|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8558
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 20:24:00 -
[1] - Quote
What was proposed means that the concept of GÇ£GCCGÇ¥ is deprecated and no longer applies GÇö the suggested GÇ£felonGÇ¥ status kind of replaces it but also differs from it, so you can't really equate the two.
The problem was always with the GÇ£suspectGÇ¥ status GÇö the idea that any lesser crime opens you up to retaliation from any player in the vicinity GÇö and the initially hugely imbalanced effect this would have on the criminal elements. It's not just possible, but very very probable that the whole thing is being delayed until they can figure out how to do that part properly to have a balanced set of engagement rules without reintroducing the massive player-to-player flag fur-ball that they wanted to get away from with CW2.0. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8573
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 12:12:00 -
[2] - Quote
RR not receiving aggro flags for helping out victims of crimesGǪ? Meh. Who cares. It's such a rare edge case that it just adds a fun tactic.
The real question is: are you still planning on flagging people as suspect for butting in on wardecs (e.g. assisting a war target)? Is the idea of docking/jumping timer transfers to assisting ships still intact?
Those are the ones that will actually deal with the GÇ£neutral RRGÇ¥ problem as everyone knows it GÇö not the non-transitive nature of the player-to-player mappings. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8574
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 13:04:00 -
[3] - Quote
ed jeni wrote:then Greyscale tell us that neut RR wont inherit a flag, in what logical world is this a good idea ? if you RR someone who is under GCC and get to do this with no penalty i mean WTF !! GǪexcept that that's not really what he said. He said that, if you rep someone who's fighting a suspect, their 1v1 flag will not be transferred to you.
Repping someone with a GCC GÇ£felonGÇ¥ status is a completely different matter and will most likely earn you a felon status of your own. It's not a matter of flag transfer, but of committing a crime and getting flagged for it all on your own.
What he's suggesting is a good idea because it means they don't have to keep track of the mess of interlinked person-to-person aggression flags that clogs up the current CrimeWatch system, and instead replace it with two generic flags GÇö suspect and felon GÇö and a single, non-transitive GÇ£defensiveGÇ¥ flag so those suspects and felons have a chance of shooting back when someone comes gunning for them.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8575
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 13:28:00 -
[4] - Quote
Grinder2210 wrote:Currently from what grayscale has said this system will forse anyone who engages in unconsentual pvp out of hs over time while leaveing behind all mission runners to keep liveing in hs safely without fear of any consequences for there carebearing ways sucide ganks aside of corse He said nothing of the kind, so no. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8575
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 13:43:00 -
[5] - Quote
ed jeni wrote:thanks for that Tippia, it sort of clears things up, but seems like the confusion is driven as much by greyscale either not being clear on this or in fact saying 2 very different things, hopefully an upcoming devblog will either clear things up or maybe not. I think a lot of the lack of clarity has to do with people not being fully familiar with how they proposed to change the flagging mechanics, so when Greyscale says something, they assume it will apply as a change or addition to the current mechanics, rather than the upcoming one.
So, in this case, when he's talking about not transferring flagging, people assume that none of the flags we have right now will be transferredGǪ and that's kind of technically true, I suppose, but only because none of the flags we have right now will even exist. You can't transfer something that no longer exists, now can you?
Denidil wrote:neutral RR is the most abused thing in existence in highsec. it is the single biggest thing that ruins highsec PVP. if you keep it the way it is now (which you said you intend to do) then all the other things you do to crimewatch don't matter: highsec PVP will still be broken. He didn't say that. He actually said that neutral RR (in its most common form) will come at a price: it will flag the RR as a suspect GÇö i.e. a free-for-all targetGǪ Now add in the whole GÇ£inherits docking timersGÇ¥ idea (which I haven't seen them retract), and RR will most definitely not be the way it is now.
Grinder2210 wrote:What happens whan your sec standings gets under -2? Same thing as now: you will be chased by the faction police in 1.0 systems. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8575
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 13:47:00 -
[6] - Quote
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:So your saying that your eliminating one of the four pillars of empire pvp and are replacing it with what? Or are you saying that pvp in empire is simply not allowed outside of suciding and war decs? I don't think he's saying either of those. What pillar is being removed?
Grinder2210 wrote:Can Fliping by and large being the only way to ever gain agression on shiny ships missioning in high sec its just seem like your giveing a free pass these players You can still do it (if he's turned his safeties offGǪ but that's no different than him just choosing not to take the bait), so the only difference is that, if he just shoots you rather than steal things back, he can have RR support and you cannot. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8575
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 13:51:00 -
[7] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:I can't believe a dev literally just said that PVP is bad and that players trying to do it should get punished. Good thing that he didn't, then. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8575
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 13:55:00 -
[8] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Except for the part where that's exactly what he said. Please link and quote it in full.
He said that doing something that earns you a suspect flag GÇö i.e. doing something that is a petty crime GÇö means you get punished for this petty crime (that punishment being the suspect flag). This is no different than what we have right now where you get punished for doing petty crimes.
You need to learn what quotation marks mean. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8575
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 14:02:00 -
[9] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:It is punishment for initiating PVP in no uncertain terms. GǪmuch like the current situation where you also get "punished" for doing "bad" things.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8575
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 14:08:00 -
[10] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Initiating PVP therefore is bad and you should be punished for doing it. You really don't understand the meaning of quotation marks do you?
You already get GÇ£punishedGÇ¥ for doing GÇ£badGÇ¥ things. This does not mean that PvP is bad GÇö it means that the mechanics are set up to differentiate between legal and illegal actions and that you will be flagged for doing the latter.
So no, he's not saying that PvP is bad. He's saying that committing criminal acts is GÇ£badGÇ¥, which is no different from the current situation. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8575
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 14:20:00 -
[11] - Quote
Ok, lookGǪ I'll sketch out some scenarios and how I understand that they will play out with CW2.0. Greyscale, please correct me if I've misunderstood them.
1. Theft. Thief is flagged suspect GÇö anyone can attack him. Any remote support to the thief will be flagged suspect GÇö anyone can attack them as well. Anyone attacking the thief becomes a legal target for the thief. Anyone remote-supporting these attackers cannot be attacked by the thief.
2a. Failed canflip (i.e. target does not steal back the dropped can). Exactly the same situation as scenario #1.
2b. Successful canflip (i.e. target steals from the flipped can). Thief and target are both flagged suspect GÇö anyone can attack them. Any remote support to either the target or the thief will be flagged suspsect GÇö anyone can attack them as well. Anyone attacking the target or the thief becomes a legal target to whomever they attacked. Anyone remote-supporting these attackers cannot be attacked by the target/thief.
3. Suicide gank Ganker is flagged felon GÇö anyone can attack him and CONCORD will come along shortly to mop up. Any remote support to the ganker will be flagged felon GÇö anyone can attack them as well (before CONCORD deals with them). Anyone attacking the ganker becomes a legal target (good luck making use of it before CONCORD shows up). Anyone supporting these attackers cannot be attacked by the ganker.
4. Wardec Corp1-members and Corp2-members can attack each other freely without triggering any flags. Any neutral remote support to an Corp1 or Corp2 will be flagged suspect GÇö anyone can attack them. Anyone remote-supporting the neutral support will be flagged suspect GÇö anyone can attack them. Any neutral attacking a Corp1 or Corp2 member will be flagged felon (assuming said member has not flagged himself felon or suspect in some other way) GÇö anyone can attack them and CONCORD will be along to mop up. Anyone supporting these neutral attackers will be flagged felons, with the same effect.
On top of this, any remote-support action will inherit the docking/jumping timers of the ship(s) they're supporting. They either have to stop their support and deaggress on their own, or the ships they're supporting have to deaggress, before the remote support ship can jump/dock up. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8575
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 14:34:00 -
[12] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:pretending that "if someone did something to you then you specifically are allowed to retaliate at your own risk" is the same as "If someone did something to you anyone in the game can retaliate against them with the odds artificially stacked in their favour" is dishonest. GǪexcept that you keep missing the point, and that the quotation marks bear meaning.
Doing something GÇ£badGÇ¥ will get you GÇ£punishedGÇ¥. This holds true for both the old and the new system.
You are trying to blow this very simple statement way out of proportion by saying that, suddenly, CCP are telling us that PvP is bad. They're not GÇö they're applying the exact same model of GÇ£Criminal Act GåÆ Criminal FlagGÇ¥ as the game has had for +ªons. They're just using GÇ£badGÇ¥ and GÇ£punishmentGÇ¥ to describe the two parts. The GÇ£bad thingsGÇ¥ and the GÇ£punishmentsGÇ¥ may change a bit, but so will the mechanics behind them and they will open up new fun ways of blowing people up (my list of scenarios above should provide you with a very obvious one).
In fact, if you want to cry about something, you've missed the really annoying change with the new system GÇö the one that will actually make a difference for thieves and canflippers: the safety system. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8575
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 14:44:00 -
[13] - Quote
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:they are imposing safeties on everybody that will make it impossible for you to flip a can unless you specifically disable the safeties. Vimsy Vortis wrote:Safeties in and of themselves will have virtually no effect on canflipping How about you two just fight it out and leave me out of it?
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:CCP has indicated that they expect that this will make can flipping non-viable. They've indicated that it will no longer automatically work on people who aren't familiar with the mechanics. Rest assured, though: enough people will be stupid enough to ignore those warnings and let themselves get blow up.
It may be trickier to pull off against the unknowing, but the results of doing it successfully will be all that more spectacular, and it's not like the method is being removed. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8576
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 14:56:00 -
[14] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:I'll argue that one with anyone because I've got like 30 barge/exhumer kills from canflipping and not a single one ever took stuff out of a container. Then it's not really a canflip, now is it? It's just plain old theft and itchy trigger fingers.
GǪand anyway, the safeties will help against that too afair. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8576
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 17:00:00 -
[15] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:is that correct so far? Pretty much.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8577
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 18:08:00 -
[16] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:CCPs intention for highsec is very obviously an almost completely PVE environment where PVP is just barely possible enough that they can still claim that EVE is a game with open PVP. GǪaside from the fact that they're not making PvP GÇ£barely possibleGÇ¥ GÇö it's just as possible as before (especially given your stance on safeties). GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8577
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 18:15:00 -
[17] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Now everything changes and neutral alts being invincible is really bad (I'm thinking about a nasty word right now but will avoid posting it) Good thing that they're not doing that, then, unless you want to be a whole lot more specific (and even then, according to Greyscale's last post, it will be completely untrue since not even the old exception will be in effect). GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8577
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 19:03:00 -
[18] - Quote
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.
GÇ£Making senseGÇ¥ is something completely different to GÇ£solve problemsGÇ¥. 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 GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8577
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 19:12:00 -
[19] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:Now this proposed change, to a system where CCP says that this moral behavior/gameplay is 'bad' or 'good' and then unbalances situations to aid one side ('the good guys') removes that equal playing field. The GÇ£badGÇ¥ and GÇ£goodGÇ¥ morality is nothing new, so that's not a change, and with the idea mentioned in a later post GÇö that all neutral support is treated equally GÇö the imbalance is gone as well.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8577
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 19:23:00 -
[20] - Quote
Arcueid Saber wrote:Thus, it is safer to use a jamming ship or dps ship to help out the vigilante. Do you treat jamming like RR activity? Jamming is an offensive act against a hostile target, not a support act against a friendly target.
So yes, it would be safer to jam the original criminal GÇö that would just make you another vigilante. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8578
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 19:34:00 -
[21] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:The inequality i was talking about is where you are put in an imbalanced situation by explicit mechanics rather than by the players. GǪand what mechanics are you referring to here?
Quote:The morality is certainly new; mechanics at the moment punish actual destruction of another players ship or pod in highsec due to making the game workable not due to core philosophy. The morality of stealing isn't as it is up to the players to punish, as it should be. GǪand nothing has changed in that respect. The morality of GǣgoodGǥ and GǣbadGǥ acts already exists and it is already up to players to mete out the punishment for most crimes. Neither of these will change with the new system.
Ohh Yeah wrote:There is no considerable reason to not have a two-flag system with an aggression flag that is the opposite of SUSPECT. GǪaside from it being ridiculously easy to exploit to screw over targets. The proposed idea already solves RR entirely: it makes it a horribly bad idea to do for everyone. Want to help? Bring something offensive and punish the sucker. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8578
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:05:00 -
[22] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:That of suspect flagging leaving you open to be freely attacked by everybody whether you have done something to affect them or not. That's not all that different to what we have now, when a whole heap of players can descend on you, even if you only affected one (or even none) of them. This is countered by the fact that you can trick them into being the same kind of free-for all target so it's just the stakes being raised on both sides.
Yes? The morality of good an bad still already exists and it's already up to players to mete out the punishment. None of what you said addresses or contradicts what I said and nothing about it all changes with the new system. Good and bad acts already exist as does the mechanical punishment for these acts GÇö go check out the criminal flagging wiki page.
Ohh Yeah wrote:So essentially you want to punish the use of an entire class of ship? Nope, and that's not what's happening either. What's being punished is the attempt to use GÇ£neutralsGÇ¥ to help you engage a target.
Quote:Explain to me the justification for letting all of EVE shoot you for repairing someone who is fighting a suspect. It makes the rules consistent and clear without any odd special edge cases to be abused and twisted into logical pretzels. It provides a single simple rule: don't use neutral remote support. No classes of ships are being discouraged GÇö it's one specific tactic (that pretty much everyone agrees is BS to begin with) that is being discouraged. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8579
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:24:00 -
[23] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:Opening yourself up to be directly attacked by everyone in system is vastly different than just corp members of the aggressed player. Not much, and again, this is counter-balanced by how the targets will be treated by the same system and what you can open them up to that you can't nowGǪ
Quote:The issue is that currently CCP doesn't make judgments on morality, whereas with these changes they do. No, they really don't GÇö no more than they currently do. Nothing of what you've used to illustrate some kind of GÇ¥mechanic moralityGÇ¥ is new to the new system. If you think the new one imposes morality, than the current one does as well; if you think the current one does not impose morality, then neither does the new one.
Ohh Yeah wrote:But with such a system, is there anything other than neutral logistics? Yes. War logistics and logistics for acts without any legal flagging GÇö the two most common uses for logistics in highsecGǪ
Quote:What is your opposition to having two different aggression flags - suspect and vigilante - and sorting their associated RR by giving them the same flag? It's ridiculously easy to exploit to the point of making it utterly and absolutely suicidal to be a vigilante, thus making the whole system pointless. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8580
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:38:00 -
[24] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:'Not much' downplays it alot. Not really. You're overestimating how keen people are on attacking other players when they could just go about their business and not bother with any of it.
There may be more of them but they also have a hell of a lot less incentive to do so than the corp members, and again, you keep ignoring the counter-balancing factor that the new system brings.
