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) |
Grinder2210
Kaotic Intentions Cold Hand of Shadow
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 13:47:00 -
[181] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:player ecosystem.
As to can-flipping in particular, this is something that we assume will become largely ineffective with the "safeties" system, which should hopefully lessen the usability issues which are at the root of this gimmick. People losing out because they made a bad decision is great. People losing out because they didn't fully understand the decision they were making is not ideal. We realize that, for people who've dedicated a portion of their careers to "hisec PvP" of this particular stripe, this will be disruptive to their play experience, but given that there are plenty of other forms of PvP available (many of which incidentally end up generating a much stronger net contribution to the game), we're confident that such players are more than capable of transitioning rapidly to other, more robustly-supported occupations.
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 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8575
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 13:47:00 -
[182] - 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?
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
738
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 13:49:00 -
[183] - Quote
I can't believe a dev literally just said that PVP is bad and that players trying to do it should get punished.
That's ******* astonishing. |
Vol Arm'OOO
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 13:50:00 -
[184] - Quote
Tippia wrote:[quote=Vol Arm'OOO]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?
There are only four ways of getting pvp in empire - can flipping, suiciding, ninja salvaging and war dec. He is saying that can flipping is being eliminated. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8575
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 13:51:00 -
[185] - 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?
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
738
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 13:53:00 -
[186] - Quote
Tippia wrote: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. Except for the part where that's exactly what he said. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8575
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 13:55:00 -
[187] - 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?
|
Grinder2210
Kaotic Intentions Cold Hand of Shadow
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 13:58:00 -
[188] - Quote
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:Tippia wrote:[quote=Vol Arm'OOO]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? There are only four ways of getting pvp in empire - can flipping, suiciding, ninja salvaging and war dec. He is saying that can flipping is being eliminated.
pritty much Canfliping gone ninja salvaging still around but only if your trying to salvage wrecks for profit
Wardecs have allready been messed with in such a way there there not nearly as vilable in hs
Sucide ganks Still ok and with Tere 3 battle cruisers a lot easyer win for sucide ganking |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
738
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 13:59:00 -
[189] - Quote
I know you really get off on playing backseat dev at fanfest, but I didn't realize that they'd actually started paying you to support their clearly moronic game design decisions, or maybe you're just verbally fellating greyscale to try and get dev buddy points? Rather than repeating the party line at me why don't you try actually thinking about what that actually means for players.
It is punishment for initiating PVP in no uncertain terms. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8575
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 14:02:00 -
[190] - 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?
|
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
738
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 14:05:00 -
[191] - Quote
Initiating PVP therefore is bad and you should be punished for doing it. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
823
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 14:06:00 -
[192] - Quote
CCP Greyscale, thanks for pointing out that actions have consequences in this game.
However there is a case where the consequences almost vanish. If you suicide gank someone you lose your ship and a goodly chunk of sec status. To keep your sec status high you got to go do "community service" killing red plus signs. That is a big time sink and a real consequence. (Losing a cheap ship is of almost no consequence).
But what if you let your sec status go to -10? That is a big consequence in and of itself, but:
Once you are -10 the additional consequence for an additional gank is almost zero (loss of a cheap ship).
Its like the opposite of a three strikes law: Do sufficient crimes and the penalties go away.
What additional penalty could there be? Well, how about ganker pays out the insurance for the ship that he destroyed? And if your wallet goes negative, than you cannot board a ship other than a shuttle until its positive. (You could even say that the interest on our wallet balance goes to paying the ship crew, and with a negative balance, you are not contributing your share, so no crewed ship for you). This could apply to all suicide gankers, or just the ones with a real low sec status. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8575
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 14:08:00 -
[193] - 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?
|
Quaaid
ABOS Industrial Enterprises
50
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 14:16:00 -
[194] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: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.
So long as it works both ways and aggressors can have risk free logistical support as well, then it's all good. Something tells me that won't be the case though.l
Be very careful how you play with the scales, this game is riddled with the combat adverse but is not dominated by them. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8575
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 14:20:00 -
[195] - 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?
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
738
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 14:23:00 -
[196] - Quote
You can just go ahead and say that you think that highsec PVP shouldn't exist, nobody will begrudge you your opinion, but 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.
It doesn't matter how many quotation marks you put around the word bad. If game design stacks the odds against people for doing something the thing that they are doing is being discoruaged, if something is just "bad" and not actually bad then the game mechanics shouldn't actively discourage it. |
Vol Arm'OOO
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 14:33:00 -
[197] - Quote
Grinder2210 wrote:Vol Arm'OOO wrote:Tippia wrote:[quote=Vol Arm'OOO]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? There are only four ways of getting pvp in empire - can flipping, suiciding, ninja salvaging and war dec. He is saying that can flipping is being eliminated. pritty much Canfliping gone ninja salvaging still around but only if your trying to salvage wrecks for profit Wardecs have allready been messed with in such a way there there not nearly as vilable in hs Sucide ganks Still ok and with Tere 3 battle cruisers a lot easyer win for sucide ganking
Yea - this is exactly the way i see it. PVP in empire is gone - except for suicide ganks and consensual pvp in things like rvb. I wonder if CCP is going to change their marketing - come to eve we got safe zones and battle grounds just like wow? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8575
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 14:34:00 -
[198] - 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?
|
Vol Arm'OOO
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 14:41:00 -
[199] - Quote
Tippia wrote: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. Vol Arm'OOO wrote:There are only four ways of getting pvp in empire - can flipping, suiciding, ninja salvaging and war dec. He is saying that can flipping is being eliminated. No, he's not. You can still can flip. If the other guy doesn't take the bait, you just can't kill any logis that come to support him.
You didnt read all of the dev statements above - they are imposing safeties on everybody that will make it impossible for you to flip a can unless you specifically disable the safeties. CCP has indicated that they expect that this will make can flipping non-viable. CCP has not indicated what they anticipate will replace can flipping as a source of pvp in empire - I suspect that they dont anticipate anything replacing can flipping - what they want is empire to be "safe" while pushing people to low/null. Of course such efforts to compel people into low/null have always failed in the past. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
738
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 14:42:00 -
[200] - Quote
Tippia wrote: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. Safeties in and of themselves will have virtually no effect on canflipping, although I can see how you'd think that if your entire understanding of canflipping came from reading wikis about it that were written by people whos entire understanding of canflipping came from wikis about it.
People virtually never steal back a flipped can, in practice you're more likely to see a hulk set its drones on a canflipper than actually try and take their ore back. When you canflip someone what you're actually trying to do is get the person you flipped or their corp members to shoot at you so the safeties are virtually a non-issue. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8575
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 14:44:00 -
[201] - 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?
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
738
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 14:52:00 -
[202] - Quote
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.
I understand where the argument comes from, but it makes the assumption that getting kills from canflipping relies on people being able to steal ore back from you without knowing what they are doing and it just plain doesn't. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8576
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 14:56:00 -
[203] - 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?
|
Vol Arm'OOO
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 14:59:00 -
[204] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:[quote=Tippia]
People virtually never steal back a flipped can, in practice you're more likely to see a hulk set its drones on a canflipper than actually try and take their ore back. When you canflip someone what you're actually trying to do is get the person you flipped or their corp members to shoot at you so the safeties are virtually a non-issue.
Um no - simply not true. Many folk try to flip their cans back - and there are many ways to successfully steal your can back if you take the time to learn them. And yes the goal is not to get the person to shoot at you but to flip the can - that way you and your friends can shoot at them. But of course if no one ever bothered to reflip the cans then there would be no need for ccp to force the safeties on its players. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1920
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 15:03:00 -
[205] - Quote
One major concern I have with the suspect system is you're removing a major incentive toward corporate membership. If I'm running a mining operation using jetcans and someone comes along and canflips me today, any defensive action taken has to be by my own corp. With your new system, every member of my fleet can be in an NPC corp and we can all engage the thief. The last thing Eve needs is to make NPC corps more attractive.
