| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Officer Dibble
   |
Posted - 2005.12.09 16:20:00 -
[31]
I would like to see a "police Profession" .....
|
Harisdrop
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 16:22:00 -
[32]
CONCORD the true story
You see we all learn!
--------------------------
Whats funny is your heard it. |
QSquared
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 16:27:00 -
[33]
Lygos I really liked your stuff, except this:
 Quote:
-War vessels should provoke different levels of change than say commercial vessels. The amplitude of a sec hit for destroying a battleship would be less than for a cruiser on a level according to the golden ratio. I wanted to protect haulers a bit previously.. but why in a game of corporate competition? I figure the more advanced an object is, the less protection. T1 should result in a bigger hit than T2 civilian ships like haulers and ORE vessels. Friendly to macroers I suppose, but they can be dealt with in other ways.
Seems to me the larger the object ( and therefore mor expencive to own operate and maintain) that is hit the larger the sec change EXCEPT if that ship is Civie, andby civie I mean relatively defenceless, I think you shodul get more violation fow blowing up a ship with no defences such as an industrial, transport, frieghter, shuttle, Newbie ship. Also there should be more sec status change if a ship is being used primarily in a peace-full manner - eg mining. If the ship is 80% mining lazers bigger sec hit. if the ship is bristling with guns lower sec hit.
I think we shodul be trying to punnish the people who are ganking people who cannot defend themselves first and fore-most and then the others. As with everything the scale should slide and as you reach 0.0 become no penalties in system and less penalties to no penalties sec change wise -its lawless space. Seems to me you shodul be able to kill out there and it shodul be hard for concord to find out, so you get sec change less often, then you can come back to 1.0 and behave yourself. I woudl imagine concord's stance would be something like "It's lawless space, that frigate shodul have known better, perhaps now it does" on 0.0
A Nod is as good as a wink to a blind bat! ;-) ~Q (http://www.TheKnightsTemplar.us) |
Willo Vasquez
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 16:43:00 -
[34]
The CONCORD system of protection works fine in hi-sec, as far as I'm concerned. The only modification to the current system I'd suggest would be a response based upon the target's sec-status, with very high or indeed very low security status targets recieving less 'protection' from CONCORD, depending on the status of their attacker.
|
BurnHard
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 17:00:00 -
[35]
So let me get this right: 2,000 players who don't mind losing faction with the Caldari will be spendig their weekends camped in High Sec killing n00bs/raiding traders until their standing is so low they can no longer enter Caldari space. Then, they will go off and grind some agent somewhere to get their standing back up, rinse and repeat.
No thanks. I would rather fix these "glitches" you speak of than rip the entire system out. At the very least, you have just given a very good reason for auto-lock to be off by default. Yes, you should be able to blow up your own can. That sounds like a bug/oversight to me, not a problem with the system as a whole.
Please keep things in perspective.
|
Kara Kaprica
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 17:19:00 -
[36]
sorry to be blunt but each time concord gank you, you did something dumb. You learn from your mistakes.
Always Outnumbered. Never Outgunned. |
Kurren
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 17:32:00 -
[37]
Yes, but how many people DON'T die a day because CONCORD is there? Granted there are instances where CONCORD is just a nubbish as... well... a nub, but that doesn't mean we should take them away. Look at the big picture.
The death penalty gets a few innocents every now and then, but in the long run I feel safer knowing that the murderers it does get will never do it again.
Some systems may not work perfectly, but for the most part, at least they work.
Sigs must be related to EVE. -Capsicum |
Rangoon
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 17:40:00 -
[38]
You havn't researched your post very well, researched PVP even less. No this isn't a flame, I'm going to directly tell you ... Turn you autolock feature off when you PvP. Thats like something you learn the first day of PvP.
Your comment that you haven't found anyone who was actually legitimately protected by concord, is ridiculous. Anybody and everybody you see in .5 and above space is being protected by concord. Just lock on the next Indy you see in .7 space and fire on him to pirate him.
|
Taketa De
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 18:23:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Rells
After having researched this post, I havent found anyone who was actually legitimately protected by CONCORD. Almost every story I hear of people being blown up by CONCORD is some cheese like this. That tells me that concord is not effective.
The magic with security is that it is there to NOT make things happen = prevent them from happening. There are two levels to this. One is stopping an attack or in the case of Concord punishing it.
The other more important one which the punishment also supports is deterrence. That means as long it works, the bad stuff doesn't happen = it's invisible.
Without data (or sometimes common sense) to compare the situation to cases where the security doesn't exist, you can't really know how well the deterrence works untill it is removed.
In the end, since most people don't say that Concord doesn't work and it effectively keeps most pirating to low sec it is fair to say that Concord is working as intended.
|
HippoKing
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 18:34:00 -
[40]
Edited by: HippoKing on 09/12/2005 18:33:47
man, when i've stopped laughing i'll come back and flame
|
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 18:37:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Rod Blaine on 09/12/2005 18:38:35
op, read my sig.
Abolishing concord goes too far maybe, but some other parts of your ideas certainly have some very practical value imo.
Replacing security rating with faction rating is one way to make this game alot more dynamic, and solve some accountability issues at the same time. It also would allow for factional warfare in a dynamical, partly player driven sense.
Anyways, good post, even if your solutions arent all equally realistic.
_______________________________________________
Power to the players !
|
Alex Kynes
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 19:00:00 -
[42]
And lets not forget the wee little fact that CONCORD is supposed to be the police. Right now, CONCORD is more of a god then a cop. And a pretty nasty god at that.
Taking some power away from CONCORD would be a good. Empires are no longer as nice and cuddly as they were at the time of Yulai convention.
-AK
|
Rells
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 22:07:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Rod Blaine
Edited by: Rod Blaine on 09/12/2005 18:38:35
op, read my sig.
Abolishing concord goes too far maybe, but some other parts of your ideas certainly have some very practical value imo.
Replacing security rating with faction rating is one way to make this game alot more dynamic, and solve some accountability issues at the same time. It also would allow for factional warfare in a dynamical, partly player driven sense.
Anyways, good post, even if your solutions arent all equally realistic.
Perhaps. However I find it incredulous that a Caldari pilot should be blown up in Caldari space for killing a filthy Gallente pilot theiving our ore. Im obviously speaking in RP terms here. It applies equally well to any other faction. I would like the situation to be more factional. It makes me wonder how factional warfare will be done. Will it just be more missions or will there really be a factional effect to eve.
Right now pilots fly where they wish and there is no need to think about the factional space. I find that silly within the context of the story. But then that is another issue. Is the story important in eve or just a side and barely meaningful issue?
@The Flamers
As for the flamers ... *dismissive wave* ... call me what you will but I wont really care and it wont change the content of the post. If you flamers think I have only played this char then you need to stop thinking because you arent very good at it.
◄ I must not fear.
◄ Fear is the mind-killer.
◄ Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration.
◄ -- Paul Atreides
|
Tonkin
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 22:08:00 -
[44]
WAR DEC problem solved
|
Xeethra
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 22:12:00 -
[45]
this is the msot stupidest thing i have ever seen, if u want to gank anyone u can then bugger off to 0.0, for ur post u are as much as a friefer as the ones you are *****ing about
attacking people in high sec? sec status abolished, all 0.0?
are u just plain god damn stupid?
---------------------------------------------
Need Hosting? Need Web Design?
EliteCCP.Com Networks In Partners With ispeeds.net |
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 22:16:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Rells
Originally by: Rod Blaine
Edited by: Rod Blaine on 09/12/2005 18:38:35
op, read my sig.
Abolishing concord goes too far maybe, but some other parts of your ideas certainly have some very practical value imo.
Replacing security rating with faction rating is one way to make this game alot more dynamic, and solve some accountability issues at the same time. It also would allow for factional warfare in a dynamical, partly player driven sense.
Anyways, good post, even if your solutions arent all equally realistic.
Perhaps. However I find it incredulous that a Caldari pilot should be blown up in Caldari space for killing a filthy Gallente pilot theiving our ore. Im obviously speaking in RP terms here. It applies equally well to any other faction. I would like the situation to be more factional. It makes me wonder how factional warfare will be done. Will it just be more missions or will there really be a factional effect to eve.
Right now pilots fly where they wish and there is no need to think about the factional space. I find that silly within the context of the story. But then that is another issue. Is the story important in eve or just a side and barely meaningful issue?
@The Flamers
As for the flamers ... *dismissive wave* ... call me what you will but I wont really care and it wont change the content of the post. If you flamers think I have only played this char then you need to stop thinking because you arent very good at it.
Like I said, click teh sig 
_______________________________________________
Power to the players !
|
Rells
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 22:18:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Xeethra
this is the msot stupidest thing i have ever seen, if u want to gank anyone u can then bugger off to 0.0, for ur post u are as much as a friefer as the ones you are *****ing about
attacking people in high sec? sec status abolished, all 0.0?
are u just plain god damn stupid?
I am at least intelligent enough to read an entire thread when I reply to it and not just the topic line. Perhaps I have you beat there. No where in my post did I say to make all of space be 0.0 so stop your carebear whining and groveling already. Its distinctly disturbing.
◄ I must not fear.
◄ Fear is the mind-killer.
◄ Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration.
◄ -- Paul Atreides
|
Malthros Zenobia
|
Posted - 2005.12.10 07:26:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Rells
I wish to change the system because it is useless in my opinion. it has little to do with my personal experiences.
It has everything to do with your personal experiences. You thnk it's useless because you've been pwned by it a few times. Your idea of a sec loss with the governing faction is nothing more than a laugh. You think people would care about faction loss? Ohno, can't go into caldari space after killing a few dozen newbs, guess it's time to move on to one of 3 others, or mission my sec back up some. Removing CONCORD would cause so much chaos that it wouldn't be funny.
Without CONCORD EVE could, and would, become empty.
------------------------------------
Inappropriate signature -zhuge |
DARTHEXIDOUS
|
Posted - 2005.12.10 07:58:00 -
[49]
You answered your own silly question and i quote what you posted:
"So what would I propose in place of CONCORD? Simply an extension of the faction system. If I destroy a miner in a Caldari system in an unprevoked attack, I should loose faction with the Caldari up to the point where their military will attack me on sight and I cant dock at their stations".
There you go each faction has its own concord simple you lose faction with that race you answered your own post now read it and think before you post and make a fool of yourself.doh
|
High Sierra
|
Posted - 2005.12.10 08:57:00 -
[50]
open up concord. let pilots join concorde as an npc corp.
open up concorde agents.
oh and before the griefers get in on the 'yeah I'll join concorde and shoot everyone with complete immunity', no. You join concorde, you are responsible for keeping space safe.
This could be done by pilots being issued open ended bounty hunter missions on pilots who commit criminal acts in concorde space. Oh and the bounty issued by concorde should only be a part of the mission structure and paid to the concorde member.
People may argue that the griefers would just log off. My entire response to that is - good! if they aint on they aint griefing.
Mind you, its going to be interesting to see how the flagging changes will effect the lame pirate griefers after RMR.
|
Rells
|
Posted - 2005.12.10 11:34:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Malthros Zenobia
Originally by: Rells
I wish to change the system because it is useless in my opinion. it has little to do with my personal experiences.
It has everything to do with your personal experiences. You thnk it's useless because you've been pwned by it a few times. Your idea of a sec loss with the governing faction is nothing more than a laugh. You think people would care about faction loss? Ohno, can't go into caldari space after killing a few dozen newbs, guess it's time to move on to one of 3 others, or mission my sec back up some. Removing CONCORD would cause so much chaos that it wouldn't be funny.
Without CONCORD EVE could, and would, become empty.
Its a tad hard to "mission up" if the agents wont even speak with you. Missioning up would be for those that killed a macrominer or 2 and wish to regain the lost faction. How would you like to loose 1.0 faction standings per pod kill in 1.0 systems? That would make you think twice.
Yes, you can go to other empires and kil newbs there but you will soon run out of other empires to go to and life will become very hard. Right now the faction system is a joke at best, used only ba mission runners to get to the next agent. It could be an integral part of the game. The problem is many poeple are too CHICKEN to see it.
The people arguing against this are inventing things out of nowhere that I never said. They are being reactionary and carebearish; seeming to think that if there is no CONCORD then there is no protection at all. No one in this thread has advocated making eve a free for all 0.0 everywhere.
◄ I must not fear.
◄ Fear is the mind-killer.
◄ Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration.
◄ -- Paul Atreides
|
Rells
|
Posted - 2005.12.10 11:35:00 -
[52]
Originally by: High Sierra
open up concord. let pilots join concorde as an npc corp.
open up concorde agents.
oh and before the griefers get in on the 'yeah I'll join concorde and shoot everyone with complete immunity', no. You join concorde, you are responsible for keeping space safe.
This could be done by pilots being issued open ended bounty hunter missions on pilots who commit criminal acts in concorde space. Oh and the bounty issued by concorde should only be a part of the mission structure and paid to the concorde member.
People may argue that the griefers would just log off. My entire response to that is - good! if they aint on they aint griefing.
Mind you, its going to be interesting to see how the flagging changes will effect the lame pirate griefers after RMR.
Killing someone without using exploits or harassment (following them around every time they log on and things like that) is not griefing. Learn that now.
◄ I must not fear.
◄ Fear is the mind-killer.
◄ Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration.
◄ -- Paul Atreides
|
MellaRinn
|
Posted - 2005.12.10 11:36:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Rells
The reality of the situation in the game is that CONCORD does far more to protect griefers and exploiters than it does to protect the common man. For example, if a player attacks you and you come back with friends he can just jump up to high sec and be invulnerable.
Check feature: Kill Rights in RMR...
|
Rells
|
Posted - 2005.12.10 11:41:00 -
[54]
Originally by: MellaRinn
Originally by: Rells
The reality of the situation in the game is that CONCORD does far more to protect griefers and exploiters than it does to protect the common man. For example, if a player attacks you and you come back with friends he can just jump up to high sec and be invulnerable.
Check feature: Kill Rights in RMR...
I have read that. Criminal flagging systems have never worked in any MMOG. There are always ways around it. Furthermore it still wouldnt stop the protection that the macrominers get.
◄ I must not fear.
◄ Fear is the mind-killer.
◄ Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration.
◄ -- Paul Atreides
|
Fairchild
|
Posted - 2005.12.10 11:45:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Fairchild on 10/12/2005 11:45:51
You sir are a fool, to be quite frank, i think this idea is absolutley stupid and since u just called sumone a carebear it proves one thing, u aree either a griefer, a pirate or an idiot in an aliance who wants easy targets, i suggest u grow up and its the same for macrominers
You only hate them because they make more cash than u do, just like u idiots had lvl 4 misisons nerfed because u *****ed to ccp about how much cash we made on them aswell, u just want everything ur way like litte children and quite frankly, the fact that ccp listens to u is disturbing
|
Bahnny
|
Posted - 2005.12.10 11:48:00 -
[56]
Me and a few buds were discussing something similiar to this..
One of the things we considered was you had to be eligible for concord protection...
I.E say a player in a newbie corp is protected by concord for their first two weeks but as soon as they join a player corp or their 'trial' ends they should require a 2.0+ standing with concord before they are eligible for protection (or 1.0, i've been playing for over a year and only have a .4 sec rating.. So the numbers may need work)
No macro miners want to put forth that kind of effort, it will become very unprofitable, so it forces them to play the game - or quit.
It makes things also more interesting.. No lock on and missiles away. First thing your going to be checking is their security status.. And I have to say I like the OP's of faction rating.. Maybe if you had a racial security status/faction - you could bind them or make them based similiarly but sec status would be modified by many other things that you can do in game.
My two cents. if i'm unclear yell at me, its really late here.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |