Abolish Concord

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
1

I would like to propose the removal of CONCORD intervention from all systems.

We should instead move to a “self policing” model where player corporations enforce order around their own areas and the NPC corporations do the same.

What this would look like:

Players can attack each other in any system, without consequence, except for outside stations or gates (hs,ls) where there are sentry guns.

The sentry guns at stations and gates would remain largely the same as they are now, except that “ownership” would switch (if necessary) to whatever corporation was dominant in that system (i.e. in Jita, the Federation Navy would own the guns).

This would open up more opportunities for combat in high and low aec, but would also push some players towards null where they could find a “quiet life” if they so chose.

Everything else would remain the same, and newbie/starter systems would be unaffected.

This would mostly be a problem for bot-farming of missions/mining; normal players would adapt.

I await rebuttals/suggestions.

1 Like
2
1 Like
3

Without stating an outright “no”, I’ll respond with a few questions instead.

  1. Would station guns and station defences be buffed to be more formidable? Without Concord station camping would become an unstoppable plague - especially around Jita.

  2. Would there be anything like a safety no-fire “buffer” surrounding major trade-hubs? Say like a 10-20km radius?

I’m not necessarily opposed to the idea - just curious how we would stop it from turning into “gankers gone wild”.

Convince me!

4

Would station camping be a problem?

Outside HS there are stations without CONCORD too and players there know how to deal with station campers. Yes, the Jita undock would be busy, possibly even busier than today, but I don’t see it as a problem for the players.

Players can simply approach the station from different angles, use bookmarks to warp in at unexpected places (the Jita station is massive) and use bookmarks to instantly warp off at the undock.

Even without CONCORD it’s not like the undock could really get camped with bubbles like it can be in the more dangerous parts of space, so at most you’ll have a bunch of people playing station games and shooting the less aware players.

The main downside I see of the abolishment of CONCORD everywhere is that it raises the skill floor of the game.

Without CONCORD it is harder for new players to get into the game. New players can currently learn how to fly their ship, what dscan is, how to target and mine asteroids etc. under the protection of CONCORD deterrence until they’re ready to venture out into the more dangerous parts of the game.

And aside from new players, there also are older players with lower reflexes or less willingness to pay attention who also benefit from having a small place in this universe where they can play without getting disturbed as much as elsewhere in the game.

For that reason I think HS has a place in the game and CONCORD defines HS.

While I’m against abolishment of CONCORD I’m not against making HS smaller. Players don’t need thousands of systems to learn how to mine, how to trade, how to navigate and how to fit their ships.

In fact, I think it’s better for the game if those new players are encouraged to also venture outside HS sooner in their career rather than later.

Splitting HS into four HS islands surrounded by LS would be my preferred way to do that. Not only does this encourage new players to learn early in the game how to cross more dangerous parts of space safely, it also could create four unique disconnected market regions and trade and hauling opportunities for those brave enough to haul through LS.

TL;DR: do not abolish CONCORD, they’re useful for making the game more newbie-friendly.

1 Like
5

Fixed that for you.

I mean, if the goal is to kill EVE Online, rather than abolishing CONCORD, wouldn’t it just be easier to go into the datacenter and unplug all the servers?

I’m in total agreement with you there.

1 Like
6

While I am a supporter of “No More Concord-Yank It Out By It’s Roots” faction, my preference would be as follows:

Transition Concord into a player controlled faction, along the lines of the Guristas or Angel pirate factions, where Concord faction aligned players could “enforce” Concord"s mandate themselves. And, just like now, once the killright was executed the killright would end.

As a Concord aligned faction player, all killrights would be activated all the time for the full 30 day duration, just like now, so you would not have to interact with an additional interface.

The 50 percent drop rate would be changed to a 90 percent drop rate, as is the case during the annual Halloween event, for Concord faction aligned players only. So, if you’re not Concord faction, the normal 50 percent drop rate would apply if you executed the killright.

Transitioning Concord into a player faction would also, or could also, satisfy/ameliorate the lack felt since the bounty system was removed.

I don’t know if this is even possible, given the games current coding. But, a player controlled/enforced Concord is my preference.

7

Even with Concord there is still the possibility to be popped in Jita on undock, I’ve definitely died that way and recently.

All having Concord around in Jita does is prevent players being proactive.

There are scores of dudes and their alts/bots all with similarly named ships effectively camping out, waiting for someone to rando-pop or baiting with cans.

If anyone dares attempt to tackle these gentlemen, Concord will descend and tear them a new ractum.

No concord? no problem. Enough people use Jita that any campers wouldn’t last longer than a few minutes.

With regards to buffing the guns, I dunno, maybe? Maybe have them at a standard where a camp could not be set up but not ridiculously overpowered.

finally; I don’t think there’s much margin in pandering to carebears; EvE is a hard game and everyone who plays knows.

If new users aren’t sticking around it’s not because of combat, it’s because Onboarding sucks and is too long, and also does not paint an accurate picture of what the actual game is like; there’s too little focus on raw combat, and onboarding is far too long to hold the interest of players.

Then add in the fact that it takes too long to get a new account trained up to an adequate standard as the average is skewed upwards by 20 years and change. I think there’s an opportunity there for CCP to sell “pre-warmed” defined-focus accounts but that’s another conversation.

1 Like
8

Maybe you’re living in a bubble, I don’t know. But here’s the reality:

  • Modern gamers are different from gamers 20 years ago. Notably, the appetite for grind seems to be much less, as does the “stickiness” of players (i.e., they jump games a lot more quickly).
  • 20 years ago, full loot PVP sandbox games were a niche. Today, they are an even smaller segment of the overall market, and the ones that are doing well (e.g., Albion) have taken steps to dial back the wholesale slaughter.
  • EVE is currently clinging to 30k PCU by its fingernails, down over 50% from it’s peak in 2013. If there was a way to count warm bodies instead of bots and multiboxers? I don’t even want to know the numbers.
  • EVE already has a new player attraction and retention problem because of its reputation for being a harsh mistress…

And you want to make it harsher?

The last time I saw numbers (and someone please correct me if I’m mistaken) the majority of EVE players still live in highsec. Apparently, for some people, this is seen as a problem to be corrected.

Personally, I don’t care if 20k, 30k—hell, 100k players sit in highsec all day, happily mining in their Ventures or docked up spinning their ships, as long as they are paying customers one way or another (be it Omega accounts, PLEX/pack buyers, whatever). Because I’ve been playing EVE for 15 years, and I’d kinda like it to survive at least another decade or two. Preferably, longer.

If you also like EVE, and you want the servers to stay on so you can keep playing the way you enjoy, you might want to come to terms with other people playing in ways that they enjoy. Otherwise, turning the screws on those players is just going to chase them off, and you’ll get to enjoy your perfect sandbox for all of a year or so before the lights go out for good.

Thank you for attending my TED talk.

2 Likes
9

One of the worst aspects of the game for me was pvp. Every interaction was either gankers, or getting blobbed. Removing the much more frequent opportunities for a little one on one from the game is absolutely going to kill it.

Typical tyrant, you’re not looking to make something ■■■■ good, you’re looking to make something good ■■■■ to try and achieve your goal.

1 Like
10

Funny how I made bookmarks to land and leave and never had a problem except with the local spam? :unamused_face:

1 Like
11

Some players just like to see the universe burn…

12

We have “Self-Policing” already, it is called sov null sec.

1 Like
13

Hi sec… if anything needs better Concord response.

What needs to change is Hi Sec should once again be a jumping point.
… In the old days, if you wanted to make more isk, be it, industry, mining, ratting, pirating ect… You graduated from Hi sec to null. Low sec was for small corps/alliances not able to maintain sov. Hi sec is where you have training wheels, or where you went to take a brake. Things worked well then, it gave new players the room to learn, and old players a place to catch their breath.

Things like abysal sites and pirate escalations ect should all be tied to the lower sec you are in, the better the rewards.

In the first decade of the game, if you were really interested in playing, you were interested in building yourself up to head to 0.0 life. The main thing that killed that was blob lag, which appears to still be an issue. For those that like the big fights, what fun is it to see your screen in stop motion… maybe you’re dead already and don’t know it… maybe 30 seconds later you can lock another target. I’m not quite sure how bad that is now as it was 10 years ago… but that was the big issue many had that really turned off the hype of 0.0 and what they worked for into a big disappointment. Roaming gang warfare was so much more satisfying provided you found a fight… win or loose, at least you had full control.

So the key is to keep 0.0 the primary goal, and to leave hi sec safe for players to learn and recoup.

Don’t make hi sec a great place to make isk… be it ganking, missions, wormhole ect. Players will migrate. Those that don’t will be the subscribers that are just here to pass time, and would quit if unable to have a casual gaming experience. They will be at the lowest tier to make isk, and have less pull in the game short of paying a subscription. Creating a view of corp/alliance life as the gateway, and guides to help players to that end should create that growth. FW is mostly setup to be the intro for it already.

1 Like
14

Is it a great place to make ISK? What would you curb/eliminate to make it less of a “great” place to make ISK? It’s definitely not mining, PI or manufacturing…

15

Move lvl 4 missions to lo sec and lvl 5 missions to null space perhaps not the same stories, but the payout. Or… adding lvl 6 to null space… something to further a transition. (the lower you go the more you can make) If lvl 4 missions are left in hi sec, have entries as dead space gates that a max of 2 ships can enter. Any more and players can about sleep through them… to much easy isk.

Things like abyssal sites … pirate sites ect, the higher end sites should not be anywhere near hi sec.

Industry needs a complete revamp… trade hubs like Jita should be more tied to 0.0. It should reflect more on a 0.0 market and it’s produced product being cheaper than buying material and producing in hi sec. Perhaps some sort of fleet caravan mechanic to make the trip faster, but yet susceptible and the need to defend it. During big sov wars, the prices of items made in empire will be able to compete for that time to keep prices from jumping too high and keeping the market filled.

The isk you can make in ganking should be driven more towards targets moving from hi to low to null.
(the market hubs being more in line with materials AND product from 0.0 would drive this)

16

Sounds like Eve Frontier is what you want: EVE Frontier

17

You make it sound as if CONCORD is everywhere but they are only in a minority of systems

18

They are everywhere, even J space!