The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
738
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 15:10:00 -
[206] - Quote
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote: People virtually never steal back a flipped can, in practice you're more likely to see a hulk set its drones on a canflipper than actually try and take their ore back. When you canflip someone what you're actually trying to do is get the person you flipped or their corp members to shoot at you so the safeties are virtually a non-issue.
Um no - simply not true. Many folk try to flip their cans back - and there are many ways to successfully steal your can back if you take the time to learn them. And yes the goal is not to get the person to shoot at you but to flip the can - that way you and your friends can shoot at them. But of course if no one ever bothered to reflip the cans then there would be no need for ccp to force the safeties on its players. Horseshit. The only time anyone ever takes a can back is in a hauler, and if they're intent on doing that then they're going to disable their safeties to do it. Also generally speaking I'd much rather get kills on the half a dozen combat ships belonging to the corporation I'm canflipping that come to shoot me then having my entire corp come along to gank a single itty 5, I don't know about you though.
People who're successful at getting their cans back will be just as successful in a system with safeties and you'll be just as unable to kill them as you are now, it's not like you won't be able to turn them off when you're specifically trying to do something that you know will get you flagged.
The problem with safeties is that if by default you're unable to attack flagged characters without disabling a safety it's a get out of jail free card for braindead mission runners in 30 billion isk mission ships. |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
159
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 15:56:00 -
[207] - Quote
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.
So, I'm a suspect. Someone shoots me. I can shoot them. Someone assists them. Their neutral RR now becomes a suspect. I can shoot them, but so can the rest of EVE?
You said that the suspect flag should be a punishment for doing something bad. I don't see using a logistics ship to help someone fighting crime to be a criminal act.
You truly need two flags, where players of each flag can shoot one another, rather than flagging everyone as a suspect so all of EVE can shoot them.
If you shoot a suspect, every other suspect should be allowed to shoot you. If I engage a Vigilante on a gate, every other vigilante and his RR should be able to engage me without some of them becoming suspects also.
Suspects will always have the disadvantage, because vigilantes must start the fight and can carefully tailor the engagement in such a way that they will be more successful. A suspect will never know who is about to flag as a vigilante on them prior to it happening. It could be like 10 guys sitting on the gate with you that suddenly turn -insert vigilante overview color- and zonk you. But as soon as they reveal themselves and get that first kill, other suspects in the area that I alert via an intel channel or what have you are going to turn up, and there's going to be a fight. |
Arcueid Saber
Perkone Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 16:07:00 -
[208] - Quote
I hope that CCP will put the suspect tag in kill mail so that mercenary corp can gain reputation in the eyes of high sec dweller. That also helps out their employments in war dec side.
The vigilante/suspect system should make high sec more lively with a bunch of bad boys and "good cop" duking it out at gate. |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
159
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 16:11:00 -
[209] - Quote
Arcueid Saber wrote: The vigilante/suspect system should make high sec more lively with a bunch of bad boys and "good cop" duking it out at gate.
Unfortunately it doesn't look like we'll get a vigilante/suspect system. We're going to get a suspect/neutrals-who-attack-risk-free system. It'll be 50 cops punching a single robber while all of the other robbers stand right next to him and can't do anything until the cops throw punches at them.
Edit: CCP Greyscale, you want suspects to be at risk for their crimes. Anyone who decides they want to be a white-knight and FIGHT CRIME AND EVIL in high-sec should run the risk of ACTUALLY FACING CRIMINALS, not just the one little Rifter they decide to volley with their instalocking Tornado on a gate. Having a system where you can shoot one suspect, but no other suspects can shoot you back is ridiculous.
"In for a penny, in for a pound", not "In for a penny, collect loot and be completely safe" |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1056
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 16:15:00 -
[210] - Quote
All I see this doing is making my life as a vulture either really hard or really entertaining. Or both.
I'm hoping both. |
|
|
|
|
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 |