Not sure if this is covered yet, and 27 pages is a long read too long to find out, but:

The can aggro mechanic should be left alone as it is used by many people to get hisec fights 1v1. This is an integral part of Eve and I strongly urge you to leave it unchanged, OR make a nominal fine, say 1 M isk to have only the victim of the theft and his corp get aggression, and give an option to not pay and say "screw the police" and get aggression to everyone. Give the players a choice and dont take our ability to have agreed upon 1v1 fights in hisec.

Duelling we're planning to support with an explicit mechanic rather than the current hacky workaround.

Not sure if this is covered yet, and 27 pages is a long read too long to find out, but:

The can aggro mechanic should be left alone as it is used by many people to get hisec fights 1v1. This is an integral part of Eve and I strongly urge you to leave it unchanged, OR make a nominal fine, say 1 M isk to have only the victim of the theft and his corp get aggression, and give an option to not pay and say "screw the police" and get aggression to everyone. Give the players a choice and dont take our ability to have agreed upon 1v1 fights in hisec.

I also would urge that you make theft aggress the not only the corp you stole from, but the players gang at that time and also their entire alliance. This moves towards what you are trying to achieve with the suspect flag, but does not impinge on other aspects of the game.

I recently participated in a roundtable discussion with the most experienced War deccers, Griefers, Can flippers, gankers, hooligans, ninja salvagers, awoxers etc. Many Eve luminaries participated:


Alekseyev Karrde of Noir., one of the most stable and longest-running merc corps of all time
Cannibal Kane, can flipper, mercenary, and representative of the independent solo highsec pvper
Lithalnas, director of Privateers, the group that was so OP at one point that CCP had to redesign the wardec system around their tactics
Iam Widdershins of PRONS, known for their skill and prowess in nearly every aspect of Eve
Istyn of Tactical Knightmare (also representing Suddenly Ninjas)
Psychotic Monk (myself), CEO of The Skunkworks, known for their work in killing ignorant incursion runners and long-time wardeccers.
ToxicOz, CEO of Double Tap, who are one of the most effective merc corps in highsec today.
TS5P, director of The Orphanage, which needs no introduction

The discussion is on soundcloud, found here

Some of it was covered just after this meeting at fanfest and some of what was talked about is redundant but getting these guys together was productive and they truly represent the hisec combat playerbase

Seem like very good changes. I do think that preventing a player from defending himself against other players in any circumstances is a bad idea, but that seems to be off the table. Under no circumstances should one player be able to attack another with impunity that is enforced by game mechanics

This may have already been discussed, and so apologies in advance, but will a Suspect's corp/fleet members be able to return fire on someone who shoots the Suspect? Ninja fleets will probably just carry around remote-assist modules so that they can inherit the Suspect flag; forcing players to jump through hoops to acquire aggro doesn't seem like a good mechanic. And it might be good if prospective pirate-hunters had to worry about a Suspect's friends. At no point should the decision to open fire on a player's ship be trivial.

Second suggestion: make the Suspect flag reset every time someone shoots the Suspect or the Suspect shoots another player. This is to avoid situations where a pirate-hunter fleet lands on a Suspect only to find that half of them cannot engage the Suspect without getting Concorded.

Third suggestion: players flagged as Suspect should be subject to the same logoff mechanics as supercapital pilots. This is to prevent players who engage in criminal activity from simply logging off in space with impunity.

Fourth Suggestion: a ship whose maintenance bay is used by a Suspect should inherit the Suspect flag. This is to make swapping ships in an Orca and such somewhat more risky. However, with Suspect shootable by all of EVE, I don't think hotswapping in an Orca is a big issue.

Either way, look forward to finding out more, even if I don't live in high-sec anymore.

Not sure if this is covered yet, and 27 pages is a long read too long to find out, but:

I'm sorry, Darius, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with the carebear community on this one. I know your primary interest is in the area of ganking, but since the advent of the Tornado, the practice of ganking has become so endemic that it's impinging on the quality of gameplay in high sec. I don't believe in my years of experience in ganking I have ever seen so many gank ships in operation. The mechanics being brought in will make ganking considerably more difficult.

Virtually every gate between Jita and Amarr has its resident Tornados at this point; the same can be said for many of the lesser routes, and indeed out in the wilds of high sec space. It needs to be stamped out.

Griefing by flipping cans I'm not entirely sure about. It's very much a two-sided story: People who mine want peace and quiet, but at the same time they shouldn't be jettisoning their haul out into space where anyone can pick it up. Not really something I want to get into.

Duelling is an area which is easily fixed as was suggested by CCP Greyscale above.

I don't want to disagree with your sentiment of supporting player policing mechanics. However, this proposal will not "stamp out" suicide ganking nor do I think that CCP has this opinion that such activities need to be.

The mechanics proposed do very little if anything in terms of changes to the actual activity of suicide ganking other than the issue of making it a bit more difficult or relevant for indivudals who engage in such activities to manage their secuirty status' better due to relevant changes or implications for having a signifciant poor status. And yet introduce more ways at the same time to correct poor status also. If you think these proposals will be the extinition of suicide ganking in high sec as a result then you are simply delluding yourself.

Not to stamp it out entirely, but as one of the side-effects of said will be that people can no longer gank outside of stations (because they'll become targets as soon as they loot), and looting with a hauler will be much riskier than before. A poor timing on the pick-up will mean certain death.

Sure there are ways around it, but it means more effort. Most of these players are unable to adapt beyond pressing F1, then clicking the "Yes" button.

[quote=Grumpy Owly]...

Not to stamp it out entirely, but as one of the side-effects of said will be that people can no longer gank outside of stations (because they'll become targets as soon as they loot), and looting with a hauler will be much riskier than before. A poor timing on the pick-up will mean certain death.

Sure there are ways around it, but it means more effort. Most of these players are unable to adapt beyond pressing F1, then clicking the "Yes" button.

They may also want to consider extending the period that a player is marked as a "suspect" where they have destroyed someone else's ship to perhaps an hour.

Fourth Suggestion: a ship whose maintenance bay is used by a Suspect should inherit the Suspect flag. This is to make swapping ships in an Orca and such somewhat more risky. However, with Suspect shootable by all of EVE, I don't think hotswapping in an Orca is a big issue.

1. You can't defend yourself. Silly but robust.
2. Anyone who attacks a suspect becomes a suspec. Robust, but effectively nullifies the penalties of the suspect flag because the risk of engaging a suspect becomes huge without fully comprehensive scouting (which with cloaking and high local-counts is pretty much impossible in hisec).
3. We reintroduce one-to-one flagging in its current form, which is nice in this limited scenario but causes endless breakages and exploits in aggregate, as we've discovered over the past decade or so.

We need to do something about Orcas but not 100% sure what yet

simply remove ship maintenance bay and corporation hangars. compensate loss with normal cargospace.

- We need to do something about Orcas but not 100% sure what yet

simply remove ship maintenance bay and corporation hangars. compensate loss with normal cargospace.

Not to stamp it out entirely, but as one of the side-effects of said will be that people can no longer gank outside of stations (because they'll become targets as soon as they loot), and looting with a hauler will be much riskier than before. A poor timing on the pick-up will mean certain death.

Sure there are ways around it, but it means more effort. Most of these players are unable to adapt beyond pressing F1, then clicking the "Yes" button.

eww. Why would I do that?

'It happens here on earth, why shouldn't it be like that far in the future?' is a not a reasonable justification for the proposal either.

I'm concerned about this. I don't want my salvage alt to be in my corp because we get wardecced by griefers, and while I love a fight (I live in low and fly around EC- tons), I do want to be able to make income, and that involves "Stealing" from my corpmates. Webbing frieghters was mentioned earlier as well. Hell, looting from my own missions or taking ore from my own can on a neutral alt (I don't mine, but hypothetically) would get me in trouble. That's STUPID. To combat this, I think we need a "No aggro" checkbox for characters that marks them as a friend and allows you to "steal" stuff and such (this should probably be required to be mutual) Also, to avoid stupid crap, make it last like an hour so you can't like...uncheck part way through a fight and get them suspected.

Or alternatively as a workaround if you want to run neutral salvage operations you could ask the people to abandon the wrecks for you?

That works, and it usually works like that, but it would also make handing off bookmarks irritating (They can't just eject them for me) and the other points still stand (Webbing freighters ect). I feel like it would be an easily coded workaround, allowing for 1v1s, and removing any irritation this could possibly cause in one fell swoop.

Crimewatch changes, as currently proposed, leave me uncomfortable on a more basic game philosophy level - particularly becoming a valid target for everyone when stealing. It completely removes moral ambiguity of one's actions which is - for me at least - one of the cornerstones of what makes the EVE universe so appealing. Until now, the concept of GG#theftGG% was strictly an affair between the thief and his victim - game mechanics did not condemn the act as inherently GG#badGG% or GG#immoralGG%. Both parties were merely given tools to deal with the crime among themselves.

The change turns the concept of GG#I have wronged you, therefore you may take revengeGG% into GG#I have wronged you, therefore I have wronged everyoneGG% and everyone may take revenge - even if the original action did not affect them in any way at all. This implies that stealing is now a crime against the whole EVE universe, not just the theft victim - and therefore a GG#badGG% action.

And the general idea of security status loss for defending oneself when under "Suspect" flag is completely asinine. Once the shots are fired, the attacker has knowingly committed to a fight. Penalizing either of the parties involved just plain does not make sense.

Crimewatch changes, as currently proposed, leave me uncomfortable on a more basic game philosophy level - particularly becoming a valid target for everyone when stealing. It completely removes moral ambiguity of one's actions which is - for me at least - one of the cornerstones of what makes the EVE universe so appealing. Until now, the concept of GG#theftGG% was strictly an affair between the thief and his victim - game mechanics did not condemn the act as inherently GG#badGG% or GG#immoralGG%. Both parties were merely given tools to deal with the crime among themselves.

The change turns the concept of GG#I have wronged you, therefore you may take revengeGG% into GG#I have wronged you, therefore I have wronged everyoneGG% and everyone may take revenge - even if the original action did not affect them in any way at all. This implies that stealing is now a crime against the whole EVE universe, not just the theft victim - and therefore a GG#badGG% action.

And the general idea of security status loss for defending oneself when under "Suspect" flag is completely asinine. Once the shots are fired, the attacker has knowingly committed to a fight. Penalizing either of the parties involved just plain does not make sense.

Dude, you're asking me to listen to a 70-minute recording with no summary but this isn't important enough for you to read the whole thread?

That works, and it usually works like that, but it would also make handing off bookmarks irritating (They can't just eject them for me) and the other points still stand (Webbing freighters ect). I feel like it would be an easily coded workaround, allowing for 1v1s, and removing any irritation this could possibly cause in one fell swoop.

The change turns the concept of GG#I have wronged you, therefore you may take revengeGG% into GG#I have wronged you, therefore I have wronged everyoneGG% and everyone may take revenge - even if the original action did not affect them in any way at all. This implies that stealing is now a crime against the whole EVE universe, not just the theft victim - and therefore a GG#badGG% action.

And the general idea of security status loss for defending oneself when under "Suspect" flag is completely asinine. Once the shots are fired, the attacker has knowingly committed to a fight. Penalizing either of the parties involved just plain does not make sense.

The question of labelling the crime is valid. So should theft be a crime? In principle as a social argument from a moral standpoint you could say that soceities rules are enforced to protect it. As such criminal actions are in theory all against soceity not just the victims. Hence perhaps why some legal cases have "the state versus" represented.

The culpability of being the person who initiated the crime is left very much as a choice by the criminal. Also the judgement of performing the crime is again a choice afforded to the criminal. As such I see it as only valid that they recieve some token of consequence for "their" actions. Otherwise their could be situations where they will simply be able to take what they like and only initiate the PvP they want. One obvious choice is you also have the option to run after you have stolen something whereas your victim most times will always in some way lose out from the encounter.

Lovely stuff, got your first like from it.

I would much rather see a person who steals get aggro from the person/corp/alliance/fleet of the victim than everyone in game as remedy. And any time someone shoots at you, you should obviously have rights to defend yourself without worrying about a sec hit.

I'm sure that's what the horse thief claimed when the town's folk hung him up from a tree. You may not like it, but this puts some of 'law' into the hands of the 'community' and out of the hands of some silly NPCs. This is a development for Eve, from less game to more of a social sandbox, justice and mercy are ours now.

You've perhaps heard the saying, "You can't legislate morality"? You can't code it either.

I'm sure that's what the horse thief claimed when the town's folk hung him up from a tree. You may not like it, but this puts some of 'law' into the hands of the 'community' and out of the hands of some silly NPCs. This is a development for Eve, from less game to more of a social sandbox, justice and mercy are ours now.

You've perhaps heard the saying, "You can't legislate morality"? You can't code it either.