|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
880
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 02:56:00 -
[1] - Quote
So pretty much... log in alts, get them into remote sensor boosting logis, and sit by a gate in Jita with your main collecting free suspect bacon in your invincible insta lock bs?
OK.
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
880
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 04:43:00 -
[2] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:Gogela wrote:So pretty much... log in alts, get them into remote sensor boosting logis, and sit by a gate in Jita with your main collecting free suspect bacon in your invincible insta lock bs?
OK. You mean to tell me there's a risk associated with being a suspect? And you also truly believe with a vigilante/suspect system that you would sit there camping for long before a group of suspects rolled up and zonked you?
Who have you been fighting?
*sigh* this is probably a troll but I'll bite. My logi reppers are going to be untouchable regardless. I could have 10 there. Officer fit... why not? They'll never have a flag. So now it's just me sitting on that gate. So let's say a guy jumps in w/ the flag and he looks good. An easy kill. Little do I know there's 10 of his buddies on the other side of the gate, right? Well... first of all I'll be able to tank them. I have a bunch of logis feeding me cap shield and armor. WTF do I care if he has friends? Second, we're taking Jita. How long will it be before a few other random bored pilots roll up to the gate and start sniping this fleet of suspects that are attacking me? The longer I sit there the more will come... not because they like me but just to test this or that fit on free meat... and I'll be sitting there a while. ...at lest until I run out of ammo.... at which point I can have an alt bring me more. I could do it all day.
I'm just saying it'll become a feature of high traffic gates. Huge empire gate camps will form. They will just hang out, hirr lemming bubble camp style... but in empire. Quote me on that.
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
880
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 05:28:00 -
[3] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:You're right. With the currently-proposed system, your logis will never be flagged - might as well officer fit them. The currently-proposed system is idiotic.
When you shoot at suspects, you should be flagged as a vigilante, and when you assist a vigilante, you should be flagged as a vigilante. So now you're sitting there with your 1 battleship and 10 logi, maybe some other vigilante friends. You honestly believe that there won't be corps or large groups of players who do nothing but flag as suspects and come zonk you on the gate? Maybe even make it a good fight?
But absolutely, as long as the logis never get flagged as per CCP Greyscale's flawless logic, you could 100% sit on the Perimeter gate with an instalocking tackler, a BS, and RR and blap dudes all day long.
Edit: I also like how you made a post and then went back and edited it afterwards to add insults about my alliance losing ships worth a fraction of their AT budget. Yah. I used to be in hirr. It was awesome. Everyone was drunk or high and it was genuinely hilarious all of the time... even when nothing was coming through the gate we were on. There will be corps that form up to do nothing but. I may join one. Why not? No skin off my schlong...
Also: It wasn't really an insult. The jab at your flag ship.... maybe a little. I'm a big AT ship aficionado though, and it WAS very gutsy of PL to field them like they did (I'm putting their fleet at about 170 billion ISK fit not counting implants). It was the best alliance match I've ever seen. Very exciting to watch.... so kuddos to them. I'm amazed they didn't loose a Malice. From time to time I fit an AT ship and take it out to fight on sisi. Most of the time it's a PL pilot that kills me... and that's a fact. So much respect...
Edit: I would like to see things chain more in crimewatch. I would love to make empire more dangerous and have the probability of things spinning totally out of control and have entire empire systems collapse under the weight of complex aggression mechanics grow exponentially. I can't think of any better way to make empire vibrant and fun. At the same time, I appreciate the technical difficulties and from what I understand of what CCP Greyscale has written in other threads, I don't know how a solution can be found. I've thought a lot about it... I've got nothing.
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
880
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 05:39:00 -
[4] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:Gogela wrote: Yah. I used to be in hirr. It was awesome. Everyone was drunk or high and it was genuinely hilarious all of the time... even when nothing was coming through the gate we were on. There will be corps that form up to do nothing but. I may join one. Why not? No skin off my schlong...
Problem is, with the current system, you'll never catch many suspects. They can't gang up and work together. Give suspects the ability to fight back together against the people shooting them and you'll get tons of fights on gates. It'd be interesting and maybe worth giving a shot. As long as 50 people can shoot 1 suspect with only that suspect being able to shoot back via individual aggression timers, there's no point. You'll only catch a few stupid suspects in T1 looting/salvaging frigates. The rest will avoid gates like the plague until their timer is gone. You underestimate the power of the dumb side of the force...
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
880
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:25:00 -
[5] - Quote
I think that some of you are planning too far ahead. Even the sov changes for Dominion created opportunities for many. Sadly, what I think everyone failed to realize is the the Dominion expansion would wipe out a vastly complex ecosystem that the devs and frankly the players didn't appreciate the depth of.
My thoughts on crimewatch are of a more wait and see approach in practice, but in principal I think one that supports more complex gameplay outcomes will be used in a greater variety of ways by the players would be better. More options are always good, but the net effect on the playerbase? I don't think anyone writing in this thread can claim to know the outcome. My fear is that in eliminating variables some players might not like, the devs will respond by making such simplistic and incremental changes that truly varied gameplay will not be possible. Those few permutations of surviving options will be plotted out by the geekery of eve, and will be discounted as they effectively were with Dominion era sov warfare and abandoned in lke kind, leaving a conformal gery goo of boring gameplay for pods. When did we get so scared of radical change? Why are some people so unwilling to stir up the pot and see what happens? Fearless my a55...
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
880
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:56:00 -
[6] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:Gogela wrote: Why are some people so unwilling to stir up the pot and see what happens? Fearless my a55... Because having participants in a fight that can't be shot at it stupid. Because having suspects unable to shoot those aggressing their suspect friends right in front of them is stupid. Because CCP Greyscale makes posts only defending his decisions rather than accepting criticisms, and seems ready to sacrifice gameplay quality at the expense of simplicity.
You and I aren't even arguing opposing points, you know.
Read the original CrimeWatch thread. CCP Greyscale had a lot to say.
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
880
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 07:13:00 -
[7] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:dexington wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:I'd really like to see how the idea that someone can be shooting at you and receiving remote reps but if you shoot the repping parties you get a blast of concord to the face could possibly be presented well. No one said it should be easy to pvp in hi-sec. Seems pretty easy for the people who can be remotely assisted by as many people as they can find with no danger of ever being shot at to me. Why do you look like a Quaker. That's the real question...
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
880
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 07:21:00 -
[8] - Quote
Quick someone sell me some oats.
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
881
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 18:35:00 -
[9] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:*snip*
We had a discussion this morning about the specific case of people RRing vigilantes. We're currently considering treating it like all other "neutral RR" situations under the new system, ie suspect-flagging you if you RR a vigilante, as this seems to iron out a lot of the wrinkles here and makes it more consistent with the rest of the design.
*snip* This solves a lot of potential problems imho.
Vimsy Vortis wrote:So greyscale's crimewatch isn't even a failure to move forward, it is a direct step backwards. You can't go backwards from the current version of crimewatch. There's nothing to go "back" to... crimewatch is old as hell. What should be done to balance it though is since the risk level for living in empire is going down the rewards need to follow suit.
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
881
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 19:34:00 -
[10] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ohh Yeah wrote:But it doesn't. Explain to me how it makes sense that someone remote repairing a vigilante to help him fight crime should be flagged as a criminal and open to attack from all of EVE? It doesn't. Different issue. GǣMaking senseGǥ is something completely different to Gǣsolve problemsGǥ. There are tons of things that don't make sense in EVE, but which are in place because it provides better and more consistent gameplay. In this case, it makes sense because it means all neutral support is treated equally: it's always a horribly bad idea. It makes sense because it allows people being attacked to always take out any support the attacker might bring. If you want to fight criminals (including helping other crime fighters), just shoot the criminalsGǪ Cloaky Nullified T3s are invulnerable gate to gate anywhere in EvE. Blockade Runners and CovOps frigates are invulnerable gate to gate in low sec. Jump Bridges. Jump Freighters... pretty much invulnerable. There's enough invulnerable stuff in this game. Every year there's something new that's invulnerable. It's a lame trend. In the case of a ship well tanked getting reps from a logi fleet of unlimited size that cannot be agressed w/o CONCORD coming to their aid, you would have had a situation where a vigilante would in effect be invulnerable. That would really cross the line in my view. I don't care what kind of flag the logi gets, just so long as it can't contribute to the fight while remaining invulnerable. I agree w/ Tippia... I'm more concerned about the end state than I am about things making sense. Not being able to use a bubble or a bomb in low or high sec doesn't make any more sense... maybe the logi roll shouldn't be so broad in high sec either...
|
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
881
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 19:41:00 -
[11] - Quote
Does anyone know if the plan still includes giving people smuggling contraband a suspect flag?
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
881
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 23:11:00 -
[12] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Question:
Since engaging a suspect causes that suspect to be able to engage you in return it would appear that 1 to 1 flagging is still a part of crimewatch 2.0. Is it not possible for logistics and other forms of RR aiding the person attacking the suspect to simply inherit the same personal aggressions the person they are helping has? It seems like it wouldn't over-penalize RR while still leaving room for retaliation without adding something all too different for the aggression mechanics already described.
Or am I misunderstanding how it's intended to work from the start? As I understand it there's a technical problem with that... something about tracking who can agress who in more complex scenarios. CCP Greyscale talked about it in another thread. ...can't find link atm
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
881
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 03:01:00 -
[13] - Quote
You know... it may just be the case that this is an indirect way of getting more people into lowsec. I mean, by making it harder to perform asshattery in highsec wouldn't that compel asshats to move to low? Personally I'm pretty uninterested in highsec on the whole.
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
882
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 05:58:00 -
[14] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Antisocial Malkavian wrote:Ohh Yeah wrote:I don't think he meant that CONCORD needed to go. Yeah I actually do. Its a stupid, kneejerk response to a problem and CCP didnt think it out when they implimented it (like usual) You replace the stupid godlike powers of an NPC organization with players that run security for those logistics. Like those mercenary groups Soundwave was pretending he cared about after the wardec change. THAT actually makes the MARKET he said EVE needs so very badly that they had to change the wardec mechanic Ever been a part of a Freighter convoy? They're not fun. In fact, they suck. And that's with the availability of Titans to bridge. Without Titans to bridge some of the distance, they'd be even worse. (By the way, CONCORD was introduced before EVE launched, so what exactly, was it a kneejerk reaction to?) Please. Freighter ops don't suck nearly as much as they should. Logistics is supposed to be hard. It's supposed to be dangerous. The only reason you are b1tching is because they are now boring. Your invulnerable in a JF. This is a major nullsec problem. WTF do you know about freighter convoys? They don't even exist anymore. Teleportation was by far the worst addition to eve.
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
882
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 17:27:00 -
[15] - Quote
Price Check Aisle3 wrote:Tippia wrote:Sure you can. You pick your time and place and ensure that you have a good hand-off in place to make the loot safe. Your focus will be to have a good get-away plan so you can safe up and cloak. I'm not arguing that it will no longer be possible (or fun or require more skill), simply that it will be more dangerous. Does the punishment actually fit the crime? Under the current rules we have a sort of "eye for an eye" thing going. Under the new rules, stealing will be punishable by anyone, rather than the victim. This is going to make very difficult for ninja looters in lowsec, that's for sure. I see the sun starting to set on the ninja looting profession. Ganking for profit will likely be out. Ganking in general... unless the motivation is like that of the goons trying to influence the isotope market or something, but that will require significant numbers of players to achieve. Maybe it would be cool if having a vigilante flag gave people with a sec status below 0 the right to shoot them there could still be fighting in highsec.
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
882
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 17:43:00 -
[16] - Quote
Price Check Aisle3 wrote:Gogela wrote:This is going to make very difficult for ninja looters in lowsec, that's for sure. I see the sun starting to set on the ninja looting profession. In low-sec? In high-sec, eh... I still think most people won't even bother except for a few dudes who will camp the docking rings in major missioning hubs and those butt-hurt idiots who get mad at salvagers (which shouldn't trigger a flag anyway...) I'll definitely still do it when I'm bored of whatever else I've been up to. Yah... me too... but we'll loose more ships. Lowsec is better for ninja looting because you loot player ships, which are way better than NPCs. I don't even know why people loot missions and stuff... not very good isk for the effort even under the current mechanics. I've tried it and was too bored and too broke. ...but yes the Crimewatch mechanic is very important in lowsec too...
Price Check Aisle3 wrote:Gogela wrote:Ganking for profit will likely be out. Ganking in general... unless the motivation is like that of the goons trying to influence the isotope market or something, but that will require significant numbers of players to achieve. Maybe it would be cool if having a vigilante flag gave people with a sec status below 0 the right to shoot them there could still be fighting in highsec. Ganking for fun is still in, lol. Oh Yeah's vigilante/criminal flags thing sounds pretty cool for pick-up PvP but I don't think it's a good system for actual punishment of crimes and would end up being a bit too "griefy" in the end. Who knows... I honestly think CW 2.0 is a case of CCP going "What would be the easiest way to do this in code" and then doing it, rather than exploring what constitutes a crime and what the appropriate punishment should be. Everyone I know who actually ganks for fun in highsec is pretty rich, imho. They are a minority of gankers. You may play with a bunch of people that do it for fun, but I'll wager all of your friends are doing pretty well in ISK terms too. Most of the people I know who gank in general are doing it for profit. Yah they have fun, but that's not their main objective. The loot is the imperative goal.
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
882
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 17:45:00 -
[17] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Gogela wrote:Ganking for profit will likely be out. Nah. You just do what you do right now if you want to be really careful: have an Orca on standby (it blends in well in belts for one), and dump all ze lewt into the corp hangarGǪ Then those orcas become a profitable target for vigilantes. If it becomes possible to hit the loot ship, and not get flagged, than people will do it. When ganking becomes less profitable, people will stop ganking (with the exception of those doing it for lulz, of course)
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
882
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 18:10:00 -
[18] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Gogela wrote:Then those orcas become a profitable target for vigilantes. No. The Orca won't be flagged for anything (nor will it drop anything if someone decides to suicide-gank it). They'll be as unprofitable targets as ever. Sure, you might lose the thief in his free Ibis, and depending on how the flagging works, you might even lose the thief's free clone. Oh myGǪ Ah... I see how your deal works. I was thinking about freighter volumes of loot though. your primary "loot runner" would be the orca in that case... but yah I guess a handoff would work. Probably don't need an orca for that.
The corp hanger in an orca doesn't drop anything?
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
882
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 18:16:00 -
[19] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Suddenly, BUMP! Well, yes. Hence the GÇ£jumpGÇ¥ part GÇö add in an emergency cyno and fuel cost to that 21bn commitment. Gogela wrote:Ah... I see how your deal works. I was thinking about freighter volumes of loot though. your primary "loot runner" would be the orca in that case... but yah I guess a handoff would work. Probably don't need an orca for that.
The corp hanger in an orca doesn't drop anything? No. Nothing in the Orca's special hangars drop on destruction. The other advantage is that the Orca can be largely passive in the whole deal since the thief can access the hangar on his own, which significantly simplifies (and secures) the hand-off: open Orca, open loot can, drag-drop-warp-failbecauseofscrams-die-beer. But yes, it's limited in what you can scoop up with that kind of setup. Hay... that would work!
Also did not know that about corp hangers on orcas. Learning is occurring...
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
882
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 18:21:00 -
[20] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:The real question is what happens to NEUTRAL LOGISTICS Repping WAR TARGETS??
That is the only question that matters.
Neutral Logis repping someone that you committed a "Crime" against. Fine, whatever. I'll deal with it.
But WAR TARGET Neutral Logi's MUST have aggression transfer, OR be set as criminals for assisting in a WAR that they are not legitimately a part of, and this are fair game for everyone. I think nobody has answered this question because nobody but the devs know the answer. I sure don't know...
|
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
882
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 18:25:00 -
[21] - Quote
Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:
We allow one-time mappings but we don't make them transitive, ie if you're a suspect and someone shoots you then you can always fire back, but if that person has a third party repping them, you can't shoot the logi because we don't allow aggression transfer like that (for obvious reasons).
Excuse me? My god CCP, just remove all hi sec pvp and be done with it. That's clearly what you want to do.
CCP Greyscale wrote:We had a discussion this morning about the specific case of people RRing vigilantes. We're currently considering treating it like all other "neutral RR" situations under the new system, ie suspect-flagging you if you RR a vigilante, as this seems to iron out a lot of the wrinkles here and makes it more consistent with the rest of the design.
RTFT
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
882
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 18:31:00 -
[22] - Quote
Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:Gogela wrote:Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:
We allow one-time mappings but we don't make them transitive, ie if you're a suspect and someone shoots you then you can always fire back, but if that person has a third party repping them, you can't shoot the logi because we don't allow aggression transfer like that (for obvious reasons).
