| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
KillUJim
   |
Posted - 2009.09.27 22:35:00 -
[1]
Edited by: KillUJim on 27/09/2009 22:43:53
I know concord is neccesary for noobs to actually survive eve(kinda) but what i beleive Concord should be is NPC Roaming gangs of absolute Gankage.
Concord should not be in all high-sec systems at a time, They should be in roaming gangs moving from system to system in high-sec.
Of course the system security status should dictate how often Concord gangs come around.
With this system in place the main advantage Concord would have(aside from being uber PWN) is that they would not show up in local, and they would know where pirates are in a short time.
This would make the entire game much more interesting.
Of course low-sec should still be Concordless.
|
Ran Khanon
Amarr
The Phantom Acolytes
|
Posted - 2009.09.27 22:59:00 -
[2]
You mean that when Concord isn't around you won't be flagged and eventually killed by them at all when you attack a neutral player? Or do you mean to just nerf their response time on that, and by that having a chance to escape into lowsec?
I think neither would do the game much good. EVE is built on a balance between free for all space and concord controlled space. You are free to gank (and face the consequences) in high sec already. That is more freedom than tons of other mmorpgs where pvp isn't possible at all on places where you aren't supposed to. But limiting concord would make one big hell of a gankfest out of highsec very quickly as soon as CONCORD left the system. There is lowsec and nulsec for that.
Missioning marauders, hauling orca's, noob frigs ... so many tears would flow, so many subs would be terminated :)
|
KillUJim
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 00:13:00 -
[3]
What i mean is that you will be flagged in high-sec for agression, but if a concord fleet is not in the system your agressed in then a concord fleet will come from a nearby system to remove you.
|
Valorous Bob
Locusts.
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 02:26:00 -
[4]
Ran said it well, we already have WAY more freedom then WoW and most other mainstream MMOs. We have what i feel, is a good balance right now and we dont need a change.
However, if CCP did decide to delay CONCORD, then your way would be the best, becuase lets face it, seeing a CONCORD roaming gang patrollin fo piwates would be pretty cool. 
_______________________________________________
KILL THE TITAN: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1175042 |
Jim GNARKILL
Gnarkill INC
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 02:53:00 -
[5]
CONCORD
|
Msgerbs
Gallente
Imperial Assualt Guild
Raikiri Assasins
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 02:56:00 -
[6]
So basically CONCORD becomes less like CONCORD and more like CVA or other anti-pies?
No.
------
C&P wannabe |
Ekon Bor
Amarr
Van Diemen's Demise
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 03:28:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Ekon Bor on 28/09/2009 03:31:41
"much more interesting" in the context of the OP presumably = more easy kills... and hey, I want them to, but this is a bit lame.
The carebears need somewhere reasonably safe (or at least, somewhere that there is a high cost to kill them in terms of Concordokken and sec hits. And any excessive delay denies them that. As prior poster said, there's a balance to be struck; and someone has to build the ships, mine the rocks etc. IMO, what's really needed is more incentives for those people to enter lowsec; it's got the risks, it needs the rewards.
|
Smiling Menace
Gallente
Crimson Paradox
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 06:16:00 -
[8]
Dunno about roaming gangs but it would be cool to 'bribe' Concord to take a quick smoke break when you roll in to pop all those darned macros in the icefields in high sec 
|
Ospie
Core Impulse
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 06:30:00 -
[9]
 Originally by: Msgerbs
So basically CONCORD becomes less like CONCORD and more like CVA or other anti-pies?
No.
I'd like to oppose that statement, it's giving alot of credit to CVA.
|
Covert Oops
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 07:09:00 -
[10]
I have a better idea.
How about roaming CONCORD gangs for low sec. Would mean low-sec is actually different than 0.0.
CONCORD would not be unbeatable like in high sec, but something to give us pirate tears.
|
Lexa Hellfury
The Hull Miners Union
Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 07:14:00 -
[11]
Terrible idea.
Originally by: RedSplat
The Forum moderation Software known as Mitnal became self aware. CCP had no choice but to shut it down.
|
VengeanceMK2
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 10:54:00 -
[12]
why not having Concord out of business in a high-sec operations and see how many noobs and careless carebears are killed by piwates. there are definitely purposes having Concords in high sec, and removing those rules in high sec woulde make even worse for new players trying to adapt in eve environment. You are just simply want to kill those noobs for fun, but others may leave eve. Why not try killing them with a suicide tactics? that would be another option to do unless if you donot care your sec status. so, my opinion on your proposal is not acceptable.
|
Dani SP
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 17:17:00 -
[13]
I totally endorse this product/service.
Make it like 1.0 is 100% possibilities CONCORD is there -so, always- and 0.0 is 0%. So there's a true scale from 0.0 to 1.0 meaning lowsec gets some concord sometimes... lol.
Kinda russian roulette 
|
Uncle Maxx
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 22:23:00 -
[14]
There should be a gradual difference between high sec and low sec instead of the clear break between .5 and .4
Make it so that aggression in .4 gets a response but not with the uber fleet of battleships and support, but maybe a squad of 3 or 4 cruisers. Maybe not enough to pop the well prepared pirate but just enough hassle so that the semi-prepared carebear can push back and force the pirate to disengage or let the cb escape.
As the sec status lowers the possibility of CONCORD gets lower and the size/number of ships is reduced until at .1 you just get a token response some 10% of the time.
Nothing game breaking, but definitely a difference in the sec status of the systems.
Just my .02 isk
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |