Concord Changes

A change to concord response times.

  • Increase the response times in high security space
  • entering into ships while in space and not tethered by a super capital, or station is no longer possible.

Low Security

  • Guns will now 100% True damage, ignoring player resistence
  • Guns will now scale in damage up to 500% of current rank in 0.4 systems, dropping down to 300% of current rates in 0.1 systems. (making it hard to tank and camp)
  • Concord will now respond to low sec distress calls, that will spawn a T3 destroyer (3500 hps, 1000 dps) and 2 assault which can be killed by players but are hard to destroy (2500 hps, and 1500 dps each). Will web and scram.

This will help push the pvp into belts, which will help make the transition of low sec more fluid from high sec.

Timer will be
University Systems: No high sec piracy
1.0 : 5 Seconds
.9 : 8 seconds
.8 : 12 seconds
.7 : 15 seconds
.6 : 18 seconds
.5 : 21 seconds
.4 : 24 seconds
.3 : 27 seconds
.2 : 30 Seconds
.1 : 33 seconds

I assume by increase response timers you are actually meaning make it faster for Concord to turn up right?
That is the wrong way to go.
The faster Concord turns up the more it is just a maths equation for the ganker. We actually want Concord to take longer to turn up so there is room for the unexpected and players to respond.


lol, no.



I like the idea of Concord responding to lowsec, but response times are ok the way they are now.

Personally, I’d like to see police duties handed over to the empire faction navies- response speed depends not just on system security level but faction standing. They fly normal navy ships with advanced AI - you can fight or run but expected outcome is the same as it is now.

1 Like

Tankable police would ruin EVE. Concord used to be, it got broken by players, so that’s why we have unbeatable concord. because it was so bad Devs had to step in and use Dev powers to fix it.

1 Like

Naari a Dryson alt?


doubtful, i think he’s someone who claim’s he’s a game developer and all he does is whine and how he thinks eve can be better… if thats the case, he can apply to work at ccp, but hopefully leave his crap ideas out of there.

1 Like

I advocate for less abuse of new players. The idea of high sec is that it provides lower income rates (which need to be balanced to current inflation rates, ie buffed) for more security.

However, high sec actually has more ship losses then null if you exclude massive wars. Take a look at the map and look at the statistics.

At this point the only thing that is happening in high sec is a bread of filth, scamming, crying children who complain because people advocate change that is not abusive on the new player, high sec community.

Look, this “gank high sec” “massive war” “jita local scam” is not doing anything beneficial to eve. Anyone who claims that i will call a liar directly to their face, right after i will demand metric data on individual accounts to see just how many of them actually stay in the game directly after scams, or such abuse.

I Directly and fully call ccp’s dev team deceptive liars when they claim that this type of behavior is good for the game, because its not.

The age of you hooligans running around abusing high sec is swiftly coming to an end, and when it gets fixed i will be fixing the rest of eve, leaving no stone unturned. I declare war on bad, and abusive game design and those who advocate and support it.

1 Like

not to get in another pointless discussion with you, but to simply prove to players why this is not true.

Concord was tankable at a point in eve, but it was not bad for that purpose. In the past concord spawned only once, you could “kite” concord long before you could tank it, allowing allies in the system to sit at the undock smart bombing everything free of anything of worry out side of station guns (easily tanked).

Further, concord has modules equipped on it that was highly valuable at the time and people farmed them for these things.

If your gona make a statement like this, stop being deceptive and tell the whole truth, or shut up.

first of all, you are throwing me in with the rest of whatever you said… i don’t go along with scammers or anything else… im a simple minded carebear who minds his own business in hisec, and try to help new players out with the dangers that is hisec.

the point i was making is that it should not be dangerous at all.

have you seen the isk rate disparity? Its absurd. It even makes us older players want to quit the game, let a lone the new ones. and ccp is making it worse!

Missions, are especially bad. L 1’s should st at 1m isk, and 2’s should give 4-5m, and 3’s 10-15m, 4s, 30-50m, 5’s 50-60m. (rewards, and mobs included in these values).

Doing level 4’s for 1 million isk is absoluely insane, and they are being removed from alpha’s!?

and this is not touching on the other area’s.

What inflation, players getting richer does not automatically mean inflation… also you are utterly ignoring Lp here. Once you include LP an average highsec mission is more like 10 million.
Not to say wealth inequality isn’t an issue, but looking at pure isk generation doesn’t present an accurate picture.

As for your Concord claims, that’s nice but none of that counters what I said. Tankable Concord means people can set up permanent blockades.


That’s not all a function of pvp though, if you are looking at the map, or a third-party site like dotlan eve-maps.

The ship losses are the total of both pvp and pve losses and includes compulsory losses in the NPE, losses to rats, etc.

It’s not as easy as thinking there is more pvp loss in highsec than there is in other areas of space and even if pvp loss in highsec becomes more limited, the pve losses will still be there and what the map shows won’t change much.

1 Like

The fact it is even remotely close does indicate an issue though.

WHat’s the facts though? This is where there is always contention, because facts generally aren’t what are being discussed.

It’s close enough you have to go “well what about these factors”.
Beyond that only CCP has the tools to produce the numbers. But if you are busy posting "what about"s then it’s obvious that it’s not as different a risk as it should be.
n.b. Should be is based on how high sec has been repeatadly targeted by people with regards to its income, production etc. If it wasn’t worst at everything then obviously the risk is fine

Incorrect. The map display of “show shops killed in the last 24 hours” is player only
to view npc kills, simply select “Npc and pirate kills in the last 24 hours”.

Additionally you can check the monthly reports for metric data. High sec is much more dangerous then other regions of space if your measuring out side of major battles in null (i think even then but i have to check).\

here are some examples of todays map statistics

Player kills

What is close enough?

Total loss? PVP only loss? and if only CCP has the tools to produce the numbers, then how do you know what’s close at all?

Looking at the Dotlan number for the last 24 hours for example:

Couster is sitting at #6 most destructive highsec system in the last 24 hours. It normally sits anywhere between 3-7 most destructive over a 24 hour period.

That’s a rookie system. In general the top 5-6 most violent systems in high includes a rookie system where almost all of the loss is PVE related. That carries across a lot of systems in highsec. The numbers are scewed by the higher percentage of PVE loss compared to other security spaces.

It’s not an apples to apples comparison and never has been, but people always argue as though it is.

1 Like

No, I’m not incorrect.

So, if you ignore some data to make a point, what’s the value of the point to begin with?

However, so actual good data analysis would be good for a change. Go get the actual numbers and bring them back here. You’ll see it isn’t so straight forward to do. I’ve been trying to do it for years and it isn’t easy.

1 Like