Excuse me? My god CCP, just remove all hi sec pvp and be done with it. That's clearly what you want to do. CCP Greyscale wrote:We had a discussion this morning about the specific case of people RRing vigilantes. We're currently considering treating it like all other "neutral RR" situations under the new system, ie suspect-flagging you if you RR a vigilante, as this seems to iron out a lot of the wrinkles here and makes it more consistent with the rest of the design. RTFT That dev post means nothing. It's all vague ideas and was posted to calm you guys down. From what I've gathered all of Crimewatch is pretty much vague ideas... hence the title of this thread.
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
882
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 18:35:00 -
[23] - Quote
Price Check Aisle3 wrote:Gogela wrote:Yah... me too... but we'll loose more ships. Lowsec is better for ninja looting because you loot player ships, which are way better than NPCs. I don't even know why people loot missions and stuff... not very good isk for the effort even under the current mechanics. I've tried it and was too bored and too broke. ...but yes the Crimewatch mechanic is very important in lowsec too... I'll have to try looting player wrecks in low-sec sometime. I'm no stranger to low-sec, that just never occured to me, lol. High-sec mission thieving is definitely hit-or-miss. The fun comes from the reactions you get.
Try hanging out at the Nour gate in Tama sometime. I usually sit of the gate cloaked in a destroyer w/ a bunch of salvagers and stabs fit at about 200km... then when fights start I swoop in and out in half a heartbeat. Good times
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
886
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 21:03:00 -
[24] - Quote
Tyranis Marcus wrote: Meh. Why not let vigilantes have safe remote reps? It's worth it for the griefer tears, alone. There's a difference between having a dangerous game world, and just plain coddling bullies and griefers. Also, anyone who left Eve over that would undoubtedly be improving the community by doing so.
Don't get me wrong, I've done a little can flipping and ganking here and there, but if you're going to break the law you shouldn't expect the result to be a fair fight. You should be expect to be out-manned, out-gunned and on the run, just like a real life criminal. Well, for 24 hours or so, at least.
The people crying here just want to shoot fish in a barrel. Well, they should be the fish...
Even with the flagging of neutral vigilante reppers as criminals, the balance is definitely against the criminals. Criminals will be outmanned and outgunned regardless since everyone can kill can flippers now. The only way it'll be fish in a barrel is if you are invincible as you lay down fire. Ganking is not fish in a barrel. I've floated nicely tanked ships loaded w/ goodies through empire only to have packs of BS blow up around me due to insufficient alpha. I don't think ganking is easy at all. I think the new crimewatch will make it a lot harder now.
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
888
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 22:45:00 -
[25] - Quote
I really would not get too bent out of shape about anything being discussed right now. I mean, in one day CCP Greyscale went from 'remote neutral reppers can do so without consequence' to 'neut-Logis get flagged as criminals for repping anything with a flag'... I mean... that's kind of a big deal and nobody really thought about it apparently. MAYBE Crimewatch isn't vaporware. ...but it's not even in pre-alpha yet. I don't think they are very far along on this thing. I'm starting to think this isn't coming w/ the winter expansion. Maybe in a year or so. Que sera sera. I'd just take it down a notch before I started biomassing toons and shooting at monuments over a bar napkin with scribbles on it.
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
889
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 16:46:00 -
[26] - Quote
Rordan D'Kherr wrote:Crunchie Attuxors wrote:I want to know how this thread became a lets bash CCP thread... this and I want to know how this micro issue can get an endless thread of 22+ pages. I don't know why this became a let's bash CCP thread. Off topic posts? Where you at ISD? You take down cat pics but not rants? It's cool, essay.
That said, if you think Crimewatch is a micro issue you are not smart and should go back to mining in your battleship.
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
890
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 19:36:00 -
[27] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:Arienne Deveraux wrote: My in-game occupation notwithstanding, how do you justify involving a third party into a simple theft dispute between thief and victim? What justifies the right for another pilot to open fire if they have not been wronged in any way?
Your argument deals in absolutes. My point is there should be no absolute right or absolute wrong in context of the game universe.
If there are no absolute right and wrong actions, then there should be no hisec at all, nor any Concord. Instead, CCP chose to implement laws in hisec to protect law abiding citizens, and defined certain absolute wrong actions and their punishments. Being that this is a computer simulation, and it simulates a future society where many actions can instantly be determined to be right or wrong, and the culprit identified, there can exist absolute wrong actions with no ambiguity. Ownership of a jetcan or wreck is established with certainty, as is the identity of anyone taking from these containers. Taking items from a can or wreck that isn't specifically abandoned is a crime with a punishment up to and including the destruction of your ship. It has been absolutely defined as such for a long time. The difference is that the little old lady that just had her purse snatched can now call for aid from anyone else nearby. This seems entirely more realistic to me than the one we have now where the criminal can stand amongst a crowd of citizens and taunt the little old lady with impunity. Silly argument. 1) This future society is not "a" society but many, with varying laws (high/low/null & local faction or alliance) and norms. Just ask a minmatar slave on amarr. 2) If you were in the middle of the pacific and a ship w/ an Indian flag claiming to be a Japanese ship fired on you, and in the ensuing battle you sunk it, would you have salvage rights when Iceland claimed it was stolen from them? Not so easy now. Who you are, who has your back, the law of the sea, the world court, every pacific nation, and who hates you would all be factors. Not telling what would happen or what would be "legal"...
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
890
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 20:10:00 -
[28] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:Gogela wrote: Silly argument.
1) This future society is not "a" society but many, with varying laws (high/low/null & local faction or alliance) and norms. Just ask a minmatar slave on amarr.
2) If you were in the middle of the pacific and a ship w/ an Indian flag claiming to be a Japanese ship fired on you, and in the ensuing battle you sunk it, would you have salvage rights when Iceland claimed it was stolen from them? Not so easy now. Who you are, who has your back, the law of the sea, the world court, every pacific nation, and who hates you would all be factors. Not telling what would happen or what would be "legal"...
1) We're only talking about hisec, and Concord's universal "Empire" laws that apply across all factions and alliances. 2) If I were in the middle of Amarr space and a ship with anyone's flag fired on me, Concord would sink it before I could, and I believe anyone would have loot and salvage rights on it since the wreck would be blue.
1) Amarr is in empire. What did the minmatar slave say when you asked him/her?
2) Nobody is talking about ganking. What about people who have dec'ed you? You don't get salvage rights when you kill them, regardless of who agressed, do you? What if you take from someone's can, they agress you, and you kill them? Do you have salvage rights to their wreck then? Nope. If the can defender wins the brawl... he won't have salvage rights to the flipper's wreck either. What if the Amarr navy (not concord) killed a ship? What if someone kills an Amarr navy ship, who gets to salvage that wreck?
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
891
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 01:10:00 -
[29] - Quote
Lotta flames, nottalotta ideas in this thread.
Maybe we should talk about avatar tattoos.
So how can we make a high sec brawl escalate a little better, not allow for neutral support to get off the hook, keep the escalation of hostilities in favor of the defender, but not pu55ify it so much that anyone w/ a suspect flag in instapoped for something as silly as flipping a can, without creating a complex set of aggression rules that get attached to each and every involved character that in turn needs to be updated globally anytime anyone else enters the frey or creates some other relative 'flag change', or someones status changes from vigilante to criminal relative to someone else? I'm all frickin ears. How would such a system work? I'm not a programmer, but I see the problem with maintaining complex dynamic relationships between objects that need to be constantly updated. It could be like getting into a fight while doing 100 market transactions, creating 50 bookmarks, and getting your whole inventory updated every second. Think it would cause lag?
I don't know. I was thinking maybe there could be more types of flags, and one flag control DB in each system all the clients access at some interval in HS but not in null. Maybe in that way you could create complex rules that interact relative to the other flag rules instead of each client, so that you stack flags... flag 1 + flag 2 = flag xyz where xyz is only true in the isolated context of that conflict and a criminal flag or GCC trumps all. Maybe that's a dumb idea because maybe there are too many possible combinations to code all of that... I don't know. I just see jita's node catching on fire.
How would your system work?
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
891
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 02:34:00 -
[30] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Gogela wrote:How would your system work? I still propose limited engagements GÇö temporary wardecs between ad-hoc groups added and subtracted from on the fly. -+-áI commit a crime against you GÇö you are now now allowed to initiate an engagement with me. -+-áIf you do, two teams are set up, with a RoE copy-pasted from wardecs, just to keep things consistent. -+-áAnyone supporting either side will be added to that side for the duration of the engagement (someone who aids a character that is involved in multiple engagements will be added to all those engagementsGǪ so choose carefully). -+-áGÇ£ImplicitGÇ¥ members (e.g. corp members in case of theft) will have the team pre-selected for them, but will not actually be a part of the engagement until they personally initiate hostilities and/or support acts. -+-áTeam assignment follows the old aggression timer logic: keeping up aggressive and/or support acts keeps the timer from counting down (or perhaps more accurately, repeated acts resets the team assignment timer). -+-áThe engagement as a whole ends when one team runs out of assigned members. -+-áFor the individual member, the engagement is over when their personal assignment timer runs out. -+-áThe only graphs required is a single GÇ£can fightGÇ¥ between the teams; the teams themselves are just a list of characters with individual assignment timers. No inheritance is needed GÇö what was a messy graph of inheritance spaghetti now becomes GÇ£add name to team A in engagement YGÇ¥ and GÇ£if in team A, anyone in the list of B-team members is a legit target (and vice versa)GÇ¥. -+-áBonus feature: closed limited engagements GÇö the same thing except support acts trigger the suspect flag proposed by CCP (same as for interfering with wardecs GÇö hell, wardecs could just be that with everyone pre-added to the team lists). Can be initiated through a contract between pre-determined partiesGǪ GǪaaand I'm sure there are roughly a bajillion immediate bugs and exploits. Now we're getting somewhere... hell yah Tippia.
So let's say this happens... there are two sides of this limited engagement, and just for the sake of argument let's call them "criminal team 1" and "vigilante team 2". So 2 new unaffiliated players come into the system... they both can flip someone, and then one of them engages w/ vigilante team 2 and the other w/ criminal team 1. Are both teams now criminals and able to be attacked by the randoms in local? What if a member of vigilante team one commits a criminal act like flipping a can, does everyone inherit the criminal flag? What if a member of either party pulls a GCC?
It's these random instances that keep sinking anything I come up with. If we can find a better solution I'm sure CCP would listen... I just keep finding loopholes in everything else I consider.
Price Check Aisle3 wrote:Tippia wrote:Gogela wrote:How would your system work? I still propose limited engagements GÇö temporary wardecs between ad-hoc groups added and subtracted from on the fly. snip This is far better than the system currently on the table. Lets refrain from massaging crotches until we iron it out. One f*** up and the whole mechanic crumbles.
|
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
901
|
Posted - 2012.07.20 20:53:00 -
[31] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Zedrik Cayne wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:So it's the suspect flag. Except that shooting suspects will also make you a suspect.
EDIT: Did not notice the first line of your post where you said exactly that.
I think we've been over why the global flags aren't a great idea. Yup. But it is more descriptive of 'why' you are getting the flag. Rather neatly covers most of the surprise aggression the suspect/vigilante flag system would have involved. (You really want to shoot at that buttinski you buttinski?) And removes the proliferation of aggression timers that is the real reason they have been wanting to change the system in the first place so their servers can be happier. That and you could call folks 'buttinski' in game. Because they would be buttinski. The problem with the suspect flag is that there really isn't a sensible reason for everyone to be able to shoot someone to steal something. In addition there are several bad trail on effects that'll come from it. Suicide Ganking Freighters will take a giant nerf, since all it takes is a bump to get a free freighter kill from the Freighter coming around to loot the wreck. If they need to fix something on the server's side, optimization is the place to go. Mucking with mechanics without considering the effects (they weren't bothered about the idea of invulnerable logis until we made a fuss) is not the way to fix server-side issues. Back to square one, eh? It seems like options are being exhausted. I still haven't seen anything not riddled with loopholes. I just think now that empire is going to be SO safe that there will be no reason not to faction or officer fit everything, because nobody can do anything about it. The rewards will be good in empire and the safety will increase... kinda makes me mad. Empire needs a value nerf stat. I'm over it.
~fin
|
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
1097
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 00:43:00 -
[32] - Quote
Wonder how Crimewatch is looking now... been a while since we got an update...
|
|
|
|