser decloaked in front of me after picking up some stuff in the system and making the jump back to highsec. I was in a bad mood and decided to pop him. Gateguns only tickled. ---------------------------------- None of yet!
Abrazzar	Posted - 2009.07.30 13:21:00 - [16] Well, maybe do this in a different way. Make it call faction police instead of CONCORD and make it depend if the faction you call for help actually likes you and if they have sovereignty in the system you are in. The distress beacon could fit in a probe launcher with separate beacons for each empire faction. Beacons can be acquired from any military or governmental corporation from the factions in the LP store. The spawn of faction police will be in size inversely to the rat spawns in the system according to security. So in a 0.4 system the spawn will be the same as rats spawn in a 0.1 system and so on. To prevent abuse, should the spawn get completely wiped out, the caller will get a faction hit for the bad judgment/reckless sacrifice. So people cannot farm the faction police with an alt, at least only until their faction standing drops below the level where the faction will help out. Faction police will only spawn when your faction standing is positive, like at 2 or 3 and more. It will not spawn if your security rating is low enough to make you a general outlaw. It will not attack anyone from the aggressors that has at least 2 more faction standing than you do and is not a outlaw. The police will attack any player with aggression towards the distress caller and will stay as long as the aggression lasts, maybe plus a few minutes. Now, why the hell would anyone want this? Lowsec mission runners can dip the scale a bit more into their favor, which may allow them to run off the attacker. Same with exploration. Factional warfare can call for support from their faction to defend systems they control. Pirates can thoroughly own the stupid and not only blast the victim's ship, but also mess with its faction standing and they'll have some more wrecks and loot for ISK. In the end it allows people to risk their faction standing for fire support and on the other side of the aggression, people have more shooting at them for more loot. This may make lowsec a bit more accessible for people not fitted for all-out PvP, like mission runners and maybe even mining ops. Now please, don't hurt me. -------- Ideas for: Mining
IIISAAC	Posted - 2009.07.30 13:29:00 - [17] firstly, 0.0¦s are player controlled areas, where alliances with their corps have their own territory and wage war with each other, so I can quarantee that 0.0 isnt safer than low sec it¦s not a place for piracy, piracy is for low sec, that¦s why it exists better idea is to add concord ships on every gate which leads to high sec if that¦s one of the problems here but concord distress beacon is way too overpowered. low sec then becomes same as high sec. no sense at all.
Eleana Tomelac Gallente Eclats de verre	Posted - 2009.07.30 14:37:00 - [18] Originally by: Ydyp Ieva Depends what you call a blob, it isn't hard to melt someone that jumped through in a cruiser. And no I wasn't in a blob or overly fit tanked BS. I was in all alone in a battlecruiser when that lonely cruiser decloaked in front of me after picking up some stuff in the system and making the jump back to highsec. I was in a bad mood and decided to pop him. Gateguns only tickled. The warning doesn't depend on the number of outlaws on the other side of the gate, just the gate says there are some... Not knowing the numbers either you call for a scout or you try your luck. Anyway, there might be only one visible guy a the gate, others may be cloaked or in a very close safe to warp on the target. This just adds a need of not just camping the gate or people will know there are outlaws there. -- Fanfest memories : I looked in your eyes And I found the galaxy Now I'm stuck in eve.
Ollora Denebe	Posted - 2009.07.30 14:51:00 - [19] Add collateral damage - guns "blow out" their heat damage around them. Parking at gates, stations, etc, will inevitably cause damage to the station or gate and give you your GCF. That being said, gate and station guns need to be equipped with webs and scrams too - they might not have enough DPS to take down the current crop of silly tanks, but you're not going anywhere either. I do agree though that CONCORD should have a gradually diminishing presence from 1.0 to 0.1, not suddenly disappear at 0.4. Perhaps it's time for a "CONCORD Militia"? Players could roam out where CONCORD normally isn't, but on behalf of CONCORD...
Grumples McGee	Posted - 2009.07.30 14:54:00 - [20] The only think I think is wrong with 0.4 - 0.1 is that there's no apparent difference. It might be nice if 0.4 gate guns were 4x stronger than 0.1 gateguns. So maybe you can tank 0.4 with a battleship but you can tank 0.1 with a cruiser. (Or you can tank 0.1 with a battleship and you can tank 0.4 with 4 battleships). But as to the original idea: no. Calling in concord would just turn lowsec into highsec. Although as another option, I actually wouldn't mind seeing concorde man the gates in LowSec and simply not aid you if you are not at the gates. So pirates can still jump you in your missions or asteroid belts but they couldn't gatecamp. Gatecamp is pretty much the bottom feeder piracy in EVE. Gatecamping is to pirates what mining asteroids is to someone who wants to make money. It works, but it's mindless and boring and too easy.
Abrazzar	Posted - 2009.07.30 15:31:00 - [21] Heh, think of CONCORD camping a 0.5 gate in 0.4 when there has been too much pirate activity, ganking anything considered outlaw in 0.5 or having a GCC. -------- Ideas for: Mining
Eagle Tarquinas Gallente Epiphyte Mining and Exploration	Posted - 2009.07.30 15:58:00 - [22] Factional police wouldn't be near as bad as concord due to the fact that Factional police can actually be fought and killed while concord = DEATH. Having factional police guarding gates in .4-.1 in decreasing numbers wouldn't be that bad if implemented correctly.
Spurty Caldari D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.07.30 17:12:00 - [23] Edited by: Spurty on 30/07/2009 17:12:27 Guns on gates in low sec are really not much of a way to prohibit any sort of team play. sit 10 people in battle ships on an low sec gate you want, they can tank the guns all night and day as the guns cycle their targets before they do any real hurt and there are no warp scrambling batteries to hold em. Heck, you can even scramble people in an interceptor in low sec, gate guns track very well, but you can warp off well before they become more of a threat than the target. Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails i for one, like 8's that look like 9's lol
Ollora Denebe	Posted - 2009.07.30 22:12:00 - [24] Originally by: Esseter <snip>Perhaps a solution would be a CONCORD distress beacon module. An outlaw attacks you without provocation, you activate it, CONCORD comes to bail you out.<snip> I would agree with this only conditionally, that at the same time nerf CONCORD (especially in term of omniscience). So ships normally have a local scan range of 100+ km. So basically, if anything bad happens in that range of CONCORD, you're busted. Ships also have long range scanners. CONCORD should actively (in proportion to the sec rating of the system) scan systems and warp around. They pop in within 100km of any ships they find, watch them, then carry on. You know like police do in real life. In really highsec areas this could mean an almost continual CONCORD presence (aka CONCORD stalking). Of course, if you evade them, and stay out of scan range (14 million km?), then they won't even bother you in highsec (good place to build a smuggler's gate, no?). Having arbitrary warp alignments would be crucial to getting "out there". Then, all ships can have distress signals (which are rangeless, but bound to that system - they can't jump gates) to alert CONCORD. From there, your sec rating is evaluated against some formula (as CCP loves complex formulas) that determines how quickly CONCORD responds and with how much force CONCORD can muster.
AtheistOfDoom Amarr The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2009.07.31 19:56:00 - [25] Originally by: Eagle Tarquinas Factional police wouldn't be near as bad as concord due to the fact that Factional police can actually be fought and killed while concord = DEATH. Having factional police guarding gates in .4-.1 in decreasing numbers wouldn't be that bad if implemented correctly. You know how I can tell you don't live in low sec? ** NO. Pew Pew Lazorz!!!**
Atata Kaiko	Posted - 2009.08.01 04:39:00 - [26] Originally by: AtheistOfDoom Originally by: Eagle Tarquinas Factional police wouldn't be near as bad as concord due to the fact that Factional police can actually be fought and killed while concord = DEATH. Having factional police guarding gates in .4-.1 in decreasing numbers wouldn't be that bad if implemented correctly. You know how I can tell you don't live in low sec? **** NO. Faction Warfare's broken enough - can't even imagine how the dev's would make a Concord militia work. No, Concord needs nerfing, not more power through a player militia.
Atata Kaiko	Posted - 2009.08.01 04:56:00 - [27] Originally by: Grumples McGee The only think I think is wrong with 0.4 - 0.1 is that there's no apparent difference. It might be nice if 0.4 gate guns were 4x stronger than 0.1 gateguns. So maybe you can tank 0.4 with a battleship but you can tank 0.1 with a cruiser. (Or you can tank 0.1 with a battleship and you can tank 0.4 with 4 battleships). Yeah, and make the guns in 1.0 space ten times as deadly as in 0.1. No wait, there's something wrong with that ... see, what I don't like about Concord or the gate guns is that they're too powerful as it is. Maybe not in damage done, but in that they know your every action in highsec space. They're like gods or something, and that's stupid. Buffing gate and station guns in favour of Concord is pushing the game in the wrong direction, by diluting it, and removing the only fun component. Originally by: Grumples McGee But as to the original idea: no. Calling in concord would just turn lowsec into highsec. Although as another option, I actually wouldn't mind seeing concorde man the gates in LowSec and simply not aid you if you are not at the gates. So pirates can still jump you in your missions or asteroid belts but they couldn't gatecamp. Maybe Concord should have some presence all the way from 1.0 space to 0.1 space, in gradually diminishing numbers. Perhaps at the 0.2 gates, Concord consists of two destroyers that a reasonably well equipped pirate could take on. LOL. Seriously though, Concord should have more ships, not fewer, and spread more throughout the galaxy and not concentrated in highsec space buzzing around gates. But they shouldn't be all-powerful, all-knowing either. They should have to scan you before tackling you, they should have to find and warp to your location if you're in the middle of nowhere - and because of the delays, should roam around systems like beat cops. Concord should have to find you - if they even know you're around - and if they do, you should have a chance at escape. And there should be backdoors into systems so that players with poor standings can still move around (although it's risky - get scanned, you're toast). Bring back smuggler gates!
Comodore John Gallente QunSegh Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2009.08.01 05:36:00 - [28] a module to summon concord would be so widely abused (using it in rancer with an alt so they die or w/e so your trader can get through to get to jita or w/e)
AtheistOfDoom Amarr The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2009.08.01 22:04:00 - [29] Originally by: Atata Kaiko Maybe Concord should have some presence all the way from 1.0 space to 0.1 space, in gradually diminishing numbers. Perhaps at the 0.2 gates, Concord consists of two destroyers that a reasonably well equipped pirate could take on. LOL. Seriously though, Concord should have more ships, not fewer, and spread more throughout the galaxy and not concentrated in highsec space buzzing around gates. But they shouldn't be all-powerful, all-knowing either. They should have to scan you before tackling you, they should have to find and warp to your location if you're in the middle of nowhere - and because of the delays, should roam around systems like beat cops. Concord should have to find you - if they even know you're around - and if they do, you should have a chance at escape. And there should be backdoors into systems so that players with poor standings can still move around (although it's risky - get scanned, you're toast). Bring back smuggler gates! Leave CONCORD/faction navies/ANY police force out of LOW SEC. There is nothing wrong with the current sec system, just too many whiners. Pew Pew Lazorz!!!
Alfons Richthofen Caldari Die Luftwaffe	Posted - 2009.08.02 04:39:00 - [30] "Wah wah wah, I hate pirates, they outnumber me and kill me and I want a fair fight." Get a fleet of people, take advantage of having falcons (pirates can't use falcons in gate camps due to sentry fire, only scorpions) and fight them.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.