For the best experience use full HD.

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

GCC, is it even necessary?

Rixx Javix is a bad dude. And I mean this with respect. He's a bad dude in Eve (aka a pirate) and his blog is bad in that odd modern American idiomatic twist that means good, really good. Today he had this to say about the GCC. Rixx is right, almost any system that doesn't make the pilot just sit and wait around would be better than what transpires today. Even nasty pirates deserve a chance to play their game.

In the article from my last post, they reported a new Crime Watch system built from the ground up. Here is how it will work according to them.
"The new Crimewatch system breaks consequences down to three categories, each marked with a distinct icon in the UI.   
The first level of criminal consequence is the inability to safely log off from the game. Doing so will cause your ship to warp somewhere in the current system and you’ll still be able to be scanned down.   
Committing a ‘misdemeanor’ crime of sorts, say, stealing things from another player’s space canister, will flag you with a second icon that denotes that other players will be able to kill you on sight. 
The third level, reserved for heinous acts such as murder, will bring up a third icon on your UI that denotes that not only can other players kill you, but EVE Online’s NPC police presence, CONCORD, will hunt you down as well. 
Each of the three icons will display information on mouse-over so that players can understand exactly what can or will happen to them and these icons will also show a countdown timer of sorts to let you know exactly how long until that effect expires."
It is the third level that Rixx seems most concerned about, what we know as the GCC timer. He has written about one system that could make it better. He also admits there may be other ways to improve GCC. I don't think any timer based system will make it better though. It might make it more bearable, but not better.

I propose that CCP scrap the entire timer based system all together. In a game where every nanosecond of processor time is important, it just doesn't really make sense to have timer based systems anyway. Still we can't allow nasty pirates to get away with their crimes now can we.

Instead, I recommend that CCP roll the punishment for such heinous crimes straight into the new bounty system. Leave it up to the victim to determine the level of punishment for the pirate. Here is how I think this could work:
In this system, there is no time limit. The victim chooses a range (system, constellation, region) and CONCORD will shoot the pirate on site until the bounty is completely claimed.

The range selection code is already in the game. It would be the same thing as placing buy and/or sell orders. It also limits the area of space where the pirate is wanted to a single region. It gives the pirate someplace to go and continue being a pirate. Since many low-sec systems are on region boundaries, it should not be too much of a pain to "get away." Null-sec and WH space are exempt as is already the case. No muss, no fuss and an equitable system for all.

The only downside I can see is the cost of bringing CONCORD in on the bounty. It would preclude poorer players who may be noobs. To deal with this, I could see the CONCORD surcharge being a percentage of wallet or total asset value. That is something for CCP to work out. Maybe it doesn't even matter, for instance if the surcharge is low cost. Regardless, the CONCORD surcharge has the extra value of being an ISK sink without affecting game play. You could call it a voluntary tax if you like, but it's better than raising taxes on everyone.

Fly Careful


  1. I hope I'm missing something, but your last paragraph really points out the problem in what otherwise I like. What's with this scenario:

    I piss off someone with a Gevlon Goblin sized budget. He sets a 2.5 billion ISK bounty on me and includes CONCORD. Since my net worth is measured in the millions I'm exiled from Empire forever.

    "In this system there is no time limit..."

    1. Nope, you're exiled from the region where you popped him at most. Plus, if the surcharge is a percentage of wallet or total assets, he'll have to pay a ton of ISK to include CONCORD because he has a ten tons of ISK. A noob may only have to pay 10k for the surcharge. It's a progressive tax system.

      Also, I assumed the carebear in question would have to have kill rights due to an attack by the pirate in order to include CONCORD on the bounty. This would not be possible with corporations or alliances. However, you are correct in that it is an issue that would have to be worked through. Otherwise, people would game it just like the new War Dec system was gamed.

  2. Yeah only one problem with all of this:
    Once CONCORD "takes notice" of you, your warp drive is disabled, and finding any way to "escape", move, etc, is a bannable exploit.

    So the whole discussion of "escaping" CONCORD is a moot point, cause I've seen no mention anywhere of any nerfs to CONCORD, changes to the warp-disabling, etc, or the policy regarding boomeranging and like CONCORD-escaping "exploits".

    1. Your comment is a lark. There is plenty of escaping going on in low-sec right now. In fact, just last night my corporation watched a half dozen plus ships try and take out an Obelisk in Aunenen. CONCORD didn't bother them at all. They all escaped just fine and flew off to safes to wait out their GCC. (BTW, most pirates operate out of low-sec in case you weren't aware of that.) And as for CONCORD "taking notice" of a pirate, at least in my plan that would only be for one region and not ALL of high-sec. The pirate might have an enhanced bounty in Essence but she could still go to Jita. Lastly, CCP has already changed gate guns. They can easily change CONCORD behavior. It's all up to them. That's the cool thing about changes. Anything you want to change is changed. Who knew!

    2. Ok, I recognize the right of a blogger to be a condescending ass whenever he feels like, as it is HIS blog after all.

      That being said: you're being a condescending ass, but FOR NO GOOD REASON.

      I wasn't TALKING about lowsec. Maybe you should wander over to Sugar Kyle's blog and go read her transcript of CCP Soundwave's opening presentation at Vegas. Go ahead -- I don't need to, because I was sitting RIGHT THERE next to her.
      Now, that being said, the way _I_ (and judging by the Q&A a few other people in attendance, with the benefit of graphics, body language, etc to reinforce good communication) took this is that essentially the long-term, LONNNNG-range plan, is to NIX CONCORD almost completely, and have the "justice" system handled by players.

      As Soundwave himself said, when questioned about the new bounties and "can someone with a lot of money just literally drown someone right out of the game? and is that going to be allowed?!" Soundwave said emphatically YES: "I don't like limiting what players can do."
      ^^ BTW if I were you, I'd be quakin in mah booties, cause that's giving MiniLuv exactly the tool they wanted to use on you and failed with the wardeccing thing.

      Back on track: so, unless I missed some key vital element, none of what you said ever SPECIFIED lowsec, and since CONCORD doesn't EXIST in lowsec, any talk of CONCORD by definition means HISEC. Besides that, escaping CONCORD is, as pointed out, a bannable exploit under the current rules, and you never mentioned any changes to CONCORD in abilities or behavior in this lil proposal, ergo my "lark" of a comment.

      tl;dr: being a condescending ass is your right, but exercised without thought or prudence, and merely as an exercise in "imright, urwrong; stfu n00b," doesn't exactly advance your cause or ingratiate yourself with people.
      Are you perchance one of Gevlon's students now? Just saying.

    3. Wow, what crawled up your ass and tickled your liver? If my reply was condescending I'd really hate to see what you thought of as down right rude. So, since you are obviously offended I apologize. I thought we were having a discussion. Unfortunately, tone and intent never come across in type. Have a great week.

  3. I would just place a timer bounty on the nasty pirate. Force him to wait then, if that is the worst punishment, they are making it out to be.

  4. Its an interesting take on how the criminal system can work but I think it should be used in combination of things.

    Firstly I dislike the idea of only having player bounties control the level of punishment as it would mean that griefers would simply kill newbies endlessly.

    This means that newbies are either less likely to want to spend their limited funds on a bounty but also any bounty they would place would probably be so laughably small that no bounty hunter would even bother to take it up.

    Personally I think that they should turn the GCC into a system of 'cat and mouse' - rather than having the criminal 'run and hide' for a shortwhile the criminal becomes not only flagged as 'open season' but also unable to hide (ie EVERYONE in the system can see them and warp to them) - this means that if the criminal is really that good they could either out run everyone or GTFO quickly enough to avoid destruction, but also encourage other players to band together to police the system with CONCORDs help.

    This would mean that busy systems becomes a bigger risk for the criminal as any minor altercation could be met with swift & destructive justice, quiet systems become a little more fun, players can help out policing the system and Carebears get some PvP xp along the way to a point where it could almost become another profession.

    Low sec systems act in a similar fasion but purhapes the CONCORD response is limited to a point where the criminal may even be able to fight them off but the 'cat and mouse' system is still in place rather than 'run and hide' (which is boring) - any players interested in helping out CONCORD could then help police low sec systems and get rewarded for it.

  5. You know, there are certain things blogs are good at. Problems with balance changes, glaring omissions that aren't being met, odd edge cases and the like.

    But after how badly the blog community and the eve community in general missed on how the wardec system could be exploited.. I'm pretty sure we're going to miss both the bounty system and crimewatch. They are big nebulous systems with knock-on effects all over the place that to a certain extent expects the playerbase to police it's use. GCC with the Yellow Flag, and Bounty Hunting in it's entirety. Neither of these systems is a simple "run the numbers" exercise.

    Don't get me wrong, I think CCP is going to mess them up at first. But I don't think anyone is going to predict how they are going to mess it up.

    1. Agreed, but with one proviso. I don't see it as CCP messing up if they can't foresee every possible way a player may game the system. We do outnumber them something like 1000 to one. We surely have an edge in brain power simply by shear numbers. Other than that, I think you're spot on. Bloggers can't solve the issues. Our job is more to get folks to just think about them in hopefully new and interesting ways.

  6. Personally I would not want CONCORD to be killing offenders. I would like other players to do so. At this moment, highsec griefing is a playstyle. Griefer hunting isn't. I think it should be. The new system sounds very much like it could create that playstyle.

    I think there should be more non-consensual PvP in highsec. Only this time it should be directed at the griefers as I have written before on a blog banter (


Be civil, be responsible and most of all be kind. I will not tolerate poor form. There will be no James Hooks here. We are all better than that.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.