Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Crunchie Attuxors
Always Another Corporate Venture
141
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 15:59:00 -
[1] - Quote
I mean, there is no indication that there is anything being done with this.
So is it real? Has it been abandoned?
I really do not feel this should be a priority over other things, but I am just wondering if this can be put there in the vaporware category? Eve forums official anthem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pudOFG5X6uA-áReal men tank hull. Fake women shield-tank Gallente. |
Medarr
ZeroSec
3
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 16:05:00 -
[2] - Quote
Crimewatch is part of the agro mechanics its currently implemented on the live server... its what flags you GCC for shooting idio... errr innocent miners... |
Crunchie Attuxors
Always Another Corporate Venture
141
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 16:16:00 -
[3] - Quote
Medarr wrote:Crimewatch is part of the agro mechanics its currently implemented on the live server... its what flags you GCC for shooting idio... errr innocent miners...
I mean the update and overhaul... sorry for shorthanding... Eve forums official anthem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pudOFG5X6uA-áReal men tank hull. Fake women shield-tank Gallente. |
Anubis Star
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 16:26:00 -
[4] - Quote
stream |
JusFooling Around
JusFooling Around Corp
60
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 18:20:00 -
[5] - Quote
KILL ALL BOTS
MINING, COURIOR, MARKETING
|
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
80
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 18:28:00 -
[6] - Quote
Crunchie Attuxors wrote:Medarr wrote:Crimewatch is part of the agro mechanics its currently implemented on the live server... its what flags you GCC for shooting idio... errr innocent miners... I mean the update and overhaul... sorry for shorthanding... Probably updates in the CSM minutes that are around the corner?
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
730
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 18:34:00 -
[7] - Quote
Considering how they hadn't even properly thought of how to make it work properly and not completely break highsec PVP the longer it takes to show up the better. |
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
196
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 19:23:00 -
[8] - Quote
Crunchie Attuxors wrote:I mean, there is no indication that there is anything being done with this.
So is it real? Has it been abandoned?
I really do not feel this should be a priority over other things, but I am just wondering if this can be put there in the vaporware category?
Youd think the gankers would want this... Given its supposed to make it so anyone who wants to (not just the non combat skilled miner in question) can kill you after
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Considering how they hadn't even properly thought of how to make it work properly and not completely fix highsec PVP by making it risky to do the longer it takes to show up the better.
fixt
Was there ever a dev blog about the Goon exloit thing or are they continuing to sweep that under the rug? http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
730
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 19:37:00 -
[9] - Quote
Because making it so that people who are flagged with aggression can be shot at by everyone in space but will get concorded if they shoot back is totally "fixing" highsec PVP.
That's straight up what was proposed at fanfest in the presentation and even after acknowledging that it was a bad idea in the roundtable that came after it they weren't able a think of a way for the suspect flagging system to allow suspects to shoot back without being concorded.
I don't know about you, but I don't think that mechanics like that showing up on TQ would be a good thing. |
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
411
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 19:55:00 -
[10] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:Crunchie Attuxors wrote:I mean, there is no indication that there is anything being done with this.
So is it real? Has it been abandoned?
I really do not feel this should be a priority over other things, but I am just wondering if this can be put there in the vaporware category? Youd think the gankers would want this... Given its supposed to make it so anyone who wants to (not just the non combat skilled miner in question) can kill you after
Umm... that's exactly what GCC means. Anyone who wants to can shoot you for 15 minutes. -RubyPorto
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
|
Andoria Thara
Fallen Avatars
87
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 20:00:00 -
[11] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Because making it so that people who are flagged with aggression can be shot at by everyone in space but will get concorded if they shoot back is totally "fixing" highsec PVP.
That's straight up what was proposed at fanfest in the presentation and even after acknowledging that it was a bad idea in the roundtable that came after it they weren't able a think of a way for the suspect flagging system to allow suspects to shoot back without being concorded.
I don't know about you, but I don't think that mechanics like that showing up on TQ would be a good thing.
My understanding was anyone who commited a crime would be flashing red for everyone. So logically, if a person shoots at that red flashy person, once the first shot is fired the criminal can fire back without being concorded.
If that's not how it works, and the criminal gets concorded for fighting back, then I can see why they put it on the back burner. |
Andoria Thara
Fallen Avatars
87
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 20:02:00 -
[12] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Antisocial Malkavian wrote:Crunchie Attuxors wrote:I mean, there is no indication that there is anything being done with this.
So is it real? Has it been abandoned?
I really do not feel this should be a priority over other things, but I am just wondering if this can be put there in the vaporware category? Youd think the gankers would want this... Given its supposed to make it so anyone who wants to (not just the non combat skilled miner in question) can kill you after Umm... that's exactly what GCC means. Anyone who wants to can shoot you for 15 minutes.
But they only get a GCC for firing on a ship, not for can flipping or stealing loot, which is what was proposed. |
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
411
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 20:13:00 -
[13] - Quote
Andoria Thara wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Antisocial Malkavian wrote:Crunchie Attuxors wrote:I mean, there is no indication that there is anything being done with this.
So is it real? Has it been abandoned?
I really do not feel this should be a priority over other things, but I am just wondering if this can be put there in the vaporware category? Youd think the gankers would want this... Given its supposed to make it so anyone who wants to (not just the non combat skilled miner in question) can kill you after Umm... that's exactly what GCC means. Anyone who wants to can shoot you for 15 minutes. But they only get a GCC for firing on a ship, not for can flipping or stealing loot, which is what was proposed.
GCC means CONCORDokken. But we'll assume it's some global combat flag instead.
Why would everyone get the right to shoot at a thief? The thief only wronged that one person (and his corp). Right now, the victim and his corp can shoot back. Allowing your friends to shoot at those who wrong you is one of the many benefits of Corp membership. -RubyPorto
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8558
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 20:24:00 -
[14] - 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?
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
1373
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 21:10:00 -
[15] - Quote
First part of the rework shipped in Escalation, so no, not vaporware. That stage was all behind-the-scenes (as detailed in the presentation at Fanfest, which is on Youtube somewhere); the next step is to start implementing the redesign.
Also, the current design explicitly allows you to return fire in all cases |
|
Jason Xado
Xado Industries
6
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 21:20:00 -
[16] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:First part of the rework shipped in Escalation, so no, not vaporware. That stage was all behind-the-scenes (as detailed in the presentation at Fanfest, which is on Youtube somewhere); the next step is to start implementing the redesign. Also, the current design explicitly allows you to return fire in all cases
Any chance we can get some details?
The original idea of the changes was to eliminate the need for aggression maps and keep everything simple. The only way for that to work would be if the suspect couldn't fire back. Otherwise you would have to keep up with an aggression map.
Details would be welcome :-) |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
508
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 21:20:00 -
[17] - Quote
Crunchie Attuxors wrote:I mean, there is no indication that there is anything being done with this.
So is it real? Has it been abandoned?
I really do not feel this should be a priority over other things, but I am just wondering if this can be put there in the vaporware category?
CCP Greyscale just talked about in the live stream and seems they can't change as fast as they wanted because after all those years and many changes the core code would break more stuff than it would fix so they need to do it the right way by starting to implement everything already existing with new code so when they pick up something it doesn't screw up everything else.
Not sure I understood it all right, probably because he speaks a little fast (!) but looks something like this. brb |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
731
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 21:25:00 -
[18] - Quote
The inevitable end result will be that the new system will be more difficult to understand than the old system, even if what is happening serverside is simpler. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
1373
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 21:43:00 -
[19] - Quote
Jason Xado wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:First part of the rework shipped in Escalation, so no, not vaporware. That stage was all behind-the-scenes (as detailed in the presentation at Fanfest, which is on Youtube somewhere); the next step is to start implementing the redesign. Also, the current design explicitly allows you to return fire in all cases Any chance we can get some details? The original idea of the changes was to eliminate the need for aggression maps and keep everything simple. The only way for that to work would be if the suspect couldn't fire back. Otherwise you would have to keep up with an aggression map. Details would be welcome :-) Edit: Well another way to do it without maps would be if the suspect could fire at anyone, which although entertaining, would probobly not be the best way to go :-)
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). |
|
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
508
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 21:45:00 -
[20] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:The inevitable end result will be that the new system will be more difficult to understand than the old system, even if what is happening serverside is simpler.
Challenge keeps things interesting and actually can't be worst than what it is. High sec PVP fans say they love pvp, witch seems to be true, but I'd like to see what happens if they start getting flagged and spanked by other players just waiting flags, unlike know they're pretty much safe behind concord exploiting aggression mechanics.
I pretty much like the idea every action brings consequences and the fact no one should be safe, whenever it comes to make choices in high sec it shouldn't be the joke it is with neutral repps/jam/boost, there should be real consequences just like in low sec/null/wh space. Those are not trusting Concord mechanics to get it done the easy way. brb |
|
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
196
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 21:48:00 -
[21] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Because making it so that people who are flagged with aggression can be shot at by everyone in space but will get concorded if they shoot back is totally "fixing" highsec PVP.
That's straight up what was proposed at fanfest in the presentation and even after acknowledging that it was a bad idea in the roundtable that came after it they weren't able a think of a way for the suspect flagging system to allow suspects to shoot back without being concorded.
I don't know about you, but I don't think that mechanics like that showing up on TQ would be a good thing.
yeah cause this game totally ISNT about having consequences for your actions. AT ALL. Amirite?
CCP Greyscale wrote:First part of the rework shipped in Escalation, so no, not vaporware. That stage was all behind-the-scenes (as detailed in the presentation at Fanfest, which is on Youtube somewhere); the next step is to start implementing the redesign. Also, the current design explicitly allows you to return fire in all cases
Ah so it was redesigned... can you guys put forth some details on that design?
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).
you should lol
You shouldnt be able to rep ppl in a fight and not become part of the fight. Because by your action you are engaging in the fight in a support role. http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
732
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 22:00:00 -
[22] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:The inevitable end result will be that the new system will be more difficult to understand than the old system, even if what is happening serverside is simpler. Challenge keeps things interesting and actually can't be worst than what it is. High sec PVP fans say they love pvp, witch seems to be true, but I'd like to see what happens if they start getting flagged and spanked by other players just waiting flags, unlike know they're pretty much safe behind concord exploiting aggression mechanics. I pretty much like the idea every action brings consequences and the fact no one should be safe, whenever it comes to make choices in high sec it shouldn't be the joke it is with neutral repps/jam/boost, there should be real consequences just like in low sec/null/wh space. Those are not trusting Concord mechanics to get it done the easy way. This post is probably the single most ignorant thing I've ever read on these forums, it's literally the opposite of reality.
As it is right now you can always shoot neutral reps that someone you're fighting is using unless they happen to be in the same corporation as you. If you don't believe me go and find someone, shoot at them and have a third party rep them, you'll be amazed to learn that you can shoot the third party with impunity. To reiterate, with the current aggression system you can always shoot at anyone who is remotely assisting someone that is shooting at you, nobody is "safe behind concord".
However as CCP Greyscale just said what he wants to do is make it so that you can be shooting someone who is suspect flagged and be receiving neutral RR and the suspect won't be able to shoot the neutral RR.
It is literally a step backwards from what you just said you wanted. |
Jason Xado
Xado Industries
6
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 22:33:00 -
[23] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:[quote=Jason Xado] 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).
Interesting. So you will still have aggression maps but they will be kept small and tidy.
Interesting. Let me take some time to digest this bit of information. Thanks for the details. |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
144
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 22:45:00 -
[24] - Quote
Hi
Please give players the option to flag themselves as suspects without committing crimes, so they can bait fights if they want.
Please flag players who shoot suspects as vigilantes. Anyone who assists a suspect becomes a suspect, and anyone who assists a vigilante becomes a vigilante.
There - you have a neat, two-sided high-sec fighting mechanic in which a player is either a suspect, vigilante, or neither. If they are neither, they have the ability to join either side in the fight, but otherwise are not involved. This system has few caveats with regards to remote assistance that are easy to iron out. Don't allow a vigilante to activate remote assistance on a suspect, and vice versa. Otherwise you could flag as a vigilante, RR your suspect friends and be immune from being shot by the other vigilantes. Alternatively allow players to receive both flags and be shot by both.
This system is significantly better than a "Suspect and everyone else" system. If you wish to engage a suspect, you should gain a flag that effectively separates you from "everyone else". This polarizes engagements and simplifies aggression maps. Furthermore, vigilantes will always have the upper hand, as they can decide when (and when not) to flag themselves by engaging a suspect and initiating the fight.
If you're lucky, you will see groups of players flying around as vigilantes, and others flying around as suspects. They will fight each other - possibly not on station, because they may be roaming. That will create high-sec PvP that is a good lead-in to low-sec and 0.0 PvP for new players. It's entirely optional, encourages players to work together, and is much more simple than the current system. |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 22:57:00 -
[25] - Quote
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).
so invincible third party logis now?
or was that he is repping you, you shoot someone, and the next cycle he gets the pop up warning? as yes getting aggression due to something another does could be annoying (such as the repping someone who then goes gcc and concorddokken which got fixed a while back), but I would think interfering and being immune would be a far bigger problem |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
801
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 23:47:00 -
[26] - Quote
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).
i don't like the third party logi immunity (for obvious reasons). a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Ginger Barbarella
State War Academy Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 23:50:00 -
[27] - Quote
I'ts real. I got stopped just the other day by customs, who fined me for carrying illegal goods. They never confiscated it, so obviously CCP was behind it. ;-) |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
1373
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 23:59:00 -
[28] - Quote
Having a global "vigilante" flag doesn't seem like a good option to us, because it allows you to then undock your thirty suspect-flagged associates and gank them, which is not the effect we're looking for here, and allowing transitive individual kill rights takes us back to square one.
As to "invicible logis", in the current design yes, that is the case, but only in the scenario where you've already done something to become a suspect. There's a point at which we have to say "look, you've done something 'illegal', this fight isn't going to be fair, sorry" if we want to avoid the complexity of the current system.
With the things that will get you into this state in the first place (such as neutrals repping war targets), we're deliberately giving you the ability to do the "bad thing" and take a hit for it rather than simply mechanically banning it, because that's the way we like to do things round here. There does however come a point where we're bending so far over backwards to make the consequences of doing the "bad thing" fair that we have to either stand up or fall over, and in these cases we're currently leaning towards saying "if you don't enjoy it, maybe you should consider not getting into that situation so often in the first place". |
|
Jonas Xiamon
83
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 00:02:00 -
[29] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:Strange vigilante suggestion.
Interesting idea, I don't see any glaring flaws in it either.
I'm not sure I would necessarily want to polarize fights, but it seems a far superior solution than CCP's non-transitive aggression mapping.
Yes Greyscale, the reasons we /need/ neutral 3rd party reppers are obvious and self evident. I usally write one of these and then change it a month later when I reread it and decide it sounds stupid. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
733
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 00:07:00 -
[30] - Quote
It's nice to have a straight up admission that you are literally trying to discourage highsec PVP. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |