Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 20 post(s) |
Velicia Tuoro
Light Speed Interactive The Mockers AO
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 14:45:00 -
[1] - Quote
Did I miss anything important?
15 min timer on its own, i.e. they won't stack on after the other
Safe log off. Didn't understand that but sounded like somewat of logging off, but being able to see your timers.
Assisting people grants jump/dock timers. Keeps resetting until assist stops.
Trying to fix the corcording of Incursion fleets due to wt stuff.
Reduce performance issues
New "suspect" flag - Minor crimes. Anyone can shoot you without penalty. - Flipping a can for example - Shooting someone makes you a suspect (I think) - Anyone assisting a suspect becomes a suspect - Not sure if gate guns will attack a suspect.
Crimnal Flag - Is there GCC - Killing someone makes you a criminal - Some sort of buff for concord? Insta-death, rather than ships - Appear to have not considered highsec delays? - Considering warp scram ray, then death ray in x secs afterwards.
Safety for Suspect/Crim flags - Sound not as annoying as previous ones. i.e. ganker can easily flip it off before ganking.
Sec Status - Kill somewhile a suspect will only take you to -5 - Pod killing will take you below -5 to -10 - killing someone with positive +5 gives you hit - Killing someone with a negative sec gives you bonus - Hand in tags for sec boost up to +5. Less effect if you are -5. - Fixing spawns after downtime. - -5 can be killed without penalty in low sec. - something baout -5 in high sec being pursued.
Killmails - adding "battle reports", stats and details. Who has repped who etc - More data in the API. - killmails for self destructing - killmails for reinforcing structures
Improve UI - All timers visible - All 100% accurate.
Want to fix GCCing of -10 remote repping each other Senior Representative Light Speed Interactive http://www.lightspeedinteractive.net |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
209
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 15:15:00 -
[2] - Quote
Velicia Tuoro wrote:New "suspect" flag - Minor crimes. Anyone can shoot you without penalty. - Flipping a can for example - Shooting someone makes you a suspect (I think) - Anyone assisting a suspect becomes a suspect - Not sure if gate guns will attack a suspect. Undecided yet.
So you're basically saying that they're deviating from their course of gradually removing pvp from high-sec by removing it entirely in one fell swoop? Even a can flip duel will no longer be viable? |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
209
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 15:15:00 -
[3] - Quote
Double post. Hooray forums. |
Kessiaan
Greater Order Of Destruction Happy Endings
117
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 15:19:00 -
[4] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:So you're basically saying that they're deviating from their course of gradually removing pvp from high-sec by removing it entirely in one fell swoop? Even a can flip duel will no longer be viable?
Are you kidding? Now instead of having to be a douche for an hour in belts (or just forego any kind of pretext and suicide gank some hapless miner), you can now agress everyone in highsec by flipping your own neutral alt's can.
I think it'll have just the opposite effect. Seems more like a disguised consensual pvp flag than anything else. I know everyone hates on the idea but I think may lead to a resurgence of solo pvp (and all the asshattery that goes along with it, ofc) in highsec. My killboard - http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=Kessiaan |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
209
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 15:28:00 -
[5] - Quote
Kessiaan wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:So you're basically saying that they're deviating from their course of gradually removing pvp from high-sec by removing it entirely in one fell swoop? Even a can flip duel will no longer be viable? Are you kidding? Now instead of having to be a douche for an hour in belts (or just forego any kind of pretext and suicide gank some hapless miner), you can now agress everyone in highsec by flipping your own neutral alt's can. I think it'll have just the opposite effect. Seems more like a disguised consensual pvp flag than anything else. I know everyone hates on the idea but I think may lead to a resurgence of solo pvp (and all the asshattery that goes along with it, ofc) in highsec. I'm not entirely sure how you arrived at that conclusion, unless I'm missing something. If you become a suspect, everyone but you will be able to aggress you at will, but you will only be able to retaliate against people who specifically aggress you. I really don't envision CCP implementing a system in which becoming a suspect gives you aggression rights against any and all other players.
1. Player A takes Player B's can 2. Players C-Z are now able to aggress Player A, who can only retaliate
I sincerely hope I'm indeed interpreting this potential change incorrectly. |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
515
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 15:31:00 -
[6] - Quote
Thanks for the notes Velicia :)
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Pak Narhoo
Knights of Kador
421
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 15:31:00 -
[7] - Quote
Just know it's still on paper. Nothing hard, nothing coded. Can go anyway from here.
Like a good point: friendly can flipping to have a 1 on 1 fight is out the window with these presumed changes.
You have to cut the ops team some slack, trolling the player base with made up downtime estimates is the only fun they get around here.-á(CCP Nullarbor) |
Velicia Tuoro
Light Speed Interactive The Mockers AO
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 15:33:00 -
[8] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: 1. Player A takes Player B's can 2. Players C-Z are now able to aggress Player A, who can only retaliate
That is how I interpreted it. Senior Representative Light Speed Interactive http://www.lightspeedinteractive.net |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1156
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 15:34:00 -
[9] - Quote
Velicia Tuoro wrote:Assisting people grants jump/dock timers. Keeps resetting until assist stops or original persons timer expires. Hear that? That's the sound of neutral RR alts being sold in a few months.
Velicia Tuoro wrote:New "suspect" flag - Minor crimes. Anyone can shoot you without penalty. - Flipping a can for example - Shooting someone makes you a suspect (I think) Wait...so I can shoot someone without being concorded now? But can flipping carries the same penalty as actually firing on someone? I don't know whether to laugh maniacally or cry.
Velicia Tuoro wrote:Criminal Flag - Is like current GCC - Killing someone makes you a criminal - Some sort of buff/tweak for concord? Insta-death, rather than ships - Appear to have not considered high sec delays due to system security status. - Considering warp scram ray, then death ray in x secs afterwards. Terrible. Keep Concord but buff them to prevent long-term evasion.
Velicia Tuoro wrote: - Killmails for self destructing This makes me happy. It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
209
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 15:37:00 -
[10] - Quote
Pak Narhoo wrote:Just know it's still on paper. Nothing hard, nothing coded. Can go anyway from here.
Like a good point: friendly can flipping to have a 1 on 1 fight is out the window with these presumed changes.
Oh, I'm by no means jumping to conclusions; I know these things aren't set in stone. However, if a change like this is even on the table, it has to be fought tooth and nail for the sake of this game's integrity.
If can-flipping is just an "example," think of how many other "suspect" actions might result in this type of flag:
- Scanning someone's ship/cargo - Trying to access someone's secure container - Shooting an NPC that's part of someone else's mission - Why not just go ahead and say it: locking someone without their permission |
|
Velicia Tuoro
Light Speed Interactive The Mockers AO
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 15:41:00 -
[11] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Velicia Tuoro wrote:Assisting people grants jump/dock timers. Keeps resetting until assist stops or original persons timer expires. Hear that? That's the sound of neutral RR alts being sold in a few months.
It generated a cheer from the audience.
Senior Representative Light Speed Interactive http://www.lightspeedinteractive.net |
Velicia Tuoro
Light Speed Interactive The Mockers AO
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 15:42:00 -
[12] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: - Shooting an NPC that's part of someone else's mission
Shooting NPCs was talked about being a "Legal" action. Senior Representative Light Speed Interactive http://www.lightspeedinteractive.net |
Katrina Oniseki
Revenent Defence Corperation Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
371
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 15:44:00 -
[13] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Pak Narhoo wrote:Just know it's still on paper. Nothing hard, nothing coded. Can go anyway from here.
Like a good point: friendly can flipping to have a 1 on 1 fight is out the window with these presumed changes.
Oh, I'm by no means jumping to conclusions; I know these things aren't set in stone. However, if a change like this is even on the table, it has to be fought tooth and nail for the sake of this game's integrity. If can-flipping is just an "example," think of how many other "suspect" actions might result in this type of flag: - Scanning someone's ship/cargo - Trying to access someone's secure container - Shooting an NPC that's part of someone else's mission - Why not just go ahead and say it: locking someone without their permission
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
No. |
Velicia Tuoro
Light Speed Interactive The Mockers AO
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 15:48:00 -
[14] - Quote
It was presented about taking the opportunity to overhaul and fix the system. Make it more modular and flexible, rather than a "lets make high sec safe" program. This was CCP Greyscales vision of how they could improve the system. Get that feedback in :) Senior Representative Light Speed Interactive http://www.lightspeedinteractive.net |
Ayn Randy
The Scope Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 15:52:00 -
[15] - Quote
The tag thing is pretty neat, the price for them will probably skyrocket tho so buy em up now! |
thekiller2002us
Order of Celestial Knights S I L E N T.
79
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 15:55:00 -
[16] - Quote
possible poco's in highsec alliance bookmarks summer missile launchers on ships logo's on ships
obvious speculation on the above things^^^ - i'm guessing this is also on the horizon, but soundwave gave a lot away in the last programme.
oh and yes- i belive moon goo is going to get completely overhauled- in accordance with ccp's plan for this expansion to e based on 'war' I'm with Brick on this one- make thouse carebearing b******s squeal.. |
Pak Narhoo
Knights of Kador
421
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 15:56:00 -
[17] - Quote
Well they are right the current system is convoluted, like I can shoot this guy but not that guy who can shoot my corpormate who cannot shoot......
Urgh.
So I'm all for cleaning it up.
You have to cut the ops team some slack, trolling the player base with made up downtime estimates is the only fun they get around here.-á(CCP Nullarbor) |
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
983
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 15:59:00 -
[18] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Velicia Tuoro wrote:New "suspect" flag - Minor crimes. Anyone can shoot you without penalty. - Flipping a can for example - Shooting someone makes you a suspect (I think) - Anyone assisting a suspect becomes a suspect - Not sure if gate guns will attack a suspect. Undecided yet. So you're basically saying that they're deviating from their course of gradually removing pvp from high-sec by removing it entirely in one fell swoop? Even a can flip duel will no longer be viable?
Eve is a unforgiving harsh place. Now for everyone, not just bears.
HTFU, etc.
Mr Epeen Me too!-á I ate one sour, too! |
Karl Planck
150
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 15:59:00 -
[19] - Quote
Pak Narhoo wrote:Just know it's still on paper. Nothing hard, nothing coded. Can go anyway from here.
Like a good point: friendly can flipping to have a 1 on 1 fight is out the window with these presumed changes.
nope, just fleet up and meet at a safe
If you don't like it, you should go and ride your Emo high-horse all the way back to WoW.
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1111
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 16:03:00 -
[20] - Quote
Velicia Tuoro wrote: Assisting people grants jump/dock timers. Keeps resetting until assist stops or original persons timer expires.
So... it will soon be impossible to deagress with logistics on the field. That's... interesting.
Quote: Criminal Flag - Is like current GCC - Killing someone makes you a criminal - Some sort of buff/tweak for concord? Insta-death, rather than ships - Appear to have not considered high sec delays due to system security status. - Considering warp scram ray, then death ray in x secs afterwards.
I really liked the current ship mechanics. Not that I spend much time suicide ganking in high sec.
Quote: Sec Status - Kill someone while a suspect will only take you to -5 - Pod killing will take you below -5 to -10 - Killing someone with positive +5 gives you hit - Killing someone with a negative sec gives you bonus - Hand in tags for sec boost up to +5. Less effect if you are -5. - Fixing rat spawns after downtime. - -5 can be killed without penalty in low sec. - Something about -5 in high sec being pursued.
So no change from the perspective of a pirate - well as long as its still possible to get frigs and WCS/Istabbed ships through high sec as a flasy pirate. Except there appears to be some way to tag your way up to positive sec status - that's nice.
Any news on the return of Flashy Flashy?
Quote: Killmails - Adding "battle reports", stats and details. Who has repped who etc - More data in the API. - Killmails for self destructing - Killmails for reinforcing structures
**** them. I hate ******* killmails and they're ******* stupid. Rabble Rabble Rabble. Oh well.
Meh, changes are kinda underwhelming.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://vimeo.com/user9887127 Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
|
Katrina Oniseki
Revenent Defence Corperation Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
371
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 16:07:00 -
[21] - Quote
Okay just to be sure, am I correct in my understanding of the changes to suicide ganking?
Does this mean a single cruiser could spend an hour soloing a freighter in highsec, and only get CONCORDed when the freighter dies (however long that takes)? Sure anyone can shoot me... but how many people are actually going to shoot me instead of help kill that freighter and nab all the loot?
In other words... suicide ganking is gone. You don't even need to gank. Just kill them normally with the understanding that you will die too afterwards. |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
889
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 16:08:00 -
[22] - Quote
Actually if some of those changes leads to genocide all neutral alts/jams/boosters: awesome and needed
Being rewarded for killing criminals in high sec is common sense, it's the risk vs reward and the consequence of a choice, and criminals have nothing to do in HIGH SEC, their place is in low/null sec because it's the consequence of their choice of shooting everything just because they can. I'm am not convinced if those changes are implemented that those high sec players that don't know other game play style than abuse game fail mechanics will ever move to low/null sec, the main reason being that those are the most risk averse player type you'll ever find in Eve. Expect hundreds pages and threads of ragequit crap.
Faction criminals being pursued by faction Police, get flagged and killed scrammed etc this seems fair enough to me: action = consequence
Well, those are just some lines of what has been told by some devs. This means they acknowledge the benefit of those needed changes or at least the downside of actual ones. I'm not na+»f so I'm happy this has been told by them, but do I believe it will be implemented? -not really.
So far seems a good fanfest. |
Velicia Tuoro
Light Speed Interactive The Mockers AO
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 16:08:00 -
[23] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote: Any news on the return of Flashy Flashy?
This was asked in the questions section. CCP Greyscale admitted it was his request to remove that. It was down to them not being a threat in high sec. (unless they are going to gank...) It didn't seem like they were going to add it back. Senior Representative Light Speed Interactive http://www.lightspeedinteractive.net |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
889
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 16:14:00 -
[24] - Quote
Katrina Oniseki wrote:Okay just to be sure, am I correct in my understanding of the changes to suicide ganking?
Does this mean a single cruiser could spend an hour soloing a freighter in highsec, and only get CONCORDed when the freighter dies (however long that takes)? Sure anyone can shoot me... but how many people are actually going to shoot me instead of help kill that freighter and nab all the loot?
In other words... suicide ganking is gone. You don't even need to gank. Just kill them normally with the understanding that you will die too afterwards.
Had same thought than you. Need more information because this looks more like regression than improvement and just replaces actual wardec/gank mechanics for cheaper easier ones? -what's the point? |
Jace Errata
Lawlz Brawlz
122
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 16:14:00 -
[25] - Quote
Floppie- it looks like they're separating "shooting" and "killing". Shooting gives you Suspect, killing gives you Criminal. Stealth OST puns and blatant lies since 2009 Jace Errata on Twitter
One day they woke me up so I could live forever It's such a shame the same will never happen to you |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1111
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 16:14:00 -
[26] - Quote
Velicia Tuoro wrote:Liang Nuren wrote: Any news on the return of Flashy Flashy?
This was asked in the questions section. CCP Greyscale admitted it was his request to remove that. It was down to them not being a threat in high sec. (unless they are going to gank...) It didn't seem like they were going to add it back.
So... he really thinks that flashy flashy pirates aren't a threat in high sec?
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://vimeo.com/user9887127 Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
209
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 16:16:00 -
[27] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Velicia Tuoro wrote:New "suspect" flag - Minor crimes. Anyone can shoot you without penalty. - Flipping a can for example - Shooting someone makes you a suspect (I think) - Anyone assisting a suspect becomes a suspect - Not sure if gate guns will attack a suspect. Undecided yet. So you're basically saying that they're deviating from their course of gradually removing pvp from high-sec by removing it entirely in one fell swoop? Even a can flip duel will no longer be viable? Eve is a unforgiving harsh place. Now for everyone, not just bears. HTFU, etc. Mr Epeen Being "hard" and being suicidal are not necessarily mutually inclusive. It will indeed require people who take the cans of others (for whatever reason) to become harder. However, when a game mechanic forces an extreme tactical disadvantage on players when they perform a specific action, they will stop performing said action.
If CCP were to propose a system in which a player who performs some kind of unsavory action is immediately enclosed in a glass prison to act as a pinata for anyone who wants to take a swing, I doubt your reply would have been any different. It's a nice blanket justification for any changes the developers make, no matter how stupid they are.
And that's the thing: I'm not against changes that help carebears; I'm against changes that cause imbalance. Case in point:
Katrina Oniseki wrote:Okay just to be sure, am I correct in my understanding of the changes to suicide ganking?
Does this mean a single cruiser could spend an hour soloing a freighter in highsec, and only get CONCORDed when the freighter dies (however long that takes)? Sure anyone can shoot me... but how many people are actually going to shoot me instead of help kill that freighter and nab all the loot?
In other words... suicide ganking is gone. You don't even need to gank. Just kill them normally with the understanding that you will die too afterwards. This would be about as balanced as a change that results in a criminal flag for non-criminal actions. It wouldn't be balanced, and this is coming from someone who really really likes to blow up defenseless haulers for their loot. |
Velicia Tuoro
Light Speed Interactive The Mockers AO
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 16:18:00 -
[28] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:So... he really thinks that flashy flashy pirates aren't a threat in high sec? -Liang
there was a laugh to that comment :)
Senior Representative Light Speed Interactive http://www.lightspeedinteractive.net |
Thabiso
Merchants of the Golden Goose
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 16:22:00 -
[29] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Pak Narhoo wrote:Just know it's still on paper. Nothing hard, nothing coded. Can go anyway from here.
Like a good point: friendly can flipping to have a 1 on 1 fight is out the window with these presumed changes.
Oh, I'm by no means jumping to conclusions; I know these things aren't set in stone. However, if a change like this is even on the table, it has to be fought tooth and nail for the sake of this game's integrity. If can-flipping is just an "example," think of how many other "suspect" actions might result in this type of flag: - Scanning someone's ship/cargo - Trying to access someone's secure container - Shooting an NPC that's part of someone else's mission - Why not just go ahead and say it: locking someone without their permission
If you start going through my backpack on the street to see if anything was worth stealing, I guarentee you there will be repercussions or if I catch you stabbing the tire on my bike there will be consequences.
Also, shooting someone elses NPC should be a punisable offence, you might kill his trigger/trigger drop, which could end farming or prevent a turn-in of mission. |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1111
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 16:22:00 -
[30] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: Being "hard" and being suicidal are not necessarily mutually inclusive. It will indeed require people who take the cans of others (for whatever reason) to become harder. However, when a game mechanic forces an extreme tactical disadvantage on players when they perform a specific action, they will stop performing said action.
If CCP were to propose a system in which a player who performs some kind of unsavory action is immediately enclosed in a glass prison to act as a pinata for anyone who wants to take a swing, I doubt your reply would have been any different. It's a nice blanket justification for any changes the developers make, no matter how stupid they are.
And that's the thing: I'm not against changes that help carebears; I'm against changes that cause imbalance. Case in point:
I'm not sure that the change makes for an "extreme tactical disadvantage". Its more like being red flashy (anyone can shoot you) but being allowed to be in high sec all the time. I'm likely to just roam in a PVP ship can flipping every system just so retards will shoot at me.
Can flipping one guy gives everyone aggression against you? So much easier.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://vimeo.com/user9887127 Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1111
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 16:24:00 -
[31] - Quote
Thabiso wrote: Also, shooting someone elses NPC should be a punisable offence, you might kill his trigger/trigger drop, which could end farming or prevent a turn-in of mission.
Mission drop/triggers are based purely on the death of the NPC - regardless of who shoots it. If someone came into my missions and shot all my rats, I'd tell them "thanks!".
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://vimeo.com/user9887127 Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
373
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 16:27:00 -
[32] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Velicia Tuoro wrote:Assisting people grants jump/dock timers. Keeps resetting until assist stops or original persons timer expires. Hear that? That's the sound of neutral RR alts being sold in a few months. People who field single or small numbers of non-chaining logistics ships like Oneiros and Scimitars to save their asses when they get themselves into stupid fights are going to scream bloody murder. However people who routinely field large numbers of chaining logistics ships as part of fleets aren't going to be affected at all.
Because of the limit number of involved parties and the lack of escalation highsec wars are going to be minimally affected. However, carriers on stations and gangs on gates in lowsec are going to be totally screwed. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
381
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 16:37:00 -
[33] - Quote
Suspect Flag
Sounds fun. Opens the door for smuggling as a profession, flag a contraband player carrying ship when it jumps through a gate and let the players deal with it. Steal the guys stuff and jump the next gate your self - Big game of hot potato with guns.
Criminal Flag
No real change that I can tell
Sec Status
Tags for sec status sounds good. Can start dropping tags from rats and less ISK, could help reduce the faucets by producing something "new", useful and in line with the back story.
Could be expanded into faction standings as well. Turn in tags, also allow tags to be contraband in the appropriate areas, also useful for FW.
The + guys shooting bad guys sounds fun too. Obviously some alt abuse issues to work out, but it could be a time limited thing like only get the bonus once every hour, or once every 15 minutes, the same way it is done for rats.
|
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1157
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 16:41:00 -
[34] - Quote
Karl Planck wrote:nope, just fleet up and meet at a safe And pound dscan for probes if I'm around and have reason to think there are valid targets to be had.
It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
209
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 16:42:00 -
[35] - Quote
Thabiso wrote:If you start going through my backpack on the street to see if anything was worth stealing, I guarentee you there will be repercussions or if I catch you stabbing the tire on my bike there will be consequences. Is that what you tell the TSA agents when they make you take off your shoes to check for explosives? How do I know you're not carrying contraband in that ship of yours?
Thabiso wrote:Also, shooting someone elses NPC should be a punisable offence, you might kill his trigger/trigger drop, which could end farming or prevent a turn-in of mission. I'd be perfectly fine with this change, as long as punishment rights are only limited to the person who received the mission from the agent, and not every neutral in local. |
Thabiso
Merchants of the Golden Goose
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 16:47:00 -
[36] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Thabiso wrote:If you start going through my backpack on the street to see if anything was worth stealing, I guarentee you there will be repercussions or if I catch you stabbing the tire on my bike there will be consequences. Is that what you tell the TSA agents when they make you take off your shoes to check for explosives? How do I know you're not carrying contraband in that ship of yours? Thabiso wrote:Also, shooting someone elses NPC should be a punisable offence, you might kill his trigger/trigger drop, which could end farming or prevent a turn-in of mission. I'd be perfectly fine with this change, as long as punishment rights are only limited to the person who received the mission from the agent, and not every neutral in local.
Why would I complain about police/TSA? Granted I don't like TSA, but they have a government appointed job. It's not your prerogative to check if I'm carrying something dangerous; you are invading private space and thus will be dealt with by me and/or bystanders (fun experiment, go out on the street and put your hand in someones purse and see what happens*)
*Actually don't, real life has real consequences |
Serge Bastana
GWA Corp
270
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 16:51:00 -
[37] - Quote
Tanya Powers wrote:Katrina Oniseki wrote:Okay just to be sure, am I correct in my understanding of the changes to suicide ganking?
Does this mean a single cruiser could spend an hour soloing a freighter in highsec, and only get CONCORDed when the freighter dies (however long that takes)? Sure anyone can shoot me... but how many people are actually going to shoot me instead of help kill that freighter and nab all the loot?
In other words... suicide ganking is gone. You don't even need to gank. Just kill them normally with the understanding that you will die too afterwards. Had same thought than you. Need more information because this looks more like regression than improvement and just replaces actual wardec/gank mechanics for cheaper easier ones? -what's the point?
What it would facilitate is the use of escorts for valuable cargo and mining fleets, anyone taking a shot would become a valid target for the escorts. WoW holds your hand until end game, and gives you a cookie whether you win or lose. EVE not only takes your cookie, but laughs at you for bringing one in the first place... |
Stellar Vix
State War Academy Caldari State
31
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 16:53:00 -
[38] - Quote
Not sure if win for SWA PVP.
Time will tell.
-Vix |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
209
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 16:53:00 -
[39] - Quote
Thabiso wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Thabiso wrote:If you start going through my backpack on the street to see if anything was worth stealing, I guarentee you there will be repercussions or if I catch you stabbing the tire on my bike there will be consequences. Is that what you tell the TSA agents when they make you take off your shoes to check for explosives? How do I know you're not carrying contraband in that ship of yours? Thabiso wrote:Also, shooting someone elses NPC should be a punisable offence, you might kill his trigger/trigger drop, which could end farming or prevent a turn-in of mission. I'd be perfectly fine with this change, as long as punishment rights are only limited to the person who received the mission from the agent, and not every neutral in local. Why would I complain about police/TSA? Granted I don't like TSA, but they have a government appointed job. It's not your prerogative to check if I'm carrying something dangerous; you are invading private space and thus will be dealt with by me and/or bystanders (fun experiment, go out on the street and put your hand in someones purse and see what happens*) *Actually don't, real life has real consequences According to that logic, I should also get flagged to all players after taking a peek, much less firing upon, a Serpentis frigate. |
None ofthe Above
125
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 17:05:00 -
[40] - Quote
Karl Planck wrote:Pak Narhoo wrote:Just know it's still on paper. Nothing hard, nothing coded. Can go anyway from here.
Like a good point: friendly can flipping to have a 1 on 1 fight is out the window with these presumed changes.
nope, just fleet up and meet at a safe
If I could be spared from another massively lame "you take from my can... no you take from my can" spamming of local, this is a very good thing.
Perhaps an actual dueling mechanic, a more personal consensual miniwar dec for good fytes should be considered.
(Not to be interpreted as me advocating making wardecs consensual only, am talking about a dueling mechanic.)
Even None ofthe Above supports Hans Jagerblitzen for CSM7! |
|
Echo Mande
21
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 17:12:00 -
[41] - Quote
I'd like to see killmails in XML with proper references to the extract databases and other sections of the API. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
311
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 17:18:00 -
[42] - Quote
Someone asked about the consensual pvp aspect (1v1s)
They're thinking about it. Possibly like a mini war Dec style FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
bornaa
GRiD.
131
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 17:23:00 -
[43] - Quote
Hurray fo CCP... :D
I love you guys.
Make hi-sec unforgiving for everyone and not only for miners. Help miners because they are really the most ****** party in this game - everyone can kill them for the lol and they cant do anything. How can so much cheaper ship kill so much more $$$$$$$$ ship???
Disclaimer: I am not associated with any mining at all. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
311
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 17:30:00 -
[44] - Quote
Photos from the presentation. I got most of the slides. https://plus.google.com/photos/104420254081686601186/albums/5722733915682028897 FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
knobber Jobbler
Seniors Clan Get Off My Lawn
65
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 17:35:00 -
[45] - Quote
"- Adding "battle reports", stats and details. Who has repped who etc"
Fecking A! Best news all year! Even better than the hybrid buff or Titan nerf! |
Velicia Tuoro
Light Speed Interactive The Mockers AO
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 17:39:00 -
[46] - Quote
Excellent work Steve. Senior Representative Light Speed Interactive http://www.lightspeedinteractive.net |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
312
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 17:44:00 -
[47] - Quote
Would be nice if they released the presemtations too. Might not be completely explanatory, but better than my photography. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Caellach Marellus
Nephtys Ventures inc
459
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 17:51:00 -
[48] - Quote
Katrina Oniseki wrote:Okay just to be sure, am I correct in my understanding of the changes to suicide ganking?
Does this mean a single cruiser could spend an hour soloing a freighter in highsec, and only get CONCORDed when the freighter dies (however long that takes)? Sure anyone can shoot me... but how many people are actually going to shoot me instead of help kill that freighter and nab all the loot?
In other words... suicide ganking is gone. You don't even need to gank. Just kill them normally with the understanding that you will die too afterwards.
Nabbing all the loot will get you a flag to everyone, so that cuts down the number of people that will sit on the sidelines (IE everyone not in a blockade runner)
This will put off anyone who missions in pimpfits though. Enjoy your gaming.
http://northern-goblin.blogspot.com |
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
64
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 18:01:00 -
[49] - Quote
RR also grabs aggression. Biggest change so far and much needed. Suspect = much easier for can flippers to gank. I approve KMs for self destructing and battle reports and more stats. No way are we getting battle reports, that's gonna take a long time but KMs for self destructing I figure we'll get easily. Being able to see timers. About friggin time Tags for sec status. Hooray. Gonna make a mint off of this. Hey everybody come kill my 5 -10 alts for free sec gain, hooray. Concord replaced by an instant beam of death? Cripes wtf is this. No.
Pretty bland powerpoint if ya ask me. No punkturis presenting = boring imo. |
Psychotic Monk
The Skunkworks
164
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 18:11:00 -
[50] - Quote
I see some exploitable flaws in killing low sec-status dudes for status. Not that that makes me against it. Just don't be suprised when I abuse it. But I also see it generating fights as white knights chase dudes like me around. I am all for this.
The logistics thing: About. *******. Time. Someone mentioned that this probably won't effect the outfits that use a large gang of logi, but I disagree. It won't effect them as much, certainly, but it's definatly a help. And besides, a large gang of logi is a numerical advantage, which is a pretty core concept in gaining advantage in eve.
Some of these make me think that Eve might be worth playing again soon.
As always, I won't believe we're eating unicorn until there's glitter on my fork, though. |
|
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
296
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 18:15:00 -
[51] - Quote
ITT:
Confirmation of the pussification of EVE for fluffy little carebears, and confirmation that carebears crying because thyey refuse to learn simple mechanics, then get urp-sploded because of same = getting what they want.
I do like the aggro-flagging for neutral RR (If I'm reading all this correctly, anyway). That asshattery needs to be put to bed, at last.
In irae, veritas. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
893
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 18:27:00 -
[52] - Quote
Velicia Tuoro wrote: Safe log off. Didn't understand that but sounded like somewhat of logging off, but being able to see your timers.
- Safe Logoff is "I can tell my client to go through the motions of logging out without actually closing the client, and it will tell me when I'm actually removed from space so I'm not just closing the client and crossing my fingers".
Destiny Corrupted wrote: So you're basically saying that they're deviating from their course of gradually removing pvp from high-sec by removing it entirely in one fell swoop? Even a can flip duel will no longer be viable?
Can-flipping as-is will be impossible once the safeties are added. People should be able to choose to do dumb things, but they should also have the information they need to figure out that the thing they're doing is dumb.
Duelling we're planning to support with an explicit mechanic rather than the current hacky workaround.
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote: Wait...so I can shoot someone without being concorded now? But can flipping carries the same penalty as actually firing on someone? I don't know whether to laugh maniacally or cry.
edit: This is going to have a chilling effect on everyone but the can flippers who are out looking for a fight. Also, this is going to encourage the use of NPC corp alts, when that behavior should be discouraged.
Not 100% sure what I actually put on the slides, but in the final implementation aggressing someone in hisec illegally will get you a criminal flag straight off the bat.
Liang Nuren wrote:
So... it will soon be impossible to deagress with logistics on the field. That's... interesting.
Yeah, that's a dumb I made on the slide. Assistance will cause you to inherit the assistee's timer, with the current amount of time they have left on it. If you're only assisting and not shooting, it'll always be the case that you'll deagress on the same second as the person you're giving assistance to.
|
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
893
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 18:28:00 -
[53] - Quote
Velicia Tuoro wrote:Liang Nuren wrote: Any news on the return of Flashy Flashy?
This was asked in the questions section. CCP Greyscale admitted it was his request to remove that. It was down to them not being a threat in high sec. (unless they are going to gank...) It didn't seem like they were going to add it back.
The exact reasoning was that flashy people are people who can legally kill you, and a -10 is probably a threat (and thus red background) but is not free to agress (therefore not flashy).
Echo Mande wrote:I'd like to see killmails in XML with proper references to the extract databases and other sections of the API.
On our to-do list.
Psychotic Monk wrote:I see some exploitable flaws in killing low sec-status dudes for status. Not that that makes me against it. Just don't be suprised when I abuse it. But I also see it generating fights as white knights chase dudes like me around. I am all for this.
Current plan is that the bonus you get for killing someone is halved for every time you've previously killed that person in the last 28 days, with the "halved" subject to further balancing. That should prevent at least the most obvious exploit cases. |
|
Kyle Yanowski
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 18:32:00 -
[54] - Quote
Tanya Powers wrote:Actually if some of those changes leads to genocide all neutral alts/jams/boosters: awesome and needed
Being rewarded for killing criminals in high sec is common sense, it's the risk vs reward and the consequence of a choice, and criminals have nothing to do in HIGH SEC, their place is in low/null sec because it's the consequence of their choice of shooting everything just because they can. I'm am not convinced if those changes are implemented that those high sec players that don't know other game play style than abuse game fail mechanics will ever move to low/null sec, the main reason being that those are the most risk averse player type you'll ever find in Eve. Expect hundreds pages and threads of ragequit crap.
Faction criminals being pursued by faction Police, get flagged and killed scrammed etc this seems fair enough to me: action = consequence
Well, those are just some lines of what has been told by some devs. This means they acknowledge the benefit of those needed changes or at least the downside of actual ones. I'm not na+»f so I'm happy this has been told by them, but do I believe it will be implemented? -not really.
So far seems a good fanfest.
Agreed. On all accounts. |
Kyle Yanowski
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 18:44:00 -
[55] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:ITT:
Confirmation of the pussification of EVE for fluffy little carebears, and confirmation that carebears crying because thyey refuse to learn simple mechanics, then get urp-sploded because of same = getting what they want.
I do like the aggro-flagging for neutral RR (If I'm reading all this correctly, anyway). That asshattery needs to be put to bed, at last.
Are you kidding me? Gawd forbid we give the fluffy little carebears some tools to actually fight back against the cowards that hide behind a veil of safety, scanning cargo with impunity in Jita, and then attacking from the shadows. Looks like some jobs will be a bit tougher to pull off.
Mate, you need a reality check. |
Terazul
The Scope Gallente Federation
26
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 18:49:00 -
[56] - Quote
YES.
It was SO STUPID that people could freely grab my tags and loot without consequence unless I, *PERSONALLY*, enforced the freakin' law (which just makes no freakin' sense - they're THIEVES. Why do *I* have to kill them personally?!). Now I can actively hunt those people down freely in a ship that's actually fit for PvP! So much win.
Of course, it would be even more win if missions were changed to favor fits that actually work in PvP, so I could mission in low-sec and still have a chance to fight back against my aggressors (as opposed to the current situation where mission fits are completely incompatible with PvP). I hope that's a thing that happens... eventually. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
374
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 18:53:00 -
[57] - Quote
Psychotic Monk wrote:The logistics thing: About. *******. Time. Someone mentioned that this probably won't effect the outfits that use a large gang of logi, but I disagree. It won't effect them as much, certainly, but it's definatly a help. And besides, a large gang of logi is a numerical advantage, which is a pretty core concept in gaining advantage in eve. Like I said, the people it will effect are the stupid people who use logistics as a get out of jail free card for when they misjudge the strength of their opposition rather than as an integral part of their fleet composition.
So obviously God Squad are going to get utterly destroyed, constantly. |
Velicia Tuoro
Light Speed Interactive The Mockers AO
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 18:53:00 -
[58] - Quote
Thanks for clarifying stuff CCP Greyscale! Senior Representative Light Speed Interactive http://www.lightspeedinteractive.net |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Ev0ke
162
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 19:03:00 -
[59] - Quote
Hey greyscale, anything on Bountyhunting and maybe transferable killrights? |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
177
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 19:03:00 -
[60] - Quote
I'll reserve judgement on whether this is another giant leap towards turning EVE into space WoW after I've heard what they have planned for Wardecs.
The RR stuff is good, and the KM stuff is ok, but the rest seems pretty terrible. |
|
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
497
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 19:06:00 -
[61] - Quote
CCP Greyscale, lower the basket to just above the knees. Dumb it down and just make easier like all the other MMO's out there.
Really, losers get their killmail for self destruct cause somehow two minutes isn't enough time to break a tank provided you brought enough DPS in the first place, you are just dumbing down the game to even more levels of stupid so the players will always feel like a winner and not even trying to succeed in the first place. Might as well let PVE ships get flagged to avoid PVP and be immune to combat. Here this logic: Mission runners are at such an obvious disadvantage with PVE active tanks, those silly dumb ******* are as a big loser as the PVP pilot that can't break a tank in 2 minutes. So, by that logic...PVE ships should be immune because they lose automaticly as their tank can't hold up to PVP guns (exact opposite, one's tank is so thick 2 minutes is enough while the other is so thin it dies really fast). Really, both losers should get someone that would make them happy.
Oh wait, isn't self destruct considered griefing? Griefing is allowed...wait not in the case of Self destruct. Make it simple, all forms of grief is bannable offense as a broad answer to include everything.
Your sarcasm detecors should of blown up from this post. |
Rukia Taika
Allied Operations Jokers Wild.
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 19:16:00 -
[62] - Quote
If i remember correctly CCP was going to do something about the High Sec ganking. well i like this answer i know many miners will be ecstatic over this when the change happens and they will giggle like little school girls over the scum of the universe crying like little boys who just got their butt kicked on the playground.
I can see why they are going to be implementing this and not with the current situation in the game but we will be getting ALOT of new blood when NEXON joins the party which i do believe is late April not too sure exactly but we know this will not be implemented by then. If it is i will have a heart attackl question what happened to Hilmar seeing that this is out of CCP scopes of implementing before scheduled time.
Have fun kids |
Mutnin
SQUIDS.
136
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 19:17:00 -
[63] - Quote
Velicia Tuoro wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote: 1. Player A takes Player B's can 2. Players C-Z are now able to aggress Player A, who can only retaliate
That is how I interpreted it.
That's a pretty stupid move by CCP if this is the case. While I agree with the logistics need to be given aggression and "should" show up on KMs, but can flipping giving aggro to all is certainly not needed. However would be funny to see all the loot stealing ***** @ jita 4-4 getting popped by the dozen. Assuming it carried over to wrecks as well.
Overall sounds like CCP dumbing down the game once again. |
prolix travail
Blue Mountain Trails
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 19:17:00 -
[64] - Quote
These safeties i took to mean pop-ups like we get now for jumping into lowsec the first time or stealing from someones can; they can turned off and reset as we feel.
If that's the case then great but please make them able to be turned off, unlike the the current 'you are engaged in combat' box when trying to undock.
Give us the choice to have them or not, and while in that code area, add that functionality for the 'you are engagted in combat' box. It's a strange choice to make the pvp experiance worse in a sandbox, pvp orientated game.
If safeties aren't that and i got it totally wrong ignore the above, here's a video about a duck:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtN1YnoL46Q |
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
271
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 19:19:00 -
[65] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Psychotic Monk wrote:I see some exploitable flaws in killing low sec-status dudes for status. Not that that makes me against it. Just don't be suprised when I abuse it. But I also see it generating fights as white knights chase dudes like me around. I am all for this. Current plan is that the bonus you get for killing someone is halved for every time you've previously killed that person in the last 28 days, with the "halved" subject to further balancing. That should prevent at least the most obvious exploit cases. What about killing newly created alts characters? Might need a limiter on killed char age also.
p.s. What's happening with delayed local? |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
455
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 19:25:00 -
[66] - Quote
*sigh*
I don't get it. So if I want to gank a freighter in high sec I can just find one and attack and kill it and I won't get hit by concord until it's dead? Is that correct?
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
1343
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 19:25:00 -
[67] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Velicia Tuoro wrote:Assisting people grants jump/dock timers. Keeps resetting until assist stops or original persons timer expires. Hear that? That's the sound of neutral RR alts being sold in a few months. Velicia Tuoro wrote:New "suspect" flag - Minor crimes. Anyone can shoot you without penalty. - Flipping a can for example - Shooting someone makes you a suspect (I think) Wait...so I can shoot someone without being concorded now? But can flipping carries the same penalty as actually firing on someone? I don't know whether to laugh maniacally or cry. edit: This is going to have a chilling effect on everyone but the can flippers who are out looking for a fight. Also, this is going to encourage the use of NPC corp alts, when that behavior should be discouraged. Velicia Tuoro wrote:Criminal Flag - Is like current GCC - Killing someone makes you a criminal - Some sort of buff/tweak for concord? Insta-death, rather than ships - Appear to have not considered high sec delays due to system security status. - Considering warp scram ray, then death ray in x secs afterwards. Terrible. Keep Concord but buff them to prevent long-term evasion. They're a great part of the RP lore and getting rid of them just so the developers can be lazy is sad. Velicia Tuoro wrote: - Killmails for self destructing This makes me happy.
Don't get sucked in. It's going to be rumor city for at least a week and the trolls will be out in force.
I will believe this stuff when I see it.
|
Serene Repose
Perkone Caldari State
376
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 19:30:00 -
[68] - Quote
Ooooh, I'm intrigued. More than intrigued. I'm almost...thrilled!
I've never objected to piracy as such. Wannabee a pirate? Live like a pirate.
No more coddling by "game mechanics." Time to take real risks.
Smokestack lightnin' shinin' just like gold. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
898
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 19:30:00 -
[69] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:Hey greyscale, anything on Bountyhunting and maybe transferable killrights?
Out of scope for this project, sorry.
prolix travail wrote:These safeties i took to mean pop-ups like we get now for jumping into lowsec the first time or stealing from someones can; they can turned off and reset as we feel. If that's the case then great but please make them able to be turned off, unlike the the current 'you are engaged in combat' box when trying to undock. Give us the choice to have them or not, and while in that code area, add that functionality for the 'you are engagted in combat' box. It's a strange choice to make the pvp experiance worse in a sandbox, pvp orientated game. If safeties aren't that and i got it totally wrong ignore the above, here's a video about a duck: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtN1YnoL46Q
Safeties are something you have to explicitly set to "off" *before* you can engage in any illegal activities. If your safeties are on, you can't do illegal stuff, and it'll likely just give you an error saying "hey, your safeties are on, go turn them off". (Explicitly *not* giving you "yet another warning box that people mindlessly click "yes" on because we show so many of them that a lot of people don't just read them).
The flipside should be that, if you're going out ganking, you can turn them off the second you undock and not think about them again.
Razin wrote:What about killing newly created alts characters? Might need a limiter on killed char age also.
p.s. What's happening with delayed local?
If it becomes an issue, sure, but we're hoping that it'll be more trouble than it's worth to create a bunch of alts, have them drive their sec down and then kill them one by one.
Gogela wrote:*sigh*
I don't get it. So if I want to gank a freighter in high sec I can just find one and attack and kill it and I won't get hit by concord until it's dead? Is that correct?
Nope, see my above clarification. |
|
Cailais
Rekall Incorporated Sinewave Alliance
230
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 19:36:00 -
[70] - Quote
Whilst Ill wait until there's a detailed dev blog, for the most part these changes look really good. Id be really interested to see if they are expanded into the smuggling system.
C.
|
|
Varesk
Mafia Redux Black Legion.
36
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 19:46:00 -
[71] - Quote
Velicia Tuoro wrote:Did I miss anything important?
Sec Status - Kill someone while a suspect will only take you to -5 - Pod killing will take you below -5 to -10 - Killing someone with positive +5 gives you hit - Killing someone with a negative sec gives you bonus - Hand in tags for sec boost up to +5. Less effect if you are -5. - Fixing rat spawns after downtime. - -5 can be killed without penalty in low sec. - Something about -5 in high sec being pursued.
If i am reading this correctly. One ship kill in high sec will take you to -5, one pod kill will take you to -5 to -10?
|
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
455
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 19:46:00 -
[72] - Quote
What is meant by "officer/commander" tags? Is it only the named officers like Estamel, Gotan, and Thon or do you get some positive bumper for navy or pirate tags? What are we talking about here... will I be able to buy my way out of a -10?
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
899
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 19:48:00 -
[73] - Quote
Varesk wrote:Velicia Tuoro wrote:Did I miss anything important?
Sec Status - Kill someone while a suspect will only take you to -5 - Pod killing will take you below -5 to -10 - Killing someone with positive +5 gives you hit - Killing someone with a negative sec gives you bonus - Hand in tags for sec boost up to +5. Less effect if you are -5. - Fixing rat spawns after downtime. - -5 can be killed without penalty in low sec. - Something about -5 in high sec being pursued.
If i am reading this correctly. One ship kill in high sec will take you to -5, one pod kill will take you to -5 to -10?
Those are the lowest sec values those crimes can get you to, not the value you go to on the first crime
Gogela wrote:What is meant by "officer/commander" tags? Is it only the named officers like Estamel, Gotan, and Thon or do you get some positive bumper for navy or pirate tags? What are we talking about here... will I be able to buy my way out of a -10?
Officers are Estamel, Thon et al. Commanders are Dread Guristas, Dark Bloods, True Sanshas etc. Yes, you'll be able to buy your way up, but we'll probably balance it so that it's gonna cost you |
|
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
53
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 19:50:00 -
[74] - Quote
Haven't had time to watch the presentation yet, but I'm wondering (really, really really, hoping!!!) if the sec status hit for fighting in low sec is also being lowered? |
Varesk
Mafia Redux Black Legion.
36
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 19:51:00 -
[75] - Quote
So losing sec stat will become easier to do with the new can flipping nerf, can you buff sec stat gain? |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
455
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 19:52:00 -
[76] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Those are the lowest sec values those crimes can get you to, not the value you go to on the first crime Gogela wrote:What is meant by "officer/commander" tags? Is it only the named officers like Estamel, Gotan, and Thon or do you get some positive bumper for navy or pirate tags? What are we talking about here... will I be able to buy my way out of a -10? Officers are Estamel, Thon et al. Commanders are Dread Guristas, Dark Bloods, True Sanshas etc. Yes, you'll be able to buy your way up, but we'll probably balance it so that it's gonna cost you I will pay!!!! That's awesome
*In Jita buying tags now...
|
prolix travail
Blue Mountain Trails
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 19:53:00 -
[77] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Safeties are something you have to explicitly set to "off" *before* you can engage in any illegal activities. If your safeties are on, you can't do illegal stuff, and it'll likely just give you an error saying "hey, your safeties are on, go turn them off". (Explicitly *not* giving you "yet another warning box that people mindlessly click "yes" on because we show so many of them that a lot of people don't just read them).
The flipside should be that, if you're going out ganking, you can turn them off the second you undock and not think about them again.
Thanks for clearing that up so fast
Could you also comment on the 'you are engaged in combat' dialog box that doesn't have the option to turn it off? I.e will it also be granted the usefulness of being turned off should a player not want it?
|
Cristl
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 19:55:00 -
[78] - Quote
Noob alts could POD other noob alts and drop sec very quickly.
Need to iron out the loopholes carefully here |
Kaeda Maxwell
Black Rebel Rifter Club
73
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 19:56:00 -
[79] - Quote
So I went to the round table for this afterwards and got the distinct impression that they are in fact trying to make noob griefing a little harder (and they didn't really attempt to deny it).
HOWEVER I also got he impression after I voiced some concerns regarding the ability to defend myself if I acquire the new suspect status in highsec (and ALL people can then shoot me as consequence) that they're still very much working on the details of stuff like how aggression towards neutrals that then come in to shoot you is going to work.
Anyways the important bit is that while I do believe they're aiming to make hisec safer that it's not the intent to destoy hisec PvP and that they are still very much open to good ideas.
/me leaves 2 cents here |
Velicia Tuoro
Light Speed Interactive The Mockers AO
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 19:58:00 -
[80] - Quote
Much appreciated! Senior Representative Light Speed Interactive http://www.lightspeedinteractive.net |
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
386
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 20:12:00 -
[81] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: Current plan is that the bonus you get for killing someone is halved for every time you've previously killed that person in the last 28 days, with the "halved" subject to further balancing. That should prevent at least the most obvious exploit cases.
Need a time delay in there as well, such as 15-30 minutes between possible reward. |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
455
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 20:18:00 -
[82] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: Current plan is that the bonus you get for killing someone is halved for every time you've previously killed that person in the last 28 days, with the "halved" subject to further balancing. That should prevent at least the most obvious exploit cases.
Need a time delay in there as well, such as 15-30 minutes between possible reward. I don't think time is a big factor. We've proven we have time.
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
386
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 20:21:00 -
[83] - Quote
Gogela wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: Current plan is that the bonus you get for killing someone is halved for every time you've previously killed that person in the last 28 days, with the "halved" subject to further balancing. That should prevent at least the most obvious exploit cases.
Need a time delay in there as well, such as 15-30 minutes between possible reward. I don't think time is a big factor. We've proven we have time.
It'll be a factor when an entire alliance gets their alts out for everyone to shoot |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
314
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 20:25:00 -
[84] - Quote
Now that I've got time, and a proper keyboard, some comments:
Refactoring Crimewatch, and tearing it into little uncommected pieces is a very good thing. While it may, initially, create more bugs, it will be /significantly/ easier to debug. And new changes are less likely to cause unforeseen consequences.
The suspect and criminal flagging. As long as there's a decent consensual PvP method, rather than can flipping, this also looks good.
Do something 'illegal' and you're no longer protected by Concord. Do something very illegal, and you're going to be popped.
What wasn't in the slides, but was said, was the Concord battleship alternative 'deathray' idea, might not be instakill, on very illegal activity. Might be a warp scram ray, then the death ray a few seconds later. So yes, you can't belt hop one step ahead of concord for a second kill. But you have the same chance otherwise of killing stuff.
The ability to just buy sec status is a nice one. As well as the new ways to earn it. It'll need careful balancing, to prevent farming, but there's only so much farming that can be done. Recycling alts with low sec status is an exploit (if it's just because of the sec status), so there'll already be something in place to watch for it. I'd hope, at least. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
455
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 20:32:00 -
[85] - Quote
I just got 5000 tags. Them prices are going up already.
|
Tetragammatron Prime
Pink Sockers
26
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 20:36:00 -
[86] - Quote
RR giving dock/jump timer is just another buff for the blobs. Make it high sec only imo. Pirate take sentry aggro...isn't that enough? If no then how about increase logi hp or insurance payout? |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
298
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 20:40:00 -
[87] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:
[...]
Can-flipping as-is will be impossible once the safeties are added. People should be able to choose to do dumb things, but they should also have the information they need to figure out that the thing they're doing is dumb.
Duelling we're planning to support with an explicit mechanic rather than the current hacky workaround.
[...]
Thank you for confirming what I have long suspected.
-3 accounts soonish I'm thinking, this is a complete ******* farce, even by the standards of CCP.
WoW does WoW better than EVE ever has or will, why can't you get this through your head, and stop trying to make EVE, WoW?
In irae, veritas. |
Terazul
The Scope Gallente Federation
28
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 20:42:00 -
[88] - Quote
Lawl, you don't even know how PvP works in WoW, do you?
For that matter, you can still be a douchebag in high-sec with the current proposal. You just can't do so without consequences (GASP OHMIGAWD SO SCARY).
But seriously? There's always low- and null-sec, those aren't going away anytime soon. And again, noob retention is kind of a big deal. So deal with it! |
J3ssica Alba
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
158
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 20:43:00 -
[89] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:
[...]
Can-flipping as-is will be impossible once the safeties are added. People should be able to choose to do dumb things, but they should also have the information they need to figure out that the thing they're doing is dumb.
Duelling we're planning to support with an explicit mechanic rather than the current hacky workaround.
[...]
Thank you for confirming what I have long suspected. -3 accounts soonish I'm thinking, this is a complete ******* farce, even by the standards of CCP. WoW does WoW better than EVE ever has, will, or even can (try building in a PvE component that isn't an archaic, tedious joke, first) why can't you get this through your head, and stop trying to make EVE, WoW?
Obligatory, your stuff can I haz? To the whiners :-áCCP Soundwave "Incursions are not a big issue in terms of isk globally" CCP Recurve "However, Incursions are not the biggest ISK faucet, bounties are"
|
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
455
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 20:45:00 -
[90] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:
[...]
Can-flipping as-is will be impossible once the safeties are added. People should be able to choose to do dumb things, but they should also have the information they need to figure out that the thing they're doing is dumb.
Duelling we're planning to support with an explicit mechanic rather than the current hacky workaround.
[...]
Thank you for confirming what I have long suspected. -3 accounts soonish I'm thinking, this is a complete ******* farce, even by the standards of CCP. WoW does WoW better than EVE ever has, will, or even can (try building in a PvE component that isn't an archaic, tedious joke, first) why can't you get this through your head, and stop trying to make EVE, WoW? Wait... what are you complaining about? The only people who will be annoyed by this are high sec can flippers... and I don't really see how this changes that much, other when you jack a can everyone can shoot at you. That's probably the way it should have been anyway. It won't deter the ninja looters, I can tell you that.
|
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
314
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 20:46:00 -
[91] - Quote
If you steal from them, then they shoot you, you'll be able to shoot back. All this will do is:
A: Allow everyone else to shoot you. B: 'stop' people stealing back from you, without understanding the consequences (because people are stupid)
You'll just turn off your safties, and not be bothered.
Of course, this introduces the fun concept of a bouncer on the asteroid belt. You steal from someone's can, they try to blow you up. More PvP FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
299
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 20:46:00 -
[92] - Quote
Terazul wrote:Lawl, you don't even know how PvP works in WoW, do you? For that matter, you can still be a douchebag in high-sec with the current proposal. You just can't do so without consequences (GASP OHMIGAWD SO SCARY). But seriously? There's always low- and null-sec, those aren't going away anytime soon. And again, noob retention is kind of a big deal. So deal with it!
There are consequences to ganking/PvP in hisec.
I don't give a flying **** about WoW: I just know that this is dividing the sandbox along explicit lines whilst, apparently, eliminating options, which is not what a sandbox is supposed to be.
Teaching noobs how to work in the sandbox starting with a revamped NPE, instead of just giving them a mining gun, a civi gun, and teaching them how to shoot red crosses or rocks with nothing about mechanics, is how you build a good, long-term EVE player who "gets it."
But can't have that, when we can just break things already broken even further, now can we.
In irae, veritas. |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
299
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 20:48:00 -
[93] - Quote
Gogela wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:
[...]
Can-flipping as-is will be impossible once the safeties are added. People should be able to choose to do dumb things, but they should also have the information they need to figure out that the thing they're doing is dumb.
Duelling we're planning to support with an explicit mechanic rather than the current hacky workaround.
[...]
Thank you for confirming what I have long suspected. -3 accounts soonish I'm thinking, this is a complete ******* farce, even by the standards of CCP. WoW does WoW better than EVE ever has, will, or even can (try building in a PvE component that isn't an archaic, tedious joke, first) why can't you get this through your head, and stop trying to make EVE, WoW? Wait... what are you complaining about? The only people who will be annoyed by this are high sec can flippers... and I don't really see how this changes that much, other when you jack a can everyone can shoot at you. That's probably the way it should have been anyway. It won't deter the ninja looters, I can tell you that.
Quite right, and it wouldn't deter me, either (might just go ninja-salvaging again, at that.).
But this is drawing a line in the sand of the box, as it were...That's not a good thing, in a sandbox MMO. In irae, veritas. |
Akrasjel Lanate
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
656
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 20:49:00 -
[94] - Quote
Meh |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
299
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 20:50:00 -
[95] - Quote
J3ssica Alba wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:
[...]
Can-flipping as-is will be impossible once the safeties are added. People should be able to choose to do dumb things, but they should also have the information they need to figure out that the thing they're doing is dumb.
Duelling we're planning to support with an explicit mechanic rather than the current hacky workaround.
[...]
Thank you for confirming what I have long suspected. -3 accounts soonish I'm thinking, this is a complete ******* farce, even by the standards of CCP. WoW does WoW better than EVE ever has, will, or even can (try building in a PvE component that isn't an archaic, tedious joke, first) why can't you get this through your head, and stop trying to make EVE, WoW? Obligatory, your stuff can I haz?
I didn't explicitly say I was going-dark, just that I'm much more seriously considering it than at any time since the Incarna debacle.
And if I do, then my stuffs go to friends, sorry. In irae, veritas. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
378
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 20:53:00 -
[96] - Quote
I consistently get the impression that changes to highsec gameplay are made without anyone in the process having the foggiest idea about what actually happens in highsec. |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
455
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 20:55:00 -
[97] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Quite right, and it wouldn't deter me, either (might just go ninja-salvaging again, at that.).
But this is drawing a line in the sand of the box, as it were...That's not a good thing, in a sandbox MMO. Meh... I wouldn't get too worked up just yet. Lets wait and see what the new wardec system will look like.
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
315
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 20:56:00 -
[98] - Quote
Only option this is really eliminating is the risk free ganking of a noob in a mining ship.
It is opening up other options, say:
A missioning fleet from multiple corps, dealing with a ninja looter (who, let's be fair) isn't really there for the loot. 'anti pirates', not losing sec status when going after pirate in lowsec.
And /significantly/ cleaner code. Which is always something to strive for. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1163
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 20:56:00 -
[99] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Can-flipping as-is will be impossible once the safeties are added. People should be able to choose to do dumb things, but they should also have the information they need to figure out that the thing they're doing is dumb. I want to clarify here: when I'm racing another explorer in a Gurista Scout Outpost and he pops the tower, will I be able to steal the loot from the can at the risk of him engaging me?
Because if you break that mechanic, you've taken away something that was JUST FINE.
And if someone wants to whine about how it's not fair that I took from "their" can, what about the fact that I did 90% of the damage in room 1 to unlock the gate and they just got lucky and landed the final blow on the tower?
There's a lot more to consider here than "that's my can because I shot that rat". It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
Geoscape
Dust-ball Corporation
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 20:58:00 -
[100] - Quote
Did ccp mention anything about adding fleet boosters to killmails as assisting party? |
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
315
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:00:00 -
[101] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Can-flipping as-is will be impossible once the safeties are added. People should be able to choose to do dumb things, but they should also have the information they need to figure out that the thing they're doing is dumb. I want to clarify here: when I'm racing another explorer in a Gurista Scout Outpost and he pops the tower, will I be able to steal the loot from the can at the risk of him engaging me? Because if you break that mechanic, you've taken away something that was JUST FINE.
At the risk of him, and everyone else, for the length of the timer, engaging you. Pretty much like Low-sec. Concord won't give a damn. As long as you turn off the safety that stops you stealing.
That's the 'misdemeanors' level, which would suspect flag you.
'Felony' level stuff has concord.
Basically, if it'd currently flag you for aggression to another player, it flags you for all. If it would get Concord after you, it still will FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
455
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:01:00 -
[102] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Can-flipping as-is will be impossible once the safeties are added. People should be able to choose to do dumb things, but they should also have the information they need to figure out that the thing they're doing is dumb. I want to clarify here: when I'm racing another explorer in a Gurista Scout Outpost and he pops the tower, will I be able to steal the loot from the can at the risk of him engaging me? Because if you break that mechanic, you've taken away something that was JUST FINE. And if someone wants to whine about how it's not fair that I took from "their" can, what about the fact that I did 90% of the damage in room 1 to unlock the gate and they just got lucky and landed the final blow on the tower? There's a lot more to consider here than "that's my can because I shot that rat". You can loot from the can but you will get the new medium security flag meaning any players can engage you, not just the owner of the can, if I understand correctly.
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
315
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:01:00 -
[103] - Quote
Geoscape wrote:Did ccp mention anything about adding fleet boosters to killmails as assisting party?
Even better. They were talking about battle reports. It'll take a while as the backend logging needs done, but yes. Everything that affects the battle will be there. Booster, RR, all that good stuff.
And it should be available to all involved. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
299
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:01:00 -
[104] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:I consistently get the impression that changes to highsec gameplay are made without anyone in the process having the foggiest idea about what actually happens in highsec.
^^This^^
Not least of all, those who are supposed to be senior devs?
Greyscale, do you even play this game? And if so, then do you understand at all what "sandbox MMO" really means?
In irae, veritas. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1163
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:06:00 -
[105] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:At the risk of him, and everyone else, for the length of the timer, engaging you. Pretty much like Low-sec. Concord won't give a damn. As long as you turn off the safety that stops you stealing.
That's the 'misdemeanors' level, which would suspect flag you.
'Felony' level stuff has concord.
Basically, if it'd currently flag you for aggression to another player, it flags you for all. If it would get Concord after you, it still will So...good loot AND more chance of combat? Sign me up. I can evade the world for 15 minutes if I have to. It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
Immortis Vexx
Lupus Draconis Dragehund
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:11:00 -
[106] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:At the risk of him, and everyone else, for the length of the timer, engaging you. Pretty much like Low-sec. Concord won't give a damn. As long as you turn off the safety that stops you stealing.
That's the 'misdemeanors' level, which would suspect flag you.
'Felony' level stuff has concord.
Basically, if it'd currently flag you for aggression to another player, it flags you for all. If it would get Concord after you, it still will So...good loot AND more chance of combat? Sign me up. I can evade the world for 15 minutes if I have to.
Yes because noob cans have such good loot. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
378
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:13:00 -
[107] - Quote
Making people be globally flagged with aggression for stealing will be a bad mechanic that people (me) will be able to exploit the hell out of. I mean seriously, it doesn't even seem to be intended to fix any kind of problem and the current system of flagging people to corporations is totally fine.
But whatever I'm going to be able to kill huge numbers of newbies with this. |
Shandir
Ferocious Felines
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:16:00 -
[108] - Quote
Can you make sure that drones don't accidentally flag you against someone who is a 'suspect/criminal' nearby, even if they attack you?
Quote: Making people be globally flagged with aggression for stealing will be a bad mechanic that people (me) will be able to exploit the hell out of. I mean seriously, it doesn't even seem to be intended to fix any kind of problem and the current system of flagging people to corporations is totally fine.
But whatever I'm going to be able to kill huge numbers of newbies with this.
"There are 'sploits, but I won't tell you what they are" ? |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
379
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:17:00 -
[109] - Quote
That's called setting your drones to passive. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
315
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:18:00 -
[110] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Making people be globally flagged with aggression for stealing will be a bad mechanic that people (me) will be able to exploit the hell out of. I mean seriously, it doesn't even seem to be intended to fix any kind of problem and the current system of flagging people to corporations is totally fine.
But whatever I'm going to be able to kill huge numbers of newbies with this.
What it's fixing is the hideous mess which is aggression flagging.
Specifically: https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/104420254081686601186/albums/5722733915682028897/5722734017708718338
It also allows for far simpler code. Which should help with lag issues.
The main downside I can see, is a reduction in Incursion bear tears, because they're less likely to pickup a GCC in a Logi chain. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
|
Shandir
Ferocious Felines
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:18:00 -
[111] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:That's called setting your drones to passive.
Yes, because missions and PvP should have the same settings. That's logical. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
379
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:23:00 -
[112] - Quote
Shandir wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:That's called setting your drones to passive. Yes, because missions and PvP should have the same settings. That's logical. Heaven forfend that you should ever manually do anything while carebearing. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1163
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:24:00 -
[113] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:The main downside I can see, is a reduction in Incursion bear tears, because they're less likely to pickup a GCC in a Logi chain. CCP seems hell bent on keeping us from doing anything like that ever again. Oh well, we had two good runs of it :) It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
Hoshi
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:32:00 -
[114] - Quote
Those safety switches, please make sure to place them so the can be accessed in space without blacking out the whole screen. That means don't put them under options but perhaps somewhere on the character sheet. "Memories are meant to fade. They're designed that way for a reason." |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
387
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:33:00 -
[115] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote: Rant
Perhaps you've misunderstood. Turn the saftey off, and continue as normal. It just won't be a pop up. Instead you have to go into the esc menu and turn it off.
No more anoying AppGlobal Modal Windows - This is a good thing. |
Evei Shard
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:33:00 -
[116] - Quote
I don't see how the flagging changes can flipping at all. Especially in the belts. Unless flippers are raging because their risk free play-style will suddenly have risk involved.
It encourages more PvP, which is what EvE is centered around. HTFU If you can't handle the possibility that someone other than the Retriever pilot might shoot back. HTFU
There have been plenty of comments in various threads about how miners need to protect themselves. How miners need to have an alt sit and protect them in low and null. People were pretty hard ass about all that. Now CCP hints at possibly making that a reality in high-sec, and the tears are a deluge.
If bringing more PvP on a wider scale into high-sec, and if reducing the situations in which Concord responds is "dumbing down" Eve, the biomass button is to the right of your portrait on the login screen. Feel free to use it.
Profit favors the prepared |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
455
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:38:00 -
[117] - Quote
Evei Shard wrote:I don't see how the flagging changes can flipping at all. Especially in the belts. Unless flippers are raging because their risk free play-style will suddenly have risk involved.
It encourages more PvP, which is what EvE is centered around. HTFU If you can't handle the possibility that someone other than the Retriever pilot might shoot back. HTFU
There have been plenty of comments in various threads about how miners need to protect themselves. How miners need to have an alt sit and protect them in low and null. People were pretty hard ass about all that. Now CCP hints at possibly making that a reality in high-sec, and the tears are a deluge.
If bringing more PvP on a wider scale into high-sec, and if reducing the situations in which Concord responds is "dumbing down" Eve, the biomass button is to the right of your portrait on the login screen. Feel free to use it.
This ^
...and in my humble experience the better kind of can flipping is ninja looting player wrecks in low sec. I think it's the most new player friendly and high paying job you can do. It's fun, profitable, and teaches you aggression mechanics. I agree with you completely Evei...
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
379
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:41:00 -
[118] - Quote
Evei Shard wrote:There have been plenty of comments in various threads about how miners need to protect themselves. How miners need to have an alt sit and protect them in low and null. People were pretty hard ass about all that. Now CCP hints at possibly making that a reality in high-sec, and the tears are a deluge. You realise that miners can and fairly often do already do that, right?
Oh wait, you're in an NPC corp so you probably wouldn't know that you get aggression to the entire corp when stealing. |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
299
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:48:00 -
[119] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote: Rant
Perhaps you've misunderstood. Turn the saftey off, and continue as normal. It just won't be a pop up. Instead you have to go into the esc menu and turn it off. No more anoying AppGlobal Modal Windows - This is a good thing.
I hope you're right, mate.
No sarcasm, I'm dead-serious here:
I hope this is indeed, as you say, and I'm hugely misinterpreting this...
But the cynic in me insists otherwise, and it's being very insistent atm, if you get my drift. Not least of all because of all the carebear crying we've been seeing 'round these parts for...oooh, let's say the last 8-10 months. It would seem--again, I pray that I am wrong--that they've built up momentum.
This will prove EVE's undoing if CCP takes what they want to its logical end-point. In irae, veritas. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
557
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:49:00 -
[120] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Razin wrote:What about killing newly created alts characters? Might need a limiter on killed char age also.
p.s. What's happening with delayed local? If it becomes an issue, sure, but we're hoping that it'll be more trouble than it's worth to create a bunch of alts, have them drive their sec down and then kill them one by one. CCP Greyscale, that not what people will do. What they will do is:
Have each corp member create just one or 2 alts, and all corp members take turns killing each others alts. That way the effort to create the alts is spread out over many people. Or;
People will make "Shoot us!" corps full of -10 pilots, and let you shoot them all for a fee. Or;
Two pirate corps will get together and take turns killing each other.
How to fix: Make ship value lost be a determining factor is sec status gain. Yes you could buy your way up, but with proper balancing, it will be expensive. I am running for the CSM. Take a look at my ideas. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
|
Istyn
Tactical Knightmare
89
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:52:00 -
[121] - Quote
I have a question regarding these two slides, if you don't mind, CCP Greyscale:
http://i.imgur.com/I1dGd.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/PEAUZ.jpg
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you gain the suspect flag by say, can flipping someone - if they then shoot you and you defend yourself and blow them up, you then gain a sec hit? That seems a bit odd considering all of space can shoot you - thereby you're either guaranteed to lose a ship or a buttload of sec. The 'all of space can shoot you' bit isn't so bad, leading to more risk on the side of the griefer, but when they gain a sec hit for defending themselves, likely against an overwhelming force, it seems a bit one-sided.
Seems like this would completely destroy the whole ninja salvager gameplay as well as numerous other griefer playstyles.
|
Toshiroma McDiesel
Lupus Draconis Dragehund
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:52:00 -
[122] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Evei Shard wrote:There have been plenty of comments in various threads about how miners need to protect themselves. How miners need to have an alt sit and protect them in low and null. People were pretty hard ass about all that. Now CCP hints at possibly making that a reality in high-sec, and the tears are a deluge. You realise that miners can and fairly often do already do that in highsec, right? Oh wait, you're in an NPC corp so you wouldn't know that you get aggression to the entire corp when stealing. They also aren't reducing the number of situations in which concord responds at all, I don't even know where you're getting that from.
I think what the person you are responding to was talking about something you see in all miner/ganker threads, the idea that you "have someone else there to gank the ganker before/after they gank you". Which in high sec, really doesn't work out well if you do the math, you lose miner and the White Knight, (concord takes him as well as the ganker,) makeing it a double kill for the ganker.
This now makes this a viable option, you kill the miner, his muscle can now get revenge without losing his ship. Think of it as a 15 min transfer of Kill-Rights. The Valdspar is Holy, it must be allowed to float free. Free of lesser rocks that try to clutter it's Holy Path though the Heavens. |
Borun Tal
Border Zone Combat
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 21:58:00 -
[123] - Quote
Mutnin wrote:Velicia Tuoro wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote: 1. Player A takes Player B's can 2. Players C-Z are now able to aggress Player A, who can only retaliate
That is how I interpreted it. That's a pretty stupid move by CCP if this is the case.
Ganking is perfectly OK, but vigilantism isn't? Part of me would love to hear your logic on this, but then it'll be a black hole, I suspect. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
379
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 22:00:00 -
[124] - Quote
When someone suicide ganks a miner they get a GCC timer and can be shot by everyone in system without penalty already. |
Borun Tal
Border Zone Combat
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 22:02:00 -
[125] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Can-flipping as-is will be impossible once the safeties are added. People should be able to choose to do dumb things, but they should also have the information they need to figure out that the thing they're doing is dumb. I want to clarify here: when I'm racing another explorer in a Gurista Scout Outpost and he pops the tower, will I be able to steal the loot from the can at the risk of him engaging me? Because if you break that mechanic, you've taken away something that was JUST FINE. At the risk of him, and everyone else, for the length of the timer, engaging you. Pretty much like Low-sec. Concord won't give a damn. As long as you turn off the safety that stops you stealing. That's the 'misdemeanors' level, which would suspect flag you. 'Felony' level stuff has concord. Basically, if it'd currently flag you for aggression to another player, it flags you for all. If it would get Concord after you, it still will
On a related note, I hope the broken fleet salvage mechanic is fixed before this is implemented, if at all. For example, I'm often fleeted with an alt to do salvage behind me, and if said salvager docks or leaves grid, then returns to continue clean-up, suddenly that alt is a criminal. Clearly a broken mechanic. |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
605
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 22:25:00 -
[126] - Quote
Lawl at all the neutral RR alt tears.