Quote:Yes, these new mechanics would. By saying you are flagged for stealing and flagging meaning you are opened up to the situation outlined above it is a punishment, as it is a massively one-sided advantage to the 'good guys' GǪand the flagging of Gǣbad guysGǥ and providing the Gǣgood guysGǥ with advantages is nothing new that CW2.0 brings. The same kind of morality already exists in the current system.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8580
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:41:00 -
[25] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:Tippia wrote:It's ridiculously easy to exploit to the point of making it utterly and absolutely suicidal to be a vigilante, thus making the whole system pointless. Any more suicidal than being a suspect? Much.
Joining a PUG against a co-ordinated fleet is far more suicidal than being in a co-ordinated fleet put together to fight PUGs. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8581
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:52:00 -
[26] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:That's a lot of 'ifs' though. 0 is not GÇ£a lotGÇ¥.
Quote:The fact that with these mechanics such an imbalanced situation could happen is enough. Such an imbalanced situation could happen with the current mechanics as well.
Quote:it is something new as it introduces the concept of 'good' and 'bad' guys GǪwhich has been there all along GÇö it's not new. Good guys and bad guys have existed ever since aggression and criminal flagging was introduced back in the early Triassic era. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8581
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:54:00 -
[27] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:And you don't think there will be co-ordinated fleets of vigilantes? GǪwhich should be easy to avoid and still exploit the system. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8582
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 21:01:00 -
[28] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:Saying someone might not shoot you is ignoring the fact that they have the opportunity to, and so the mechanics open up a lopsided advantage, It would be a vastly different situation than what is currently the case. GǪand you're missing the point that the same GǣifGǥ exists right now.
Quote:The concept of CCP calling can flipping being 'good' or 'bad' is something new. GǪaside from it being having been GǣbadGǥ for many years now, since it triggers a criminal flag and lets Gǣgood guysGǥ come and shoot you.
Ohh Yeah wrote:And you don't think that co-ordinated fleets of suspects won't be easy to avoid? Not for the targets they're after. They're stupid enough as it is, and don't seem to get more clever with time.
Quote:A two-flag system only provides opportunities for suspects to fight back. They will have that opportunity regardless. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8582
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 21:15:00 -
[29] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:Yeah, if one person shoots you, you can shoot back.
If you have a group of 5-10 suspects, and another group of 5-10 vigilantes shoots you, none of your friends can help you out, since you're the only one with aggro. GǪand this is surprisingly similar to the current system, where people seem to constantly groan about how the criminals have all the advantages.
Rara Yariza wrote:The difference between corp members and anyone in system is vastly different. Maybe. Maybe not. Again, it's a different dynamic with different balances.
Quote:it isn't bad, it is a mechanic that allows someone to attack people taking their stuff, which was implemented as those people losing their stuff wanted it. It's an aggression flag that is neither good nor bad. GǪit's an aggression flag just like the new one: it's your mechanical punishment for doing an illegal act. It's as good or bad under the new system as under the old one. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8582
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 21:36:00 -
[30] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:How can flipping works now is a simple aggression flag, Really? Wow. Imagine that. How can flipping will work in CW2.0 is a simple aggression flag.
it won't be any more (or less) GÇ£goodGÇ¥ or GÇ£badGÇ¥ than the current aggression flag is. It will still be a criminal act that is being punished. There is no additional GÇ£moralityGÇ¥ compared to the old system since it's the exact same thing: crime GåÆ flag. GÇ£Bad actGÇ¥ GåÆ hunted by GÇ£good guysGÇ¥.
Theft has been a bad thing since roughly forever. That's why it has triggered a criminal flag for an equally long time. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8582
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 21:43:00 -
[31] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:No it hasn't been a bad thing, GǪaside from it triggering a criminal flag, which lets people punish you for your misdeeds. Same as in CW2.0.
Quote:it didn't have a flag at first. Only after players complained that people could steal from them and there was nothing they could do that it was implemented. Sure. But then the morality you're complaining about was implemented all those years ago GÇö it's not something that is new with CW2.0. The thief is already at a disadvantage, by the way, so that's not a change in GÇ£moralityGÇ¥ either. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8582
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 21:57:00 -
[32] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:It was never bad from the games point of view GǪaside from it triggering a criminal flagging, just like it will with CW2.0.
Quote:I said it was up to the player to decide if that behavior was bad and the aggression flag a way for them to do something about it if they decided to. GǪjust like it will be with CW2.0.
If it is mechanically GÇ£badGÇ¥ after the change, it was mechanically GÇ£badGÇ¥ in the same way and for the same reasons under the current system. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8582
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 22:18:00 -
[33] - Quote
Ziranda Hakuli wrote:Crime Watch from my understanding and a few others was to be ONE of the big highlights for Escalation. Big frackin let down. WeeeellGǪ they gave us some advance warning that it wouldn't be ready at that time.
As for your ideas about RR, the first one will already happen (just like now), and the latter one is a bit OTT GÇö instead, the RR will get a suspect flag and be free-for-all so you (and everyone else) can just blow him up. Also, he won't be able to play docking games.
