EVE Search - Alter concord response in .4 systems

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Alter concord response in .4 systems

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Sadistic	Posted - 2006.11.09 23:39:00 - [1] Right now there is a magic line at the .4-.5 system level. I would like to see a middle ground. Make .4 systems have concord show up on the station/gate grids if someone pirates (with insta warp jam), while they wont patrol the roid fields/moons. There would probably have to be some tinkering with which systems are at what sec lvl (so that choke points can still be created). It would be nice to create a combat/piracy zone that is not only at gates. Place some semi valuable minerals/complexes in these new zones to draw in people, but dont let the entire system be blocked by a few people sitting on each gate
Reggie Stoneloader eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.11.10 00:33:00 - [2] It's not a bad idea. More effective pirates make their money in deadspace complexes and asteroid belts, where help is farther away and target ships are valuable and fragile, respectively, and allowing that while discouraging mindless gate ganking would be beneficial to everyone who plays EvE. -------------- Civis Ascendant Sum
Tarron Sarek Gallente	Posted - 2006.11.10 00:55:00 - [3] Interesting idea. Yet I'd prefer a gradation like this: 1.0-0.5 Concord reacts on ship destruction and pod kills 0.4-0.1 Concord reacts on pod kills 0.0 No Concord reaction I guess that'd be not so restricting and probably face less resistance. But both systems would be ok. At least for me ________________________ -Don't try to enforce your opinion by usage of multiple exclamation marks, question marks, CAPS or swear words. It doesn't work-
Slevin Kalebra	Posted - 2006.11.10 00:58:00 - [4] What I'd like to see is Concord patrols doing combat sweeps through low sec systems if there are more than a certain number of kills within a defined period (with lower sec requiring more kills within a shorter period). The length of time they stay in the system should also be dependent on the security level. This won't stop the pirates from having fun but would force pirate gangs to keep on the move rather than sitting at a gate. A warning that Concord ships were deploying in a system might be a fair to the pirates as well.
Reggie Stoneloader eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.11.10 01:25:00 - [5] Neat idea. I like the idea of high-kill "hot spots" warranting a Concord sortie. Ransoming, of course, doesn't result in a ship kill, so if the pirates are professional and it goes well it won't draw attention, but mindless ganking will be short-lived. -------------- Civis Ascendant Sum
Lienzo	Posted - 2006.11.10 06:23:00 - [6] Weaken 0.5 concord while you're at it. Also, Factions could use a general gradation of strength as well.
Goddance Wyrakami Corporation	Posted - 2006.11.10 07:23:00 - [7] Wow, great ideas GOD HATES CLOGS
Jake Devlin	Posted - 2006.11.10 12:29:00 - [8] this might unbalance the game, but i'd love to see concord made fightable... i.e. uber concord in 1.0, mostly uber/would need some kind of fleet to defeat in 0.9/0.8 etc down to 0.4 where concord would send a couple of token frigs to attack/hunt pirates plus preiodic insursions into high kill zones to flush out the pirates (perhaps have the fractions navy of the region do this) not sure what the implications would be, but i recon it might force pirates to move about more, but if they can take the heat able to pirate in higher sec (at leat until they made too many kills then the navy would come to gank em) oh and have killing concord a massive sec hit and count more towards a navy incursion (no one likes a cop killer) all sounds fun but might break the game Imo
Za Po Caldari	Posted - 2006.11.10 19:38:00 - [9] Neat idea! I'd like the concept of a more gradual response; the "wall" between .4 and .5 has always felt weird. You could have CONCORD response this way: 0.6+ : systemwide. 0.5 : systemwide, except for deep space (eg. safespots) and complexes. 0.4 : gates only. 0.3- : no response. That'd maybe spread out the opportunities for piracy to other places than gates.
Lunadi Minmatar Solar Trade	Posted - 2006.11.10 21:38:00 - [10] I also like that idea. Another option would be to make the concord's time reaction different depending on system security level - so in very low sec they would come like 1-5 minutes later ('the cavalry always comes when it's too late). You still could get podded, buy this would balance mindless gate camping. -------- hate my spelling? go play SCRABBLE!

dennyreborn	Posted - 2006.11.10 21:45:00 - [11] i would like to see concord in .1-.4 space respond on a percent chance. like 50% in .4 30% in .3 10% in .2 1% in .1 also have them respond in weaker ships... as lower sec space is a lower priority and gets older ships to patrol it. I jsut miss the old days when you could fight off concord for awhile.
vinnymcg eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.11.10 22:14:00 - [12] Originally by: Slevin Kalebra What I'd like to see is Concord patrols doing combat sweeps through low sec systems if there are more than a certain number of kills within a defined period (with lower sec requiring more kills within a shorter period). The length of time they stay in the system should also be dependent on the security level. This won't stop the pirates from having fun but would force pirate gangs to keep on the move rather than sitting at a gate. A warning that Concord ships were deploying in a system might be a fair to the pirates as well. Possible abuse to this idea: Pleople creating alts a few alts 1 kill, rest are drones. train the kill to use smart bombs and cap boosters. drone alts get within kill distance of killer ship. Killer ship destroys many ships each run. result; Constant concord protection I like the idea but i gotta point out the obvious
Rilder Caldari black viper corp	Posted - 2006.11.11 04:03:00 - [13] hmm i like the idea of concord responding to kills... .4) 10 podkills 25 ship kills in a day .3) 25 Podkills 50 ship Kills in a day .2) 50 podkills 100 ship kills in a day .1) 100 podkills 200 ship kills in a day
Lienzo	Posted - 2006.11.11 09:47:00 - [14] Originally by: Rilder hmm i like the idea of concord responding to kills... .4) 10 podkills 25 ship kills in a day .3) 25 Podkills 50 ship Kills in a day .2) 50 podkills 100 ship kills in a day .1) 100 podkills 200 ship kills in a day No dice. Carebears would just have pirate alts, and suicide shuttles/alts each day.
Zarch AlDain Friends of Everyone	Posted - 2006.11.11 14:05:00 - [15] The thing with low sec is that players are supposed to protect themselves there. Rather than calling in concord hire some mercs or get some friends together and go pirate hunting. Having said that though I like the idea - but only if it is extended the other way too: 1.0 -> 0.6 same as currently. 0.5 concorde response at gates, stations and asteroid belts only 0.4 concorde response at gates and stations only 0.3 concorde response at gates only 0.2, 0.1 sentry guns only 0.0 - nothing. Zarch AlDain
Cuisinart Celestial Apocalypse Insurgency	Posted - 2006.11.11 15:21:00 - [16] Edited by: Cuisinart on 11/11/2006 15:25:23 This idea gave me a variant idea to consider. System security level 1.0 through 7.0 no change from current system .6 Concord response time decreased by 25% (or given some specific time, say 25 secs) .5 Concord response time decreased by 50% (or given some specific time, say 50 secs) .4 Concord responds only to incidents that occur at a station or stargate with the same delay as in .5 .3 Concord responds only to incidents that occur at a station or stargate but with a further decreased response time (75 seconds?) .2 and .1 would not change I feel a system like this would provide a better spread and feel of security (or lack of) over the various possible security levels. The current system is kind of weak, total destruction in .5 or higher and no response at all in .4 or lower is too absolute. *edit - also, concord destruction of the aggressor would not be absolute in .4 or below, meaning if you can get away it's not an exploit.


Pages: [1] :: 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.