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
316
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 22:29:00 -
[127] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote: Rant
Perhaps you've misunderstood. Turn the saftey off, and continue as normal. It just won't be a pop up. Instead you have to go into the esc menu and turn it off. No more anoying AppGlobal Modal Windows - This is a good thing. I hope you're right, mate. No sarcasm, I'm dead-serious here: I hope this is indeed, as you say, and I'm hugely misinterpreting this... But the cynic in me insists otherwise, and it's being very insistent atm, if you get my drift. Not least of all because of all the carebear crying we've been seeing 'round these parts for...oooh, let's say the last 8-10 months. It would seem--again, I pray that I am wrong--that they've built up momentum. This will prove EVE's undoing if CCP takes what they want to its logical end-point.
Having been there, I can confirm that it is planned as a one off toggle, per safety. They specifically want to avoid the click through because people don't read them.
FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Evei Shard
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
78
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 22:34:00 -
[128] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Evei Shard wrote:There have been plenty of comments in various threads about how miners need to protect themselves. How miners need to have an alt sit and protect them in low and null. People were pretty hard ass about all that. Now CCP hints at possibly making that a reality in high-sec, and the tears are a deluge. You realise that miners can and fairly often do already do that in highsec, right? Oh wait, you're in an NPC corp so you wouldn't know that you get aggression to the entire corp when stealing.
I don't hide the fact that I'm a forum alt. I'll be sure to send you a special notice, if that changes, to avoid confusion.
The mechanics are in place already for a corp, but this opens it up to anyone, corp or not.
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
They also aren't reducing the number of situations in which concord responds at all, I don't even know where you're getting that from.
The following potential changes were listed by the OP:
New "suspect" flag - Minor crimes. Anyone can shoot you without penalty. - Flipping a can for example - Shooting someone makes you a suspect (I think) - Anyone assisting a suspect becomes a suspect - Not sure if gate guns will attack a suspect. Undecided yet.
Criminal Flag - Is like current GCC - Killing someone makes you a criminal - Some sort of buff/tweak for concord? Insta-death, rather than ships - Appear to have not considered high sec delays due to system security status. - Considering warp scram ray, then death ray in x secs afterwards.
Perhaps you are a hardcore industrialist, but current mechanics cause Concord to show up even if you just shoot someone. The potential changes, taken at face value, would change that to Concord only showing up when you kill someone.
Profit favors the prepared |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
316
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 22:40:00 -
[129] - Quote
Shooting someone gives a gcc, like normal. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
894
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 22:43:00 -
[130] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:I don't give a flying **** about WoW: I just know that this is dividing the sandbox along explicit lines whilst, apparently, eliminating options, which is not what a sandbox is supposed to be
Teaching noobs how to work in the sandbox starting with a revamped NPE, instead of just giving them a mining gun, a civi gun, and teaching them how to shoot red crosses or rocks with nothing about mechanics, is how you build a good, long-term EVE player who "gets it."
You don't even point something looking like an argument, you just rabble some sort of brainless rabble everyone around is tired of, and these changes are there to make you finally "get it".
If things are turning this way to make high sec safer, who the focking hell you think pushed way to far the abuse of game mechanics? - once again, your choice always brings back consequences, one day or another and maybe later but not never.
What I'm not getting in some of these new mechanics, probably because available info atm is very light, how are they going to make high sec a better place for starting players and the occasional industrial whatsoever players that choose to stay in high sec after these changes. Different, yes, better I'm not sure at all but I'm missing information.
|
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
390
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 22:44:00 -
[131] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote: But the cynic in me insists otherwise, and it's being very insistent atm, if you get my drift. Not least of all because of all the carebear crying we've been seeing 'round these parts for...oooh, let's say the last 8-10 months. It would seem--again, I pray that I am wrong--that they've built up momentum.
I understand your doubts, but I don't think they'd nerf danger that much. Honestly, I don't think that many "carebears" want to be perfectly safe either. They just want a fighting chance versus being ganked. Ganked PVP isn't much fun, even as the ganker. Sooner or later it gets boring for all involved. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
179
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 22:54:00 -
[132] - Quote
Tanya Powers wrote:once again, your choice always brings back consequences
Where's the consequences for killing faction aligned NPCs? If EVE really took consequences for actions seriously players wouldn't need to play the system to shoot at others in Empire space, the system would support such actions.
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
391
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 22:55:00 -
[133] - Quote
Xorv wrote:Tanya Powers wrote:once again, your choice always brings back consequences
Where's the consequences for killing faction aligned NPCs? If EVE really took consequences for actions seriously players wouldn't need to play the system to shoot at others in Empire space, the system would support such actions.
Go pop a customs agent, see what happens. Make sure to get in really close when you do it. |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1113
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 22:59:00 -
[134] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: Yeah, that's a dumb I made on the slide. Assistance will cause you to inherit the assistee's timer, with the current amount of time they have left on it. If you're only assisting and not shooting, it'll always be the case that you'll deagress on the same second as the person you're giving assistance to.
Thanks for the answer. That's probably an acceptable solution, as long as you fix all the other places that Logis get ****** for being Logis. For instance, taking a GCC and/or faction standings hit for repping a pirate without aggression. :)
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Myxx
Blacklight Incorporated Broken Chains Alliance
499
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 23:07:00 -
[135] - Quote
If highsec becomes safer, they need to tone rewards waaaaaaaaaaaay down, ESPECIALLY for missions and incursions.
and, in my opinion, this is going the wrong way as of current. Highsec is already a bit too safe, and there are a number of strings that should be cut. |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 23:14:00 -
[136] - Quote
People who are complaining about not being able to canflip...they can easily add a way of asking someone to fight you 1 on 1.
They don't have to leave in the complicated stealing makes this able to shoot that but not this but concord will shoot that if it isnt gone in 3 seconds or repping this crap that it currently is.
They want to fix the complexity of the current setup, not stop people from having PvP in hisec, thus they won't refuse to add this sort of feature. Perhaps the agreement would be like "you two can shoot each other but no one can intervene or do anything to help without getting concorded during the duration of this fight".
If either person warped off, the fight declaration would automatically be void. It would have to be a mutual agreement thing, just like can flipping sort of is currently. Also sort of reduces the "gank a noob cause they dont know about agression" thing.
Then again that could be taken advantage of but who knows. |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
456
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 23:37:00 -
[137] - Quote
I just watched the replay HD stream on crimewatch. Everything sounds really good. I'm sold on it. It sounds like code wise they are going for a modular system, so whatever you rage about could theoretically be addressed if it's not stupid. I like everything they talked about. CCP Greyscale made perfect sense. The new system is going to rock if they can just fix the wardec system! Nice work CCP!
|
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd Ferguson Alliance
104
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 23:47:00 -
[138] - Quote
Very mixed bag here.
The neutral RR change is welcome and long overdue.
The 'loads of info' killmails are welcome and long overdue.
The 'show all timers' is welcome and long overdue.
The felony/misdemeanor idea is dumb. The sec status change is dumb. The buying sec status with tags idea is dumb.
Instead of the dumb ones, make it possible to configure your overview so that all people you can legally shoot show up on it and all people you can't shoot don't.
It's like they brainstormed ideas and then didn't filter the dumb ones out. |
Endeavour Starfleet
707
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 23:52:00 -
[139] - Quote
Except it is not a dumb idea. It is about time for me to WTFpwn can flippers harassing miners. |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
456
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 00:04:00 -
[140] - Quote
AkJon Ferguson wrote:The felony/misdemeanor idea is dumb. The sec status change is dumb. The buying sec status with tags idea is dumb.
Instead of the dumb ones, make it possible to configure your overview so that all people you can legally shoot show up on it and all people you can't shoot don't.
It's like they brainstormed ideas and then didn't filter the dumb ones out. Why is the buying sec w/ tags dumb? Why not monetize it... I mean it's like anything else in the game. If someone wants to grind for me I'm willing to pay... and I'm sure they will be glad to get paid. The grinding is happening so what's the problem? The sec status change is required for everything else to work, and if there is some element not working they will be able to adjust it (which they cannot do now) so I don't see the problem there either. What is dumb about it?
|
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
396
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 00:10:00 -
[141] - Quote
AkJon Ferguson wrote: The felony/misdemeanor idea is dumb. The sec status change is dumb. The buying sec status with tags idea is dumb.
Have to disagree. The suspect flag will create new opportunity for players, (and things CCP can do in the future), it'll stream line the convoluted situation we have now, and it'll provide more PVP opportunities. CCP could then code in player run smuggling and player run enforcement against smuggling.
Sec status changes, sound pretty cool, player run game of cops and robbers in low sec, something that has been missing for a long time. No longer will +'s be at the disadvantage of not being able to shoot first with out other wise taking a penalty. This very likely will allow non-pirate players to become territorial in low sec with out having to turn into pirates them selves. Such things are the first steps to the long forgotten idea of Viceroy.
The tag idea could be a very good way to reduce the ISK flow into the game by dropping a new and useful item. Hopefully CCP is smart enough to see this. They could start dropping more tags from pirates, each level of rank having more or less value. Just officer and commander tags is a bad idea, it should be more common tags so that all player level, from noobs to vets can participate in this market.
If the tags are an equivalent to the current sec status gain value of shooting the rat in question, then the overall value of the tags will be above, but not below, the time value, plus 15 minutes, expressed in ISK, that it would take to shoot those rats. The 15 minute wait between sec gains in the current situation is what will carry the value of the tags. A more widely held market like this will create more availability, but not impact the overall value, and penalty, of the current situation. Just officer and commander tags will create a funky, low availability and overly sporadic market. |
Qvar Dar'Zanar
EVE University Ivy League
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 00:11:00 -
[142] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:People who are complaining about not being able to canflip...they can easily add a way of asking someone to fight you 1 on 1.
They don't have to leave in the complicated stealing makes this able to shoot that but not this but concord will shoot that if it isnt gone in 3 seconds or repping this crap that it currently is.
They want to fix the complexity of the current setup, not stop people from having PvP in hisec, thus they won't refuse to add this sort of feature. Perhaps the agreement would be like "you two can shoot each other but no one can intervene or do anything to help without getting concorded during the duration of this fight".
If either person warped off, the fight declaration would automatically be void. It would have to be a mutual agreement thing, just like can flipping sort of is currently. Also sort of reduces the "gank a noob cause they dont know about agression" thing.
Then again that could be taken advantage of but who knows.
This.
Add duel system please. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Ev0ke
162
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 00:20:00 -
[143] - Quote
Since I'm not getting improved Bountyhunting and transferable killrights (put it in your backlog plx) , what about cans and wrecks in low and null being free for all?
The website lists salvaging as a profession which is actually not really true since you can't tractor the wrecks from the battles you scan down or follow follow since they are yellow to you and therefore can't use the greatness of your noctis (would also solve the sentry guns firing at canflippers 'problem') |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
458
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 00:38:00 -
[144] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:Since I'm not getting improved Bountyhunting and transferable killrights (put it in your backlog plx) , what about cans and wrecks in low and null being free for all?
The website lists salvaging as a profession which is actually not really true since you can't tractor the wrecks from the battles you scan down or follow follow since they are yellow to you and therefore can't use the greatness of your noctis (would also solve the sentry guns firing at canflippers 'problem') I understand now. You're just doing it wrong. All the pirates I've trained start out as ninja looters and salvagers. The Noctis is a poor choice for a ninja looter/salvager. I think it's roll is to follow friendly fleets around missions and the like to clean up after them. In that roll it does very well. If you are going to steal stuff it behooves one to travel light and fast. Destroyers and interdictors are ideal. Yah you can't tractor stuff in BECAUSE IT'S NOT YOURS (YET)! You can if you are in a friendly gang or if people are disowning their wrecks... but stealing shouldn't be risk free. I'm aready tossing around ways to turn that mechanic around and get aggression from carebears in their hero fit battleships. That's some nice loot. Now there will be more opportunities in piracy too...
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5734
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 00:40:00 -
[145] - Quote
There are two main issues with this rework that some of us who sat in on the roundtable have been able to observe:
1. The inability to fight back, which basically makes the whole GÇ£suspectGÇ¥ flag completely redundant in highsec. This could be fixed by using the duelling contract system that was discussed during the panel, which would allow for some kind of escalation of the conflict without necessarily having everything be a complete dichotomous situation where you either have no semi-legal attacks ever; and everyone fighting everyone do to how quickly it would escalate of suspect flags were handed out as liberally as suggested.
2. This change needs to happen in combination with a bounty hunting and/or GÇ£vigilanteGÇ£ status implementation, creating a particular class of players who can act on these new state flags without requiring a return of the old player-to-player aggression system and the mess it creates.
The whole issue with this new system is the edge cases, which could simply be built out of the mechanics, but on the other hand, it's those edge cases that make some of the aggression GÇ£danceGÇ¥ so interesting.
Also, we'll have to wait until Saturday and see what the new wardec system has in store for us GÇö some of the issues that are created by the criminal flagging refactoring could potentially be solved that way. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
397
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 00:48:00 -
[146] - Quote
Tippia wrote:1. The inability to fight back, which basically makes the whole GÇ£suspectGÇ¥ flag completely redundant in highsec. This could be fixed by using the duelling contract system that was discussed during the panel, which would allow for some kind of escalation of the conflict without necessarily having everything be a complete dichotomous situation where you either have no semi-legal attacks ever; and everyone fighting everyone do to how quickly it would escalate of suspect flags were handed out as liberally as suggested.
Could you rephrase that? Those of us not there don't have all the details so I am not sure I understand what you wrote.
If a player is flagged suspect, to everyone presumably from the way I heard it, and someone shoots a suspect, then the suspect can shoot back. Does the suspect shooting player also become suspect or just get aggro with the initial suspect? |
T'san Manaan
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
21
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 00:57:00 -
[147] - Quote
Sounds like all around good changes. keep up the good thinking CCP! |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Ev0ke
162
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 01:02:00 -
[148] - Quote
Gogela wrote:Gilbaron wrote:Since I'm not getting improved Bountyhunting and transferable killrights (put it in your backlog plx) , what about cans and wrecks in low and null being free for all?
The website lists salvaging as a profession which is actually not really true since you can't tractor the wrecks from the battles you scan down or follow follow since they are yellow to you and therefore can't use the greatness of your noctis (would also solve the sentry guns firing at canflippers 'problem') I understand now. You're just doing it wrong. All the pirates I've trained start out as ninja looters and salvagers. The Noctis is a poor choice for a ninja looter/salvager. I think it's roll is to follow friendly fleets around missions and the like to clean up after them. In that roll it does very well. If you are going to steal stuff it behooves one to travel light and fast. Destroyers and interdictors are ideal. Yah you can't tractor stuff in BECAUSE IT'S NOT YOURS (YET)! You can if you are in a friendly gang or if people are disowning their wrecks... but stealing shouldn't be risk free. I'm aready tossing around ways to turn that mechanic around and get aggression from carebears in their hero fit battleships. That's some nice loot. Now there will be more opportunities in piracy too...
I wasn't talking about highsec
I was talking about regions where Noone (really) cares when you kill someone which also have a mechanic in place to somehow protect people's 'property' |
Terazul
The Scope Gallente Federation
28
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 01:03:00 -
[149] - Quote
Tippia wrote: 2. This change needs to happen in combination with a bounty hunting and/or GÇ£vigilanteGÇ£ status implementation, creating a particular class of players who can act on these new state flags without requiring a return of the old player-to-player aggression system and the mess it creates.
Yesssss, I really want to see bounty hunting actually become a legitimate playstyle. Combine this with the CSM-proposed changes to the bounty system and I could see it becoming a real profession, hopefully alongside smuggling and other sci-fi spaceship standbys. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5734
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 01:10:00 -
[150] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Could you rephrase that? Those of us not there don't have all the details so I am not sure I understand what you wrote.
If a player is flagged suspect, to everyone presumably from the way I heard it, and someone shoots a suspect, then the suspect can shoot back. Does the suspect shooting player also become suspect or just get aggro with the initial suspect? No. The whole concept of this refactoring is to get rid of player-to-player flagging and all the various interdependent timers that this causes. Instead, you will have a flag that is completely independent from everyone else. Thus we have the GÇ£suspectGÇ¥ and GÇ£felonGÇ¥ flags instead: both are global flags tied exclusively to you. They change the rules for how other people are allowed to interact with you. Period. They do not change the rules for you in any way.
This means that if you steal from a can, you get flagged GÇ£suspsectGÇ¥ andGǪ nothing more. End of story. You are now a suspect and a free-for-all target. You cannot do anything you couldn't do before, including shooting people. Since you are now a legal target, attacking you does not create any flags for the attacker GÇö they do not become suspects or felons; they are not legal targets for anyone, including you. You cannot fight back, because you would be attacking GÇ£innocentGÇ£ targets and upgrade yourself to GÇ£felonGÇ£ status and get death-rayed (or however the new CONCORD implementation will work). Essentially, being a suspect is the same as a GCC, without the CONCORD intervention GÇö you are, quite simply, dead without any recourse (aside from staying the hell away from other players). So: people will never ever get themselves flagged suspect unless they know with 100% certainty that they will dock up instantly afterwards, or that they can instawarp away to safety.
The alternative, strictly using this system, would be that anyone who attacks a suspect becomes a suspect. This creates a massive escalation problem: I steal your can (everyone can shoot me); you shoot me for my isolence (now everyone can shoot you); my backstabbing bastard buddies warp in because we successfully baited you and they shoot you, now everyone can shoot them. Suddenly, we have 20 free-for-all targets in the system just because I took your loot. No-one will come out of this alive and salvage prices will be reaching an all-time low from the massive increase in availability from all those wrecks.
In an attempt to contain this and still allow for voluntary player-to-player combat, there was talk about a duelling system: you (or your fleet / corp / whatever) ask the other guy(s) for a duel, they accept, and you duke it out. Anyone who interferes becomes a suspect and a free-for-all target (so there goes the neutral reps). Again, the idea is to not have this massive mess of person-to-person flags and inheritance of who can attack whom for whatever obscure reason GÇö instead, you have two predefined groups that are free to blap each other to pieces and no escalation or inheritance can take place (all you can do is trigger a GÇ£suspectGÇ¥ flag for yourself).
One idea that was floated was to combine the two in order to provide some kind of middle-ground for the suspect and let him defend himself: I steal your can, and become a suspect. Anyone (including you) who attacks me, implicitly signs one of these duel contracts. If either one of us tries to bring in remote support, they'll flag themselves as suspects (so they won't come help youGǪ), and as longs as I can whittle down people who come to GÇ£supportGÇ¥ you by shooting me, I can stay alive. This will create a whole slew of new problems that we haven't fully thought out, but it at least gets rid of the whole GÇ£suspect = deadGÇ¥ issue. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
210
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 01:11:00 -
[151] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Tippia wrote:1. The inability to fight back, which basically makes the whole GÇ£suspectGÇ¥ flag completely redundant in highsec. This could be fixed by using the duelling contract system that was discussed during the panel, which would allow for some kind of escalation of the conflict without necessarily having everything be a complete dichotomous situation where you either have no semi-legal attacks ever; and everyone fighting everyone do to how quickly it would escalate of suspect flags were handed out as liberally as suggested.
Could you rephrase that? Those of us not there don't have all the details so I am not sure I understand what you wrote. If a player is flagged suspect, to everyone presumably from the way I heard it, and someone shoots a suspect, then the suspect can shoot back. Does the suspect shooting player also become suspect or just get aggro with the initial suspect? Apparently not. A suspect retaliating against a "vigilante" will be conferred all of the "benefits" of a criminal flag. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
906
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 01:20:00 -
[152] - Quote
Defending yourself while you're suspect-flagged is an ongoing conversation; we've not decided on anything yet, and we'll devblog when we've got it better nailed down
prolix travail wrote:Could you also comment on the 'you are engaged in combat' dialog box that doesn't have the option to turn it off? I.e will it also be granted the usefulness of being turned off should a player not want it?
If you're talking about the non-suppressible "suicide gank" box, that's entirely replaced by the safety system.
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Can-flipping as-is will be impossible once the safeties are added. People should be able to choose to do dumb things, but they should also have the information they need to figure out that the thing they're doing is dumb. I want to clarify here: when I'm racing another explorer in a Gurista Scout Outpost and he pops the tower, will I be able to steal the loot from the can at the risk of him engaging me? Because if you break that mechanic, you've taken away something that was JUST FINE. And if someone wants to whine about how it's not fair that I took from "their" can, what about the fact that I did 90% of the damage in room 1 to unlock the gate and they just got lucky and landed the final blow on the tower? There's a lot more to consider here than "that's my can because I shot that rat".
Switch off first-level safety, steal from wreck, get suspect flag, do whatever you like with it.
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Making people be globally flagged with aggression for stealing will be a bad mechanic that people (me) will be able to exploit the hell out of. I mean seriously, it doesn't even seem to be intended to fix any kind of problem and the current system of flagging people to corporations is totally fine.
But whatever I'm going to be able to kill huge numbers of newbies with this, being able to get yourself flagged with aggression to an entire system is basically the holy grail of griefing.
The safety system should in principle catch 100% of noob-baiting attempts. You can't get a suspect flag without turning your safeties off first, and that will pop up a message saying approximately "hey newbie, the guy who asked you to push this button is trying to kill you, tell him to go away".
Hoshi wrote:Those safety switches, please make sure to place them so the can be accessed in space without blacking out the whole screen. That means don't put them under options but perhaps somewhere on the character sheet.
Honestly I'd like to have them somewhere on the HUD. They're not some big bad setting that you flip once and then leave off forever, they're a thing where your FC says "ok guys, we're going to engage them, safeties off", and then there are some flashing lights and stuff and your gunports open (that last bit I made up but you get the point).
|
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
906
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 01:22:00 -
[153] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:CCP Greyscale, that not what people will do. What they will do is:
Have each corp member create just one or 2 alts, and all corp members take turns killing each others alts. That way the effort to create the alts is spread out over many people. Or;
People will make "Shoot us!" corps full of -10 pilots, and let you shoot them all for a fee. Or;
Two pirate corps will get together and take turns killing each other.
How to fix: Make ship value lost be a determining factor is sec status gain. Yes you could buy your way up, but with proper balancing, it will be expensive.
Yeah, this is something we're going to have to drill into further as we get into actual implementation. Point taken, though.
Istyn wrote:I have a question regarding these two slides, if you don't mind, CCP Greyscale: http://i.imgur.com/I1dGd.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/PEAUZ.jpgCorrect me if I'm wrong, but you gain the suspect flag by say, can flipping someone - if they then shoot you and you defend yourself and blow them up, you then gain a sec hit? That seems a bit odd considering all of space can shoot you - thereby you're either guaranteed to lose a ship or a buttload of sec. The 'all of space can shoot you' bit isn't so bad, leading to more risk on the side of the griefer, but when they gain a sec hit for defending themselves, likely against an overwhelming force, it seems a bit one-sided. Seems like this would completely destroy the whole ninja salvager gameplay as well as numerous other griefer playstyles.
In the design as it stands, yes, if you defend yourself and kill the other party you're going to take a smallish sec hit. I'm more sanguine about the outcome here though - I have confidence that people doing this stuff will find a way to make the system work for them
Borun Tal wrote:On a related note, I hope the broken fleet salvage mechanic is fixed before this is implemented, if at all. For example, I'm often fleeted with an alt to do salvage behind me, and if said salvager docks or leaves grid, then returns to continue clean-up, suddenly that alt is a criminal. Clearly a broken mechanic.
Yeah that's just dumb, and I think Masterplan has already actually fixed that (or is about to soon).
Qvar Dar'Zanar wrote:This.
Add duel system please.
Already on the to-do list. |
|
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
460
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 01:24:00 -
[154] - Quote
Dang Greyscale... A+ for dedication to your work but shouldn't you be out partying right now?
|
Yuller
The Filthy Few Pendulum of Doom
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 01:28:00 -
[155] - Quote
There is nothing wrong with the current aggro mechanics...Where do you people come up with this stuff???This entire damn game is becoming a carebear fest.. |
Myxx
Blacklight Incorporated Broken Chains Alliance
500
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 01:28:00 -
[156] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Qvar Dar'Zanar wrote:This.
Add duel system please. Already on the to-do list.
DONT make it a consensual PVP flag. PVP is not consensual in EVE, nor should it ever be. Leave room for criminal activity and other shenanigans. Don't make things safer than they already are.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5734
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 01:33:00 -
[157] - Quote
Yuller wrote:There is nothing wrong with the current aggro mechanics...Where do you people come up with this stuff???This entire damn game is becoming a carebear fest.. There's plenty of things wrong with it GÇö the trick lies in fixing those problems while still retaining the maximum amount of freedom to shoot people for various reasons.
Myxx wrote:DONT make it a consensual PVP flag. PVP is not consensual in EVE, nor should it ever be. Leave room for criminal activity and other shenanigans. Don't make things safer than they already are. It'll be consensual in much the same way as a current GÇ£let's swap cans to steal fromGÇ¥ duels are. The main difference is that if you try to bring in more support than was agreed upon, that support will putting itself at (severe) 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 01:34:00 -
[158] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:Making people be globally flagged with aggression for stealing will be a bad mechanic that people (me) will be able to exploit the hell out of. I mean seriously, it doesn't even seem to be intended to fix any kind of problem and the current system of flagging people to corporations is totally fine.
But whatever I'm going to be able to kill huge numbers of newbies with this, being able to get yourself flagged with aggression to an entire system is basically the holy grail of griefing. The safety system should in principle catch 100% of noob-baiting attempts. You can't get a suspect flag without turning your safeties off first, and that will pop up a message saying approximately "hey newbie, the guy who asked you to push this button is trying to kill you, tell him to go away".
I think he was discussing this in the case where you can do something reasonable, like defend yourself when you're a suspect, rather than just take it up the ass if you're a little church boy, as you seem to be going for. |
head hallow
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 01:45:00 -
[159] - Quote
i hear CCP has been recruiting devs from WoW. This would certainly explain many things... |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
384
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 01:49:00 -
[160] - Quote
Yes, I was expecting Greyscale to have come up with ideas that actually made sense from a gameplay perspective. I mean simplifying convoluted systems is great and everything, but I don't see how a sane person would think that doing it at the expense of completely removing non-war related PVP from highsec would be a good idea.
|
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
210
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 01:58:00 -
[161] - Quote
head hallow wrote:i hear CCP has been recruiting devs from WoW. This would certainly explain many things... No, don't insult WoW. I've played both games for quite a while and I can tell you for a fact that post-decshield EVE is already quite a bit more mellow than the dickery that goes on in some of the more populated pvp servers.
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Yes, I was expecting Greyscale to have come up with ideas that actually made sense from a gameplay perspective. I mean simplifying convoluted systems is great and everything, but I don't see how a sane person would think that doing it at the expense of completely removing non-war related PVP from highsec would be a good idea. High-sec wardecs are at this point very likely to have a consensual element attached to them. Let's not ignore the giant elephant in the room. |
Minmatar Citizen 20120322
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:03:00 -
[162] - Quote
calm down bro, WoW's crap anyway. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
385
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:06:00 -
[163] - Quote
I wasn't discounting that at all, it's been since the GM announcement about the change in policy regarding dec shield mechanics that whatever changes get made to wars that they aren't going to offer the defender some kind of get out clause. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2899
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:08:00 -
[164] - Quote
Is this intended as a nerf to suicide ganking, or will the concord replacement allow similar amounts of DPS to be done before death? |
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises
303
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:08:00 -
[165] - Quote
Velicia Tuoro wrote: New "suspect" flag - Minor crimes. Anyone can shoot you without penalty. - Flipping a can for example
this is ******* stupid. |
Bump Tremor
Tremor Recorded Variable Enterprise Training Standards
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:12:00 -
[166] - Quote
I have actually read every post in this thread - save for any posted whilst writing this. Absolutely a great read
One plus not mentioned in the new can flipping model occurs in incrursions. When the mothership is killed ending the incursion and paying out the LP stored in the LP pool, the mother ship drops a loot can which is usually stolen by a twerp floating around in a fast, small ship who only - under the current setup - draws aggro from the one ship in the approximately 80 ship fleet who delivered the killing blow. The small fast ship did not rise up to the level of being deemed a worthy target by the sansha fleet and could therefor roam with impunity anywhere in the room. Once snatching the loot, the ship seems to disappear is some manner beyond my comprehension and seemingly outside of the mechanics of cloaking in the midst of 80 ships in such a small space
Anyone who attempts to thwart the thief beyond targetting before or after the loot is snatched, save for the one ship who happens to land the fatal blow, incurs the full wrath of Concord
As I think I understand the new system, fleets in the future will be able to have every ship target the thief and volley fire as soon as the thief turns red to them all. Hopefully, the magical disappearing act will be solved as well
Well done, CCP. and many thanks to all at the round table, the player who provided the pix of the slides and all of those who provided a running commentary.
I think the commentary is a fine example for the news organizations of the world to follow as it seem to have been completely devoid of the observer's opinions and just reported facts. What a concept! Putting news on the front page and opinions back on the editorial page where they belong instead of having a jumble of each "reporter's" opinion mixed in with only the facts which support a political viewpoint and the total absence of any fact which might raise doubt about that pre-defined political viewpoint.. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
400
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:18:00 -
[167] - Quote
Tippia wrote: This means that if you steal from a can, you get flagged GÇ£suspsectGÇ¥ andGǪ nothing more. End of story. You are now a suspect and a free-for-all target. You cannot do anything you couldn't do before, including shooting people. Since you are now a legal target, attacking you does not create any flags for the attacker GÇö they do not become suspects or felons; they are not legal targets for anyone, including you. You cannot fight back, because you would be attacking GÇ£innocentGÇ£ targets and upgrade yourself to GÇ£felonGÇ£ status and get death-rayed (or however the new CONCORD implementation will work). Essentially, being a suspect is the same as a GCC, without the CONCORD intervention GÇö you are, quite simply, dead without any recourse (aside from staying the hell away from other players). So: people will never ever get themselves flagged suspect unless they know with 100% certainty that they will dock up instantly afterwards, or that they can instawarp away to safety.
The alternative, strictly using this system, would be that anyone who attacks a suspect becomes a suspect. This creates a massive escalation problem: I steal your can (everyone can shoot me); you shoot me for my isolence (now everyone can shoot you); my backstabbing bastard buddies warp in because we successfully baited you and they shoot you, now everyone can shoot them. Suddenly, we have 20 free-for-all targets in the system just because I took your loot. No-one will come out of this alive and salvage prices will be reaching an all-time low from the massive increase in availability from all those wrecks.
I see ...
Someone attacking the suspect should be aggroed to the suspect, as if the "duel" flag had been turned on. If someone then reps the suspect, then they also get the aggro, but that could lead back to the spaghetti situation again - Have to find a way to deal with that, perhaps flag the repper as suspect. Not a good thing if the can flipper can't shoot back - that has to be addressed along with people then coming in and repping either party. Flag the reppers suspect perhaps, they know what they're getting into with the saftey feature.
You are right though, more and more suspects will turn into some crazy chaos ... which maybe isn't a bad thing either. However with the saftey on, you have to opt-in to the chaos. So it is not as if people could be baited with out a warning.
Salvage prices would drop, but tractor beams and salvagers would move faster off the market as well. More ships blowing up ... good for the economy perhaps.
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2899
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:18:00 -
[168] - Quote
Also, if you do not intend this as a nerf to suicide ganking, I presume you will be consulting with CSM members with experience in this area (mittens) to ensure you get the "time allowed to live" right? Please keep in mind the concord travel time is used for all real suicide ganks so you should make the instant death ray take the proper time for when CONCORD is already in system (six seconds, plus spawn time).
In addition, I would suggest you consider that CONCORD's very exploitability makes it fun: it's interesting to have it as something you jerk around and abuse (within limits, of course) that makes it interesting. Things like prepping concord, moving it, these all add flavor to the game. It's much better to leave CONCORD as it is, while tweaking it every time something really broken is discovered, than just say fuckit and go the death ray route. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
400
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:21:00 -
[169] - Quote
Tippia wrote: One idea that was floated was to combine the two in order to provide some kind of middle-ground for the suspect and let him defend himself: I steal your can, and become a suspect. Anyone (including you) who attacks me, implicitly signs one of these duel contracts. If either one of us tries to bring in remote support, they'll flag themselves as suspects (so they won't come help youGǪ), and as longs as I can whittle down people who come to GǣsupportGǥ you by shooting me, I can stay alive. This will create a whole slew of new problems that we haven't fully thought out, but it at least gets rid of the whole Gǣsuspect = deadGǥ issue.
Yeah suspect = dead is not good. And the duel 'flag' kicking in sounds like a good idea. Then flag any remote reppers as suspects. This way people can still 'cheat' on duels and get some use of their alts, but they have to accept the additional risk for getting involved. |
Bump Tremor
Tremor Recorded Variable Enterprise Training Standards
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:22:00 -
[170] - Quote
I also want to thank DariusIII for bring the whole risk/reward idea up to CCP. |
|
EnslaverOfMinmatar
BRAPELILLE MACRO BOT MINERS
19
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:24:00 -
[171] - Quote
Minmatar Citizen 20120322 wrote:calm down bro, WoW's crap anyway.
This Only retards play WoW. Every EVE player must read this http://www.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=29-01-07 or uninstall and DIAF |
Severian Carnifex
113
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:25:00 -
[172] - Quote
Are you trying to solve a problem of excessive (and really to easy and cheap) suicide ganking of miners with this changes too??? I hope you will look at that problem too with this. |
Cannibal Kane
Brotherhood of KANE
301
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:26:00 -
[173] - Quote
Hummm...
That will change my gameplay drasticly. I don't mind being shot at by everybody, but the idea that if I shoot back and kill I get sec hit rubs me the wrong way.
I joined the game since I like shooting at people. I go and flip cans when no wartargets are online.
There is nothing wrong with the current agression mechanics yet there seems to be a need to overcomplicate it. I did not join EVE for PVE so i grind my sec status up for defending myself. If I wanted to PVE stuff I would have kept playing a Single player game and not the only MMO i like because of it's PVP.
This kind of change makes it sounds like the wardec options will now have a "I DON'T WANT" button to opt out as well.
I hope the sec status hit is not set in stone.... I'm not a Pirate, I'm a Terrorist. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
400
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:30:00 -
[174] - Quote
Cannibal Kane wrote:This kind of change makes it sounds like the wardec options will now have a "I DON"' WANT" button to opt out as well.
I am getting a future picture in my head, assuming what Tippia said about the duel system kicking in is true for non-war pvp, war might be fun again because someone won't swarm in with a bunch of neut reppers. I don't see CCP doing a "we agree to war" button. That's rather un-eve. Could be wrong of course :) |
Grumpy Owly
360
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:32:00 -
[175] - Quote
Am sure there are final tweaks and kinks to resolve and I'd like to see more of the war dec and FW mechanics in detail to have a complete picture of the move of PvP activities in Empire.
However, the proposal by CCP here I welcome as a much needed change to add more fun and promote PvP in Empire whilst also giving some ramifications to criminal activity that at present is sadly missing. With further corrections to the Bounty Hunting system it could potentially give realistic white knighting opportunities a real career chance in Empire.
+1 CCP Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Cannibal Kane
Brotherhood of KANE
301
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:34:00 -
[176] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Cannibal Kane wrote:This kind of change makes it sounds like the wardec options will now have a "I DON"' WANT" button to opt out as well. I am getting a future picture in my head, assuming what Tippia said about the duel system kicking in is true for non-war pvp, war might be fun again because someone won't swarm in with a bunch of neut reppers. I don't see CCP doing a "we agree to war" button. That's rather un-eve. Could be wrong of course :)
The new proposed agression mechanic is pretty un-eve as well.
I'm not a Pirate, I'm a Terrorist. |
Cannibal Kane
Brotherhood of KANE
302
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:36:00 -
[177] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote:Am sure there are final tweaks and kinks to resolve and I'd like to see more of the war dec and FW mechanics in detail to have a complete picture of the move of PvP activities in Empire.
However, the proposal by CCP here I welcome as a much needed change to add more fun and promote PvP in Empire whilst also giving some ramifications to criminal activity that at present is sadly missing. With further corrections to the Bounty Hunting system it could potentially give realistic white knighting opportunities a real career chance in Empire.
+1 CCP
How will it promote PVP in highsec? People will refuse to do it if it means going to a negative sec status. Only those that like flying around from gate to gate in shuttles or ceptor might like it since it changes nothing for them.
The ramification of going criminal is EVERYBODY gets to shoot you... mob justice which is fine. The sec status thing bugs me. I'm not a Pirate, I'm a Terrorist. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
401
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:37:00 -
[178] - Quote
Cannibal Kane wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:Cannibal Kane wrote:This kind of change makes it sounds like the wardec options will now have a "I DON"' WANT" button to opt out as well. I am getting a future picture in my head, assuming what Tippia said about the duel system kicking in is true for non-war pvp, war might be fun again because someone won't swarm in with a bunch of neut reppers. I don't see CCP doing a "we agree to war" button. That's rather un-eve. Could be wrong of course :) The new proposed agression mechanic is pretty un-eve as well.
In what way? Sounds to me that overall it will create more oppertunity for PVP while at the same time nerfing some of the meta crap that gets abused to the point no one does anything but gank these days. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
401
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:39:00 -
[179] - Quote
Cannibal Kane wrote: How will it promote PVP in highsec? People will refuse to do it if it means going to a negative sec status. Only those that like flying around from gate to gate in shuttles or ceptor might like it since it changes nothing for them.
I'll tell you how it will promote it for me ... I don't have to worry about some guy warping in some neut repper or his silly orca alt - i'll be more inclined to fight, and more inclined to flip a few cans. |
Cannibal Kane
Brotherhood of KANE
302
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:39:00 -
[180] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Cannibal Kane wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:Cannibal Kane wrote:This kind of change makes it sounds like the wardec options will now have a "I DON"' WANT" button to opt out as well. I am getting a future picture in my head, assuming what Tippia said about the duel system kicking in is true for non-war pvp, war might be fun again because someone won't swarm in with a bunch of neut reppers. I don't see CCP doing a "we agree to war" button. That's rather un-eve. Could be wrong of course :) The new proposed agression mechanic is pretty un-eve as well. In what way? Sounds to me that overall it will create more oppertunity for PVP while at the same time nerfing some of the meta crap that gets abused to the point no one does anything but gank these days.
The only part of the new agression machanic that bugs me is the sec status hit for defending yourself. that alone will deter people from doing it.
On a plus side, Ship prices will decrease since less people will be willing to take the sec hit. I'm not a Pirate, I'm a Terrorist. |
|
Cannibal Kane
Brotherhood of KANE
302
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:41:00 -
[181] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Cannibal Kane wrote: How will it promote PVP in highsec? People will refuse to do it if it means going to a negative sec status. Only those that like flying around from gate to gate in shuttles or ceptor might like it since it changes nothing for them.
I'll tell you how it will promote it for me ... I don't have to worry about some guy warping in some neut repper or his silly orca alt - i'll be more inclined to fight, and more inclined to flip a few cans.
I feel like im repeating myself here...
I don't mind the new agression they want to implement. It's the sec status hit for defending yourself.
I'm not a Pirate, I'm a Terrorist. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
401
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:41:00 -
[182] - Quote
Cannibal Kane wrote: The only part of the new agression machanic that bugs me is the sec status hit for defending yourself. that alone will deter people from doing it.
On a plus side, Ship prices will decrease since less people will be willing to take the sec hit.
I agree with you on that part. Perhaps the penalty for going suspect and shooting back should be pretty small, something that shooting a handful of rats will easily cover. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
401
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:42:00 -
[183] - Quote
Cannibal Kane wrote: I feel like im repeating myself here...
Posting fast man, keep up! :) |
Cannibal Kane
Brotherhood of KANE
302
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:43:00 -
[184] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Cannibal Kane wrote: The only part of the new agression machanic that bugs me is the sec status hit for defending yourself. that alone will deter people from doing it.
On a plus side, Ship prices will decrease since less people will be willing to take the sec hit.
I agree with you on that part. Perhaps the penalty for going suspect and shooting back should be pretty small, something that shooting a handful of rats will easily cover.
There should be no hit....
Your already getting shot at by potensially 100 people depending where you are or how many see you. Mob justice should be enough on it own. I'm not a Pirate, I'm a Terrorist. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
401
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:44:00 -
[185] - Quote
Cannibal Kane wrote: There should be no hit....
Your already getting shot at by potensially 100 people depending where you are or how many see you. Mob justice should be enough on it's own.
True true, can agree with ya on that. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
210
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:46:00 -
[186] - Quote
All the carebears hail these proposed changes as things that will "promote pvp" because they know they're being thrown a bone. They know that now they will seldom have to worry about fending for themselves. They simply don't want to admit as such, and are instead trying to make the changes seem like a boon to the types of players who have historically picked on them.
On the surface, these changes seem like they will promote pvp, but the actual effect will be the exact opposite. Most players will avoid performing actions that will expose them to being shot by literally everyone in empire (and on top of that not being allowed to defend themselves without penalties). The few who do will be employing significant amounts of neutral assistance. The only people taking cans will be the ones who are rolling with thirty friends/alts, employing absolute numerical superiority to crush any white knight attempts.
Deep down inside, everyone knows that this will happen. It won't be a difficult task for empire pvpers to band together into much larger groups for mutual safety. Is more blobbing what we want in