| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
49
   |
Posted - 2014.04.09 14:32:00 -
[1] - Quote
Let's take CONCORD out of the picture for long term player piracy. CONCORD leaves NPC pirates alone in favor of player enforcement doesn't it?
So implement mechanics to move long term hi sec gankers into permanent rat status. Assign them to Angel, Guristas, etc NPC corp if not in player corp. Long term would need to be carefully defined to preserve hi sec piracy. But as an example I think anyone who has 40 kill rights issued against them in 2 months (dedicated behavior) or more than 20 in 2 weeks (sprint behavior) is declaring themselves a full-time pirate.
Why?
#1 Player fleets could then protect miners or missions or haulers. Currently its not practical since you cannot shoot pirates until well after their attack is underway -- or your much more expensive defending ship will be the one flagged criminal and destroyed by CONCORD. Also this would close the neutral repping windows from "non-pirate" supporters since pirate would constantly be flagged as hostile to the Empire.
#2 Player pirates could mount larger fleets and use larger ships without fear of direct CONCORD interference (unless they start shooting CONCORD or stations etc). Possibly becoming as big a system denial threat as an incursion.
#3 Jobs for mercenaries escort fleets -- formation of player caravans in high sec etc. Some for this might once formed move into low sec.
Argument:
The current criminal flagging and tags to clear security standing is wonderful for occasional lawbreakers or even short campaigns without declaring wardec. However its a bit ridiculous for those full time pirates who kill scores per month for years. From what I can see, the tags are pretty cheap compared to loot taken and don't create much PLEX income for CCP. And being a pirate member of an Empire NPC corp should be bad PR for the NPC corp under the EVE storyline. Eventually Empire NPC corps should kick player pirates.
Plus kill rights and bounties don't really work well in high sec. In high sec kill rights are mostly a revenge thing given the small bounties collected on the typical low end pirate ship (destroyer or even cruiser). Those low-end bounties don't provide much income to bounty hunters. Certainly not enough to balance tracking down the typical hi sec pirate down and waiting for him to leave station if you got kill rights or to get criminal flagged again if you don''t have kill rights. So far bounty hunter corporations/alliances have failed to appear so distribution of kill rights is not very effective versus pirate for which you can only collect small bounties due to ship size.
 heh I guess CCP could improve high sec bounty hunting by advertising corps in bounty hunting along with ranking amounts collected by zone (high. low, null, wh) -- or maybe allowing bounty hunters to NPC bounty hunting alliance (similar to FW). But I really suspect results would remain spotty. (I think I will start a separate thread since this is probably more easily implemented.)
PS
Also I think high sec ganking should affect standings of the player corps that gankers belong to (reverse missioning) and perhaps the standings of CEO and directors to a minor extent as well (like other standing changes propagate to indirect relations when you mission for or against certain factions). Just a long term effect that tag buying doesn't wipe out effect. Eventually the whole corp could get permanent pirate status or absentee CEO might get surprise for not managing members closer. Basically higher cost for tags to relieve effects of criminal acts when player corp gets involved and potentially some feedback from corp mates if corp as whole is not into piracy. |
Val'Dore
PlanetCorp InterStellar
E.A.R.T.H. Federation
388
|
Posted - 2014.04.09 14:37:00 -
[2] - Quote
Well, the only way this would work is if CONCORD totally ignored any interaction with them. Which means BURN JITA.
|
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
49
|
Posted - 2014.04.09 14:51:00 -
[3] - Quote
Leaving long term pirate status should be difficult. Not only refrain from piracy for a long while (only time actually playing EVE counts - not unsubscribed time). But also collect some minimum amount of player pirate bounties and complete a difficult epic arc as CONCORD undercover/informant (maybe setting the player pirates to kill).
Heh if you are dedicated to getting into piracy it should take some dedication to get out. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Ineluctable.
367
|
Posted - 2014.04.09 15:02:00 -
[4] - Quote
So, instead of making ganking easier by removing CONCORD retaliations, we should instead remove the Tags for Security standing again to make Piracy harder and again. That sounds like a better idea. No one complained about piracy being difficult before this stuff was introduced anyways. |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
49
|
Posted - 2014.04.09 15:08:00 -
[5] - Quote
Val'Dore wrote:Well, the only way this would work is if CONCORD totally ignored any interaction with them. Which means BURN JITA.
What I was proposing - excepting if they starting shooting public Empire structures like gate guns, gates, stations, station guns etc.
Yup it does have some Burn Jita potential. Except Burn Jita works by
#1 overwhelming CONCORD and
 #2 current criminal system means there is no long term loss of CONCORD protection if you pay your security status back up in tags.
 But you are correct there is a flaw if large player corps and alliances like GOONS (just an example) are allowed to go pirate. Then they would dominate hi sec like null.
So yeah there would have to be a cap on the size of player organization that could go pirate without being considered an Empire threat of invasion. Sort of like real world.
At one level opposition is merely criminal with ordinary citizen supplemented law enforcement -- next size up you become national threat.
So maybe Organizaions of say >50 members draw faction Navy fire when in sight. And at >200 members CONCORD starts calling Incursion conditions and fights if mutual encounter (pirate fly to where CONCORD already exists or CONCORD decides to make one f its limited Incursion responses.)
Or maybe the number of player pirates on grid affects chance of response as well.
Anyways a more player driven game would be good. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
348
|
Posted - 2014.04.09 15:14:00 -
[6] - Quote
My view would be that concord treat capsuleer pirates differently to rats as:
a) there are fewer of them
b) they are a *much* greater threat if left to their own devices. |
Rahh Serves
Collective Industrial Confederation
Silent Forge
3
|
Posted - 2014.04.09 15:22:00 -
[7] - Quote
ok lets see ganker 1 is now a pirat and can kill hundrets of barges without concord bad idea |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
49
|
Posted - 2014.04.09 15:37:00 -
[8] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:So, instead of making ganking easier by removing CONCORD retaliations, we should instead remove the Tags for Security standing again to make Piracy harder and again. That sounds like a better idea. No one complained about piracy being difficult before this stuff was introduced anyways.
Naw not thinking of making ganking easier or harder. Just puttiing the response to piracy more in player hand - not CONCORD.
Yes outcome would be more varied. Currently CONCORD pretty much guarantees a certain ship swap equation that is irritation to victims and somewhat limiting to pirates.
And yes as people have already pointed out -- its a lot more complex than I initially thought due to possible involvement by larger corps. Probably cannot be done in ordinary release. Won't be done due the level of effort for small change in outcome for limited number of players. |
Ashley Animus
7th Temporal Lounge
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.09 15:40:00 -
[9] - Quote
It should actually be the other way around. Gank too much and all capsuleers are allowed to attack you at all times. How weird is it to keep giving the same punishment over and over again? If you murder someone, get caught and go to jail. Then when you are released you do it again. And again. At some point you just shouldn't be able to leave the prison anymore. |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
49
|
Posted - 2014.04.09 15:43:00 -
[10] - Quote
Rahh Serves wrote:ok lets see ganker 1 is now a pirat and can kill hundrets of barges without concord bad idea
Well the idea was SMART Player corps could kill pirate destroyers on sight.
Possbile Results: Corp Barges saved. Small gang fights versus bigger pirate attacks (barges may escape while pirates deal with protection fleet).
But yes solo barges would die by the 100s. LOL - I see no problem with that. If a corp or fleet could protect you and you refused to join...ROFLMAO. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Ineluctable.
367
|
Posted - 2014.04.09 15:47:00 -
[11] - Quote
Proddy Scun wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:So, instead of making ganking easier by removing CONCORD retaliations, we should instead remove the Tags for Security standing again to make Piracy harder and again. That sounds like a better idea. No one complained about piracy being difficult before this stuff was introduced anyways. Naw not thinking of making ganking easier or harder. Just puttiing the response to piracy more in player hand - not CONCORD. Yes outcome would be more varied. Currently CONCORD pretty much guarantees a certain ship swap equation that is irritation to victims and somewhat limiting to pirates. And yes as people have already pointed out -- its a lot more complex than I initially thought due to possible involvement by larger corps. Probably cannot be done in ordinary release. Won't be done due the level of effort for small change in outcome for limited number of players.
As said, make ganking easier. 
Players are too stupid, ignorant and outright not willing to take over CONCORD duties. You see it all the time in Burn Jitas or Hulkageddons. Taking CONCORD even a little bit further out of the picture will just wreak unpleasant chaos over the cluster.
IT. CANNOT. WORK. EVER. |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
49
|
Posted - 2014.04.09 15:53:00 -
[12] - Quote
Ashley Animus wrote:It should actually be the other way around. Gank too much and all capsuleers are allowed to attack you at all times. How weird is it to keep giving the same punishment over and over again? If you murder someone, get caught and go to jail. Then when you are released you do it again. And again. At some point you just shouldn't be able to leave the prison anymore.
Actually that was my point.
True long term pirates would not be attacked by CONCORD AFTER they committed another gank. But player fleets would be able to shoot established player pirates on sight as well.
Protecting mining barges and shipping in hi sec might be practical.
Except as was pointed out -- the size of ignored player pirate fleets and organizations would need to be limited in some way.
Complexitiy: At a certain size faction Navy and CONCORD would once more need to become concerned. Similar to be more actively than with Incursions. Probably too complex for the idea to be implemented in our life time.
|
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
49
|
Posted - 2014.04.09 15:59:00 -
[13] - Quote
I declare my idea impractical due the complexity of drawing a line between individual pirates or small pirate fleets -- AND invading army. Too much like real world political complexities. |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
49
|
Posted - 2014.04.09 16:02:00 -
[14] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Proddy Scun wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:So, instead of making ganking easier by removing CONCORD retaliations, we should instead remove the Tags for Security standing again to make Piracy harder and again. That sounds like a better idea. No one complained about piracy being difficult before this stuff was introduced anyways. Naw not thinking of making ganking easier or harder. Just puttiing the response to piracy more in player hand - not CONCORD. Yes outcome would be more varied. Currently CONCORD pretty much guarantees a certain ship swap equation that is irritation to victims and somewhat limiting to pirates. And yes as people have already pointed out -- its a lot more complex than I initially thought due to possible involvement by larger corps. Probably cannot be done in ordinary release. Won't be done due the level of effort for small change in outcome for limited number of players. As said, make ganking easier. Players are too stupid, ignorant and outright not willing to take over CONCORD duties. You see it all the time in Burn Jitas or Hulkageddons. Taking CONCORD even a little bit further out of the picture will just wreak unpleasant chaos over the cluster. IT. CANNOT. WORK. EVER.
=========================
Heh I see someone who like GUARANTEED Ship swaps.
I am guessing you favor delaying any CONCORD response until a ship dies. Thus pirates would guaranteed to be able to kill their target before they lose theirs.
|
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
49
|
Posted - 2014.04.09 16:27:00 -
[15] - Quote
Its obvious;u most hi sec pirates love the current CONCORD response system and are DEPENDENT on swapping of cheap combat ships for an expensive non-combat ship.
Any change allowing non-pirates to shoot them before the gank starts might force an increase in pirate ship size/cost or numbers needed to gank. From the hi sec pirate viewpoint this RUINS a sweet deal.
Currently its a WIN-WIN from pirate viewpoint. Competent pIrates always come out on the winning side of the lost ISK equation. Pirates have to flub an unopposed gank to lose out. CONCORD currently ensures that no one can destroy pirate combat ships in a timely manner to save barges industrials etc without losing more expensive ships to CONCORD instead. As a result no one knowledgeable tries to protect non-combat ships.
Hi sec piracy is also quite popular because 99% of combat ganks only require 1 or 2 people. (Quite aware that most pirates run multiple ships in multi-step attack and loot.)
LOL - if my idea had been practical pirates might have actually needed to fly in cooperative fleets doing more varied attacks.
But rest assured its not practical. |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
49
|
Posted - 2014.04.09 16:28:00 -
[16] - Quote
Proddy Scun wrote:Its obvious;u most hi sec pirates love the current CONCORD response system and are DEPENDENT on swapping of cheap combat ships for an expensive non-combat ship.
Any change allowing non-pirates to shoot them before the gank starts might force an increase in pirate ship size/cost or numbers needed to gank. From the hi sec pirate viewpoint this RUINS a sweet deal.
Currently its a WIN-WIN from pirate viewpoint. Competent pIrates always come out on the winning side of the lost ISK equation. Pirates have to flub an unopposed gank to lose out. CONCORD currently ensures that no one can destroy pirate combat ships in a timely manner to save barges industrials etc without losing more expensive combat ships to CONCORD instead. As a result no one knowledgeable tries to protect non-combat ships.
Hi sec piracy is also quite popular because 99% of combat ganks only require 1 or 2 people. (Quite aware that most pirates run multiple ships in multi-step attack and loot.)
LOL - if my idea had been practical pirates might have actually needed to fly in cooperative fleets doing more varied attacks.
But rest assured its not practical.
|
Agondray
Dark Forge Enterprise
Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
91
|
Posted - 2014.04.09 16:35:00 -
[17] - Quote
People keep wanting something done about concord, like 1 deal was for player corps to take over concord duties and such.
There can be no player replacement for concord, not even all of the power blocs have large fleets for protection of their miners and such.
Any and all of these ideas has the tendacy to break the game and lead the player base away.
The carebears of eve pay the bulk of the subs to keep ccp rolling and subs at a payable rate.
You want to make it where the game is all pvp, make like any other ship shooter, no equipment loss with respawn and you will have more people doing pvp. Look at world of tanks and those others, all pvp all the time with no purpose.
So have at it
"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mine" -Dr. Smith |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
348
|
Posted - 2014.04.09 16:40:00 -
[18] - Quote
Only people not in hisec want something done about concord...those in hisec are fine with them |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers
Fidelas Constans
402
|
Posted - 2014.04.09 16:47:00 -
[19] - Quote
Did somebody say protect mining fleets?
....
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
No. This proposal would simply make higs ex more like nullsec. Any normal pvp gang would rip through highsec with impudence. All this proposal does is remove penalties for crimes in empire space. Which is practically the only thing keeping hanks limited to specific targets that are deemed profitable kills, or in some other way worth the loss of a ship. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Ineluctable.
367
|
Posted - 2014.04.09 16:49:00 -
[20] - Quote
Proddy Scun wrote:
Heh I see someone who like GUARANTEED Ship swaps.
I am guessing you favor delaying any CONCORD response until a ship dies. Thus pirates would guaranteed to be able to kill their target before they lose theirs.
No, the opposite is the case, CONCORD must stay as powerful as they are at all cost. Security of High sec put into the hands of players is ludicrous. Players should be be constantly punished for behaving like berserkers in High sec, but making them rats is no use. Making people rats cannot prevent ganking or make it harder in the vast majority of the cases: they continue to warp in, gank and die to CONCORD - or don't die at all because they are rats and no players around to kill them. Player security barely works in 00 in a very limited number of systems and in most cases also only like CONCORD (retaliation instead of preventive strikes), forcing this failing system onto the game even further is not feasible. People don't even shoot -10 Sec status players in most cases.
What I'd like to see instead is that, to stick a bit to your idea of trying to make the life of habitual criminals different, they should be required to pay more ISK for Sec Status after a higher number of ganks. Yes, they will just biomass gank alts and train new ones repeatedly. Yes, they will just pay the money or rat a bit and get the tags this way. You see, there are many ways around any idea to make the life of pirates in EVE miserable.
It's not like I don't see a point in your idea, it's just that it cannot work and the Status Quo is the best we can get with the current attitude of players towards the game and players. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |