| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Enoch Throckmorton
Permanent Floating Riot Club
0
   |
Posted - 2011.11.13 18:54:00 -
[1] - Quote
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
Brothers At Arms
Intrepid Crossing
33
|
Posted - 2011.11.13 21:34:00 -
[2] - Quote
This... would do precisely nothing but make it easier to gank Incursion runners.
(not sure if bad thing) |
Jessie Gavin
Kick B0rt
Test Alliance Please Ignore
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.13 22:52:00 -
[3] - Quote
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
63
|
Posted - 2011.11.13 22:56:00 -
[4] - Quote
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!
more little ideas that need your support:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=261507#post261507
enjoying the order cancellation confirmation? sometimes CCP listens - there is hope after all :)
www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1431503 |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
Petition Blizzard
314
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 22:55:00 -
[5] - Quote
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.
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. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
Petition Blizzard
314
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 22:57:00 -
[6] - Quote
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.
|
el alasar
The Scope
Gallente Federation
64
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 23:08:00 -
[7] - Quote
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
more little ideas that need your support:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=261507#post261507
enjoying the order cancellation confirmation? sometimes CCP listens - there is hope after all :)
www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1431503 |
Goose99
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
159
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 05:03:00 -
[8] - Quote
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. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |