UMAD!!!

Maybe you could call it "Anti-Pirate Deputization in Losec" or something better?

Obviously someone could build a -10 character and pop rookie ship after rookie ship to stack up LPs. There would have to be something to prevent this sort of farming.

Lost my post due to timeout after 2 minutes... GOD DAMN YOU CCP NOW I HAVE TO TYPE AGAIN!

Ok here is my suggestion for such a system:

[list]

....

What do you think people?

Lost my post due to timeout after 2 minutes... GOD DAMN YOU CCP NOW I HAVE TO TYPE AGAIN!

Ok here is my suggestion for such a system:

• Each solar system in lowsec has a police outpost.
• Each player that has a positive security status can come to the outpost, and by providing some pirate tags (or some other token item) become a deputy for 1 hour.
• Multiple people can be deputies in the same system at the same time.
• Becoming a deputy starts a wage counter.
• If during that one hour noone in the system gets a GCC, or a outlaw does not enter the system, your wage does not change.
• If someone gets GCC or an outlaw enters the system, you have to respond to the offending pilot in a certain timeframe, based on security status of the system. Suggestion: 40 seconds in a 0.4 system up to 3 minutes in a 0.1 system.
• Responding to the offender means doing at least some damage to him. You do not have to kill him. You tried, perhaps he was too strong and you had to go away. Caution is the better part of valour in such forsaken solar systems.
• If you fail to respond, your wage is reduced by the ammount of ISK it took to pay the insurance to the pilot that had crime commited on him. Not saving a battlecruiser is much worse than not saving a shuttle or frigate. This might completely reduce your wage to 0. Tought luck, you are obviously not a good cop.
• If you destroy the offending pilot, you recive a bonus to wage equal to a fraction of the insurance cost of the agressor ship (50%?).
• At the end of the hour you are given your wage ammount (can be 0 if you did bad, but not negative).
• The pay is based on the number of deputies in system. Probably best if a system similar to the incursion one is used. So too many deputies or too few of them results in no pay. Suggested numbers for 100% wage could be something like 4-10 in 0.4 systems down to 1-4 in 0.1 systems? Anything more or less than that results in less wage.

Great idea! +1

What do you think people?

Although, I got a question for the OP. When you said "outpost", to what do you refer to? An NPC station or a dead space structure that you stay close to like a POS? Frankly, I would prefer the dead space format. After all, if there is ever an aggression, undocking will take too long. A POS-like dead space structure is convenient because they you can quickly warp out in a shorter notice.

I'm thinking of something resembling a TCU, or the Control Bunkers of faction warfare (didn't I say that in the OP?). In FW, you capture a bunker by putting it into structure; I would treat this the same way, only without the prerequisite dungeons. This would let CCP recycle an existing mechanic, making it familiar to lowsec dwellers and designers alike.

Such a thing may be difficult to implement technically, but it's the best idea to incentivize anti piracy i've ever read

Perhaps you could add pod killing being allowed for people with bounties, this would make bounty hunting a viable option as well...?

Here is a question though, if a capsuleer were to initiate the GCC, how long do you propose for the flag to remain in their record before it is no longer on their record (thus rendering them as INactive pirates)? Personally, I would say an entire month (which I think is about the same duration as a kill right).

Second, the idea of a beacon for a GCC event is kind of interesting (although also pretty redundant in a lot of cases, since non-terrible players can use the d-scanner to quickly find out where things are happening in system). However, the idea of a warpable marker that follows you wherever you go while GCC'd would instantly kill any form of solo roaming piracy because the ability to warp to a safe/disengage after snacking on some hostile gang's bait or otherwise picking off a few of their members is fundamental to roaming pvp in general.

Specifically, the clause about "anyone with a sec status under -5 [being] fair game to deputies at any time" is completely redundant - it's already the case that if your sec status is below -5, anyone can shoot you at any time without taking GCC or sentry aggro. While not in and of itself damning, the fact that the OP felt the need to include it strongly suggests that he doesn't really know what he's talking about or what lowsec is currently like.

Second, the idea of a beacon for a GCC event is kind of interesting (although also pretty redundant in a lot of cases, since non-terrible players can use the d-scanner to quickly find out where things are happening in system). However, the idea of a warpable marker that follows you wherever you go while GCC'd would instantly kill any form of solo roaming piracy because the ability to warp to a safe/disengage after snacking on some hostile gang's bait or otherwise picking off a few of their members is fundamental to roaming pvp in general.

The beacon would only be visible to "deputies" ... not the other roaming gangs, right?

1.) Stick to one subject in this post. Fixing bounty hunting, assault frigates, and adding incarna bling is NOT really relevant. These ideas will only sidetrack this topic and smother your main idea.

2.) I think your scope is too small. Controlling/patrolling one system is a little too limited and boring. Do you lose sight of a criminal once they switch systems? For better results, have bunkers provide constellation-wide benefits (at least). Perhaps expanding it to region-wide with multiple deputy corps, thereby allowing multiple (but limited) alliances to patrol a single region. If a corp feels they control a constellation, they are more likely to patrol the borders and hunt enemies within. Multiple alliances increase opportunities for anti-pirate activity across multiple timezones.

3.) I really like the warpable beacon that follows the GCC'd player for the duration of their GCC. Ideally, it should Only be visible to Concord Deputies; otherwise there isn't much of a reason to be a deputy, as anyone can shoot a GCC player and they don't have to deal with stringent guidelines. Note: This is best left as a double edged sword... warping to their beacon might land you on an unprepared pirate, or it might land you next to their Deathstar POS. This could also make deputized players very useful to low-sec fleet battles, as they can always provide a warp in to the GCC flagged...

4.) It should be possible to identify the concord deputies in local, just likes itGÇÖs possible to identify pirates and war targets.

5.) GCC's do not prevent a person from docking or jumping. All acts of aggression carry a 1 minute aggro timer that prevents docking and jumping. If you use the transferable GCC to prevent docking and jumping (not sure you can separate these two), you will alter a lot of RR activities in low-sec. Considering that most low-sec POS bashes generate GCC's for the parties involved, the implications of preventing a GCC'd player from docking are too far-wielding to support without serious further investigation.

6.) Assuming you do agree with a multi-system patrol, having a concord chat window that updates with the name of a GCC'd player and the system they received that GCC (within your patrol area) would go a long way to enable pirate hunting. Remember, every time a station/gate gun fires on a GCC'd player, their GCC is reissued, and an update would be provided. At first, I thought this would be too much anti-pirate info, but it could easily be used to divert attention away from some pirate strike, or perhaps even lure some deputies into a trap.

7.) I think increasing the sec status penalties for deputies is the best option to "deal" with deputies that violate the rules. If they have a +5 sec status and they pod a guy, so what.... just have them take a bigger hit than a normal player.

8.) Concord Bunkers: How can an existing concord deputized alliance prevent another wanna-be-deputized alliance from shooting their control bunker to negate their deputy status? Since both have high standings, attacking each other would generate a GCC? How does an existing concord deputized alliance forfeit their deputation? I think you need a better method of deputizing alliances. Be wary though, as you want only a limited number of deputies/area, becoming a deputy should be moderately challenging, maintaining deputy status should require sustained actiivty, and deputy status needs to be removeable.... somehow.... This is non-trivial!

9.) Why are the faction warfare zones excluded?

Agreed. I forget how screwy the RR situation can be sometimes. It would definitely need serious consideration...I just don't want the criminal to be able to warp a couple of times and then dock up to escape deputies. You would really just need to differentiate between those doing damage and those supporting them...allow the RR to dock up/jump as normal while making it harder on the "real" criminal....just an idea.

I sincerely hope that CCP notices this post and seriously considers implementing this or similar systems. Lowsec really is just a joke.

While interesting this idea is a little one sided isn't it? I mean everything I'm reading is about killing Pirates, attacking people with GCC and destroying a viable and flourishing play-style choice. Which no one asked you to destroy.

The only people that don't like low sec are those that don't understand it, or are afraid of it. If anything GCC needs to be limited not expanded. If you want to kill Pirates then come into low sec and try.

Most of us happen to like Low Sec just the way it is, and while certain elements need to be tweaked, addressed and otherwise balanced - we don't WANT low sec to become another Null or Hi-Sec region. And that is what you are proposing.

You make the assumption that something is wrong with Low Sec because more people aren't there and that by somehow making it "safer" more people would fly into low and have picnics. It won't happen. Why? Because people like me live there and I will only blow up their pretty little ships even more than I do now. Boom. Dead miners and carebear ships all over the place.

Your idea is interesting but if people had the guts to come into low sec they'd be coming into low sec. Making bounty hunters or police or territory modules or any of the other ideas I've heard over the years won't change the fundamental issue - Low Sec is scary and bad people live there.

I'm sorry about that. But me and all the other Pirates like it like that. If it changes it won't be low sec anymore.

Most of us happen to like Low Sec just the way it is, and while certain elements need to be tweaked, addressed and otherwise balanced - we don't WANT low sec to become another Null or Hi-Sec region. And that is what you are proposing.

You make the assumption that something is wrong with Low Sec because more people aren't there and that by somehow making it "safer" more people would fly into low and have picnics. It won't happen. Why? Because people like me live there and I will only blow up their pretty little ships even more than I do now. Boom. Dead miners and carebear ships all over the place.

Your idea is interesting but if people had the guts to come into low sec they'd be coming into low sec. Making bounty hunters or police or territory modules or any of the other ideas I've heard over the years won't change the fundamental issue - Low Sec is scary and bad people live there.

I'm sorry about that. But me and all the other Pirates like it like that. If it changes it won't be low sec anymore.



Now having said that, there are things that can be done. Sec status is something that needs addressed, GCC needs to be fixed based on the true-sec status of systems and not just globally, and others. But anyone can already attack a Pirate any time they want without taking a sec status hit and they don't do it.

It's not destroying anything. if you feel that this is one-sided against the pirates, then how about some ideas on how to balance it?

This idea would generally make lowsec default to being more pirate-friendly with things like kickout stations and slower sentry guns, making it easier for pirates and outlaws to escape or tank. Only when there is a CONCORD presence occupying the system does it become similar to what it is today.

I didn't see the part with slower sentry guns in the op.

If they slow sentry guns are we going to see insta-locking thrashers/stilletoes on every gate catching frigates long enough for a second point then warping off?

I like this proposal.
Every reason to bring people to populate lowsec is good.

However, like others here, I do believe that this is a one-sided proposal.
Strengthening the 'good side' is a valid idea, filling a missing piece of gameplay in low-sec, but it might as well discourage pirates to actually go fight in those player-secured systems.

My point being: could we imagine a system that gives a bit of reward to pirates in those player-secured systems? Deputies would gain Concord LPs for bringing pirates down, so why not give a similar reward to the latter?

The system could work as follow:
- In unclaimed low-sec systems, pirates could gain tiny LP reward (based on ships, SS difference, etc) with the Cartel counterpart of the official empire for kills.
- In player-secured low-secs, pirates would get an overall better LP reward, and a special bonus for taking down deputies themselves.

From a RP point of view, it would reinforce the idea of low-sec being a buffer area with the Null-Sec Cartel-controlled areas, and also give motives to Pirates to fight in those deputies-secured systems...

Just my 2 isks.

I like the idea, but instead of holding a control bunker or at least in augmentation of it, it should require a POS presence as well.
This would ensure that the industry element of a corp is in tact and make eve itself more balanced.

The only thing a mandatory POS would ensure is a headache. You're delusional if you think a POS brings about industry. Industry may require a few POSes, but it doesn't work vice versa.

Anyways OP, I have to say this is a great idea BUT I have to strongly disagree with the GCC beacons following players. That would just swing the pendulum too far against pirates.

You're going to get systems where there are always deputies online and moving beacons would basically make any non-frigate piracy an act of suicide. While confining piracy to frigates seems to make sense, in practice it would be bad gameplay.

A general one time beacon at the GCC site would allow pirates to make short work of soft targets, but for anything serious they'd be taking a big risk.

I like this proposal.
Every reason to bring people to populate lowsec is good.

However, like others here, I do believe that this is a one-sided proposal.
Strengthening the 'good side' is a valid idea, filling a missing piece of gameplay in low-sec, but it might as well discourage pirates to actually go fight in those player-secured systems.

My point being: could we imagine a system that gives a bit of reward to pirates in those player-secured systems? Deputies would gain Concord LPs for bringing pirates down, so why not give a similar reward to the latter?

The system could work as follow:
- In unclaimed low-sec systems, pirates could gain tiny LP reward (based on ships, SS difference, etc) with the Cartel counterpart of the official empire for kills.
- In player-secured low-secs, pirates would get an overall better LP reward, and a special bonus for taking down deputies themselves.

From a RP point of view, it would reinforce the idea of low-sec being a buffer area with the Null-Sec Cartel-controlled areas, and also give motives to Pirates to fight in those deputies-secured systems...

Just my 2 isks.

+1

Hate to resurrect, but this deserves another day in the sun and needs be picked up by CSM.
Not so hot about the bounty system here - Ogopogo's idea seems better and so much more elegant and easy to implement.

Came in expecting carebear whining...

Dispatching GCC'ed pirates in system would net you LPs with concord based on their security status. The lower it is, the more LPs you get. Also, putting a multiplier on existing bounties might make it more attractive. Obviously someone could build a -10 character and pop rookie ship after rookie ship to stack up LPs. There would have to be something to prevent this sort of farming. CCP knows far better than I do what sort of mechanics they could use to prevent this. If it can't be prevented, another reward system could be used.