I'm going to admit my own ignorance here for a moment and ask a question: if someone engages a -10 player in hisec, thus earning both players a limited engagement, can the -10 player retaliate without provoking CONCORD?

As you're not posting in GD I think we can allow you to admit not knowing. :)

Yes, once someone engages a -10 player they can return fire without invoking a Concord response.

I think that incursions should affect concord response times.

CONCORD responses are fast enough that I think you could increase them by 100% without impacting gameplay in a substantial way. 10 or 20 percent is less than the difference between systems of different sec status.

CONCORD responses are fast enough that I think you could increase them by 100% without impacting gameplay in a substantial way. 10 or 20 percent is less than the difference between systems of different sec status.

So double response time when Sansha have full control, and it scales towards normal at Sansha having no control. That would be blast. And it's not like it doesn't make sense either.

Baby steps. I want to get elected to the CSM, not run out of New Eden by the Incursion Running community.

The incursion running "community" is inherently going to be against any candidate that is even remotely pro-highsec PVP because they are either massive carebears or alts of people whose mains reside in other types of space that want their isk grinding alts to be safe.

Those people won't support you unless you're either in favor of buffing incursions or are anti-highsec PVP. Your best bet is just to keep quiet about it, get elected then continuously mention it to CCP in private without ever saying anything about it in public ever again.

Any change to FacPo would possibly affect the FW player-base.

Faction navies are the reason casual highsec PVPers join marmite instead of joining faction warfare.

And of course, there it is.

I swear I remember reading somewhere that CONCORD was made invincible after a group of players was able to basically perma-tank CONCORD, take over a highsec trade hub and kill everything that moved. Maybe someone here was around when that happened? Seems like it would just happen again.

That would be awesome fun. It'd be even more fun if the whinebears put down their pitchforks and undocked to do something about it. After all, they outnumber us by tens of thousands.

There's scarcely more than thirty thousand people logged in at a given time

and over half of those are alts.

I assume he means the 1.5 accounts per player and is very bad at algebra since that renders more alts than mains a mathematical impossibility.

30,000 Accounts = 1.5Accounts/1Players -> Players= 30,000 Accounts/1.5 Accounts = 20,000 Players
Players-Total Accounts = Alt Accounts -> 30,000 Accounts - 20,000 Mains = 10,000 Alts

So about 1/3 or 33.3% of the characters online are probably alts.

Regarding FacPo & CONCORD:

I'd be okay with eliminating FacPo response to simply undocking in hisec with low sec status. Strictly speaking, it doesn't serve to protect anyone it only serves to limit the behavior of folks who's security status is too low. Some people may complain about taking away a punishment for low security status, but FacPo is generally more of a nuisance than a punishment once you learn how to deal with them so I don't think this should be a huge concern. The benefit here is driving player content as opposed to NPC content. With FacPo weakened or eliminated, criminals would be more likely to fly bigger ships in hisec, thus making it potentially easier for White Knights to track them down and engage them before CONCORD arrives.

I'm going to admit my own ignorance here for a moment and ask a question: if someone engages a -10 player in hisec, thus earning both players a limited engagement, can the -10 player retaliate without provoking CONCORD? If this is the case, then removing FacPo could open up a whole new world to folks who want to cruise around looking for fights: simply undock in hisec as a -10 and wait for folks to attack you. Talk about content! If this is not the case...why the heck isn't it?

As for CONCORD, I think it should be left as it is (i.e. untankable, unescapable NPCs, or UUNs) for now. One of the core dynamics of hisec is that if you criminally aggress someone, CONCORD relieves you of your vessel in very short order. This would be an awfully huge change to make (or, strictly speaking, un-make) and I'd like to consider other issues first, but I'm open to ideas. I think mechanics that allow players to more easily assist CONCORD would be fabulous though.

At the very least I think the -5.0 penalty of permanent suspect status should kick in before the -2.0 to -5.0 penalty of faction police harrassment.

That would seriously encourage a player response, not an NPC response, to unlawful highsec aggeression. Quite a buff to white knighting as a career.

Except your post is an educated guess (based on a figure released by CCP?), which is perfectly reasonable. He's stating a "fact" that probably isn't a fact at all because grrrr, ebil piwates.

I assume he means the 1.5 accounts per player and is very bad at algebra since that renders more alts than mains a mathematical impossibility.

30,000 Accounts = 1.5Accounts/1Players -> Players= 30,000 Accounts/1.5 Accounts = 20,000 Players
Players-Total Accounts = Alt Accounts -> 30,000 Accounts - 20,000 Mains = 10,000 Alts

So about 1/3 or 33.3% of the characters online are probably alts.

Lately I've been of the opinion that they don't actually want to be buffed, they want to remain ineffectual so they can use that as a platform for more whining that we still exist.