Rara Yariza wrote:it isn't at all, it doesn't trigger a criminal flag it triggers an aggression flag. GǪwhich is a criminal flag. It's not a GCC, but it's still a criminal flag. You're still engaging in an illegal act and you're still being mechanically punished for it by being given that timer. None of that changes with GW2.0. Just like now, in GW2.0, it's up to the players to decide whether they want to do something or not.
There is no change in GÇ£moralityGÇ¥ GÇö it's the same act being treated the same way: a crime being flagged and left to players to deal with. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8582
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 22:28:00 -
[34] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:it does change.... as i've explained. It remains balanced, as I've explained.
GǪand the GǣmoralityGǥ is no different.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8582
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 22:33:00 -
[35] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:it isn't balanced, and the morality is different as it brings in a CCP judged morality to game play that didn't exist before. More people (potentially), but less incentive. More risk for the thief; vastly more risk for the can-flipped.
Seems balanced enough.
And CCP hasn't added or even changed their judgement. The bad act is still bad. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8582
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 22:49:00 -
[36] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:Nope, balanced isn't turning high sec into null for one guy and not the other. Good thing that they're not doing that, then.
Quote:The act isn't bad now, it will be considered so if those changes go through. It's bad now and will still be be after the change. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Why do you think the act triggers any flags? What do you think the act will do after the change but trigger a flag?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8584
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 23:15:00 -
[37] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:They are doing that. read what the suspect flag means and you'll see. I was there when they first presented it. I know what it means. What it doesn't mean is turning highsec into null.
Quote:CCP are changing the mechanic of stealing into something that puts anyone who steals into a massively imbalanced situation, and they're saying this is ok as stealing is 'bad'. GǪcompared to the current situation where stealing has a chance of putting the thief in a massively imbalanced situation, and this is ok as stealing is GǣbadGǥ (as shown by the fact that it triggers a criminal timer).
Tyberius Franklin wrote: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's exactly that kind of 1-to-1 flagging transfer that they want to get away from because it's what has caused the mess that is the current CrimeWatch system. The only reason they're (re)implementing it for defensive purposes is because it would be hugely imbalanced if they didn't. The flagging is only there to let the criminal defend himself. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8585
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 23:46:00 -
[38] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:Under the new mechanics you steal and get suspect flag = everyone can shoot you without consequences and without you doing something to them that causes an aggression flag, this is just like null. If it were like null, I'd be able to take on all comers as would my team mates. I would also expect to have an SC or two dropped on me. None of that will happen.
Quote:This situation is only possible as they are changing the mechanic so you get an aggression flag to everyone, whether you did something that affected them or not. Sure, but the flipside of that is that if I manage to get a proper canflip in, my associates (and anyone else who'd like to join in) can come and blow the target up without repercussions. In addition, as existing criminal and outlaw flagging shows, people are in general rather apathetic about pursuing free legitimate targets GÇö corp mates will most likely still be the larger threat.
Quote:CCP are saying it is ok to do this as they will consider stealing as 'bad'. GǪwhich is no different than now since they are already saying that stealing is GÇ£badGÇ¥. The moral judgement was made back when theft flagging was introduced GÇö it is not something they suddenly add in or change with CW2.0.
Pipa Porto wrote:Except that you gain the exact same aggression flag when you do something expressly legal like shooting at Outlaws or Rats. ? What are you referring to? You don't get (nor will you get) any suspect flags for doing those. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8585
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 00:00:00 -
[39] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:cause you WILL be able to "take on all comers" once youre flagged unless theyre dropping the idea that anyone can shoot you when flagged. GǪbut only after they've chosen to do so, not because I want to get rid of them, and I can't go after all their support (only some, depending on what they do with the remote-support flagging), and I can get far better support while doing so.
Tyberius Franklin wrote:And while I'm thinking about it, what happens with spider tanking or similar strategies where those fighting the suspect give remote assistance to each other. Do all involved wind up as suspects? Yes, but that's where the GÇ£safetyGÇ¥ system is supposed to kick in and keep you from triggering flags you don't want to trigger. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8585
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 00:12:00 -
[40] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:All of these aggression flags are identical to the one you get from flipping a can. Not quite. The one you get for stealing is still something you get in response to an actual crime (which is the same reason you get one for stealing under CW2.0). It differs from the others in that it's a group flagging rather than just a player-to-player flag as with attacking outlaws and an utterly irrelevant and mechanically functionless relic that you get for shooting rats.
Quote:One way to get rid of the necessity of the third, individual aggression flag would be to make everyone who shoots someone else a suspect (I think that's silly), another would be to not flag the person shooting the outlaw with anything (so an outlaw defending themselves gets CONCORDed, also silly). I was always partial to the idea of them implementing GÇ£limited engagementsGÇ¥ GÇö ad hoc groups that had temporary wardec mechanics tied to them.
It would still be a three-flag system, but that third flag would let you dynamically add participants as they got involved without it spreading to everyone in the galaxy (and could double as a base mechanic for formal duels). GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8585
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 00:28:00 -
[41] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:See last I saw was the quote [GǪ] came out of The GÇ£current designGÇ¥ he's talking about there is the idea presented at page 1 GÇö that they have a single, non-transferable flag between suspects and attackers. The idea Tyberius is talking about was the one mentioned later, where all kinds of neutral support would flag you suspect.
Quote:so after they trigger this (what used to be) "everyone kill this guy" flag ISNT that anymore? That part is still intact GÇö what (might) have changed is how others might interact with the suspect and his attackers. What I'm referring to, though, is the difference between being a free-for-all target that can shoot back and being in null, where you don't have to wait to shoot back since you can just shoot first (and get ample support in doing so). GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8585
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 11:04:00 -
[42] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or just stupid anymore.
Before the new system, stealing triggers a flag.
After the new system, stealing triggers a flag. GǪthus no change in morality. Stealing was always a crime. The whole notion that CCP suddenly says that theft is GÇ£badGÇ¥ whereas before they didn't is just wilfully ignorant and completely nonsensical. It's almost as silly as the hallucination some people had earlier about how they now called PvP bad. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8586
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 14:40:00 -
[43] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:I never said that shooting someone in empire unprovoked wasn't bad, i said stealing. If stealing was bad you'd get concorded. No. Stealing was always bad, as shown by the fact that doing so lets people kill you. This is nothing new.
Oh, and no. EVE is not fair at the moment. It was never intended to be fair either. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8586
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 15:03:00 -
[44] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:stealing isn't currently bad, letting someone shoot you isn't bad, it's just an aggression flag, as is obvious. Then guess what: it won't be bad under CW2.0 either. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8586
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 15:10:00 -
[45] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:LOL, it is No more than it currently is.
You see, you keep flip-flopping on what GÇ£badGÇ¥ means. Under the new system, GÇ£badGÇ¥ means something completely different than it does under the current system according to you, and you are hinging this entire distinction on an utterly meaningless description made by Greyscale that does not reflect the mechanics.
You state that GÇ£stealing isn't currently bad, letting someone shoot you isn't bad, it's just an aggression flagGÇ¥. Let's stick with that definition of GÇ£badGÇ¥ from now on, ok?
By your own definition stealing isn't bad under CW2.0. It is just an aggression flag. Whether CCP calls it bad or not is of zero relevance. The simple fact remains that by your view on what counts as bad, stealing is not bad under CW1.0, and it will not be bad under CW2.0.
Quote:EvE is fair from a mechanics viewpoint GǪand it sill will be. The imbalance you're complaining about is still down to player initiative. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8586
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 15:22:00 -
[46] - Quote
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:Then CCP should be honest - stop pretending that eve is an open world pvp game. Good news. It still will be.
Rara Yariza wrote:If you are shot by the guy you stole from and he then became agressed to everyone in system, then it would be a fair mechanic. By that standard, the current mechanic isn't fair either.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8586
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 16:17:00 -
[47] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:If using remote assistance on a party involved in a war triggers a suspect flag for the benefactor, someone please hand-wave these situations away and tell me they aren't easily abused:
1. I put war decs on every major incursion corporation/alliance. That one pretty much hand-waves itself away through that sentence alone.
That said, the aggression timers still exist. I suppose it could be fixed by having the whole logi-suspect checking depend on who the assist-target is aggressed to: is the logi also at war with that aggressor? Y GåÆ no flag; N GåÆ suspect. After all, your scenarios go beyond just standard warfare. The same issue would arise from some numpty knowing that the griefdeccer corp is logged off for the night, so he takes on a mission and brings his NPC logi alt on for the rideGǪ since he's at war, that MR-support alt would be flagged suspect and fun would be had by allGǪ
It would mean that just repping someone who is at war toGǪ someoneGǪ anyoneGǪ isn't what triggers the flag GÇö it's repping someone who's in an active engagement against a WT that triggers it.
Andrew Ernaga wrote:Just curious here but these safeties that people are talking about....is this basically removing the ability to steal from someone's can when they are mining or whatever? The safeties are, from what I understand, just the GÇ£do you want to do this stupid act Y/N?GÇ¥ pop-ups collated, expanded on, made more explicit, and shown through a more immediately available interface.
So instead of getting that popup the first time you try to rep a rat or steal or gank a Hulk and then having to dig through your GÇ£reset settingsGÇ¥ page if you want to alter it at a later time, you just have a window full of GÇ£safety togglesGÇ¥.
Eg. GÇ£Felonious actions: [-á-á-á] Do not perform [-áG£ô-á] Warn [-á-á-á] Perform without warningGÇ¥ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8586
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 16:40:00 -
[48] - Quote
Price Check Aisle3 wrote:Seems ganking will be a far safer form of crime... So a 100% chance of being blown up automatically by the game itself and the complete inability to do anything to prevent or delay it is Gǣfar saferGǥ than having a less-than-100% chance of players chasing you (and a less-than-100% chance of them killing you on top of that) and having every and all means available at your disposal to prevent and delay this chance of destructionGǪ
I don't think I particularly share your view on relative safety.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8586
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 17:02:00 -
[49] - Quote
Price Check Aisle3 wrote:Most certainly. I can control the risk during ganking since I know exactly when i will blow up. I can't control other players and when they'll blow me up under the new CW rules if I'm stealing ****. 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.
Quote:Furthermore, if I'm stealing **** I've likely got a cargohold full of stuff that I'll eventually want to sell and I'm not particularly looking forward to "surprisesecks". The whole GÇ£eventuallyGÇ¥ part means that there is no need to worry about any surprises (wellGǪ beyond being ganked for carrying to many goodies in your hauler). Even less so if you have an alt. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8586
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 17:38:00 -
[50] - Quote
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 GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8586
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 17:44:00 -
[51] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Since I still own my wreck when I die, how does someone Suicide ganking my freighter pick up my stuff? Jump-freighter drive-by with web support? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8586
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 18:02:00 -
[52] - Quote
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 GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8586
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 18:09:00 -
[53] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:Nobody answered my question before I did. Well, kind of.
If you want an answer on how it works on CCP's planning whiteboards at the moment, then you should direct it to Greyscale, not the general public. It's an interesting problem, but it's far from unsolvable, and how it will work will depend on exactly how the suspect-flagging will be triggered, which we don't fully know yet. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8586
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 18:11:00 -
[54] - Quote
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.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8586
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 18:23:00 -
[55] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:The real question is what happens to NEUTRAL LOGISTICS Repping WAR TARGETS?? GǣIllegal intervention in CONCORD-sanction corporate dispute RP RP yaddayaddaGǪGǥ In other words: suspect flag + docking timer = free for all and nowhere to run.
The only issue is the one Ohh Yeah raised about mixed fleets sharing the same war target: will they be able to rep each other, or is each corp/alliance have limited to what they can bring to support themselves? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8586
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 18:30:00 -
[56] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:[Fair enough, but unless the Cyno's already lit, and the JF is really on the ball about jumping out, it's getting tackled by the insta-lock support (insta-lock for a JF is what, 0 SEBOs on a Frig?), and now we have a situation where that Frig escorting the freighter has to be suicided (or, for poops and giggles, the instalock Damnation). Who wants to try to Suicide a 720k EHP Damnation before he can shout "Free JF Kill" in Local?
(Oh, and as if the JF kill weren't enough, you get all the Logi trying to save it) Yes, it's a bit OTT for what should be a simple gank. I suppose that, if it's rich enough, you could just try a sacrifice-freighter kind of tactic.
Freighter 1 scoops everything, gets flaggad and (possibly) blown up. Freighter 2 swoops in, has legal rights to take the loot (being in the same corp or using high enough standing, should they retain that mechanic) and flies off without any flags. It brings the investment down from 21bn to just 1GÇô2, if that's any consolation.
But then we're looking at someone hauling 8bn+ just to break even (2bn in ship losses, requires 4bn to drop from the thief freighter, requires 8bn to drop from the gank target, and I probably underestimated that loss cost). GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8586
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 20:14:00 -
[57] - Quote
Pere Madeleine wrote:Final nail in the coffin for me, I'm afraid. With the recent wardec changes, and these highsec aggro changes, combined with zero real effort to make lowsec PVP good, it seems CCP are going down the road of making Eve as close as they can to every other MMO out there, with PVP zones and non PVP zones. Good thing, then, that PvP will still be readily available all over EVE. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8586
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 21:19:00 -
[58] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:You seem to believe the notion that only suspects will be griefers. If you're looking to grief, being a vigilante and abusing invincible logi seems like the way to go. GǪtoo bad that there won't be any invincible logis.
Quote:They have since stated that they will resolve this problem by flagging anyone assisting a vigilante as a criminal. You helped a crimefighter fight crime? You're a criminal, enjoy getting shot by the rest of EVE. Good news: you'll be able to help a crimefighter fight crime without being flagged a suspect. People have already begun figuring out how to take advantage of this new system, just as predicted.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8592
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 22:07:00 -
[59] - Quote
Price Check Aisle3 wrote:If I steal like a few little bits of mission goo I should potentially lose my ship? You already run that risk. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8594
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 23:34:00 -
[60] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:Risk denotes the chance of them not being destroyed. If there is a 100% chance of them being destroyed, there is NO RISK it is a certanty and the ship becomes a business expense. Like ammo for missioners. Especially as youre not getting your insurance paid out on it. No. Risk denotes probability of something happening multiplied with the cost, should it happen. If there's a 100% chance of being destroyed, then the risk is 1+ù the cost of the ship being lost.
That is pretty much the ISO standard definition of risk.
Conversely, just because something is a (lower-probability) risk doesn't mean it's not a cost of doing business. In fact, that's the entire business of insurance companies and financial institutions: you take a (usually less than 100%) risk on something and having to pay out every now and then is just how the business works. In fact, ammo for mission runners is quite similar in that regard: you pay for it, but there is no guarantee that it will actually kill anything GÇö the risk is [cost of ammo] +ù [chance of miss]. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8594
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 01:02:00 -
[61] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:And then people scratch their heads and wonder why there are so many suicide gankers these days. Are there? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8595
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 01:37:00 -
[62] - Quote
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. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8595
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 01:48:00 -
[63] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Well, what happens if you steal from someone on a team? Are you put on the other team, or is it a new engagement? Purely instinctively, I'd say new (potential) engagement that the victim can choose to initiate. That's a good point, though: one kind-of-1-to-1 flagging that is needed is to track all the potential engagements you can start. Still, since they're not inherited, it shouldn't be too messyGǪ I thinkGǪ maybeGǪ
The only GÇ£reuseGÇ¥ that I envision of existing engagements, and creating cross-over between teams like that, is if you choose to rep members of both teamsGǪ in which case you are added to both teams. Congrats GÇö you are now free-for-all to everyone in the field. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8595
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 01:55:00 -
[64] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:And the whole field is an FFA to you... I supposeGǪ and some would doubtlessly try to have fun with that, but then I'd imagine (or at least hope) that both sides would simply say GÇ£ok, screw this guy GÇö let's blast him and then get back to fighting among ourselvesGÇ¥.
GǪstill, I can see one issue arising from that idea. Instigator #1 warps in and gets collects as many targets/teams as he likes and instantly gtfo:s; instigator #2GÇô#97 meet up with #1 at ze sekrit rendez-vous spot, tag him with their small remote reps, and then warp back to the main fight to blow everyone up.
So yesGǪ some kind if limitation on the ability to add yourself might be in order. Or maybe, that kind of double-teaming should just remove you from both teams and set a suspect flag instead.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8595
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 02:10:00 -
[65] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Or maybe repping gets you added to the team without letting you shoot anyone else until you get shot at (but then we're back at roughly current mechanics).
I think that the biggest problem with trying to do teams is that you want to avoid letting joining a team give you free targets (or people will abuse it. A Lot.). Yes. I also realised another thing: suspect flagging would simply be a blanket right for anyone and everyone to initiate an engagement against the perp. This could still be used by the co-instigators above, but at least others would have to actively choose to get involved, knowing the risks, rather than the instigators auto-inviting themselves to any fight they see.
That raises another issue, though (and not just in the suspect-flagging case but for normal engagments as well): multiple overlapping engagements where people with the same opponent start supporting each other could potentially create a huge amount of duplicate engagements that need to be tracked. It would be nice if (and even be necessary that) such situations could be detected and have those engagements collapse into one.
A team-based solution would get rid of a lot of the flagging kudzu, but the self-inclusion is indeed tricky to control. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8597
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 02:57:00 -
[66] - Quote
Gogela wrote: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. Depends on what you mean by GÇ£engage withGÇ¥GǪ if they attack them, CONCORD comes and sorts them out because they aren't party to that first fight GÇö they only have outstanding engagements with whomever they canflipped, and only those who got canflipped can actually initiate those separate engagements.
If you by Gǣengage withGǥ you mean Gǣremote-repGǥ, then they'd be added to the respective teams (at least as described aboveGǪ), and the outstanding engagement with the canflip victims is still a separate engagement.
The whole idea is that under this scheme, it's not about any global GÇ£vigilanteGÇ¥ or GÇ£criminalGÇ¥ teams GÇö it's about very specific teams built around a single transgression. Each transgression creates a new set of teams.
Quote:What if a member of vigilante team one commits a criminal act like flipping a can, does everyone inherit the criminal flag? No, because there is no engagement yet. If the canflippee (yes, that's a word nowGǪ so there!) decides to act on the crime, then a new engagement is initiated, and only then can people assisting that vigilante be added to the (new) team in this separate engagement.
Quote:What if a member of either party pulls a GCC? Then CONCORD blows them up. Other people will inherit the felon flag as per CCP's plan and gets blown up as well (or, more likely, they will not since they've set their safeties to not allow them to perform any felonious acts). This is really no different than pulling a GCC in an Incursion fleet or some such.
As for the self-invite problemGǪ idea #2:
What if supporting a team member did not automatically add you to the team. Instead, you get a GÇ£inviteGÇ¥ flag (for the lack of a better term) for the team you picked and it's up to the other team to act on this and choose whether or not to officially add you to the brawl by attacking you. Thus we have an RR parallel to how the victim of the crime is the one who has to respond to the engagement proposal (hah!) to begin with and start the actual engagement. Thus, while you can still choose to warp in and RR people, this does not give you any free targets GÇö the (potential) targets themselves have to choose to actually fully draw you into the fight before you're allowed to shoot anyone.
GǪof course, new exploit: a mole join the GǣvigilanteGǥ team, and when the GǣcriminalGǥ support (suspiciously still consisting of gank battleships with small RR mods) warps in, he juuuust so happens to be a trigger-happy newbie who GǣaccidentallyGǥ pulls those guys into the fight. It's not quite self-invite any more, but it's still very easy to work around to get free targets.
I'm beginning to think that, yes, any kind of group solution will inevitably have this problem, but on the other hand, I can't quite see how to get rid of the inheritance mess without doing a group or global-based solution. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|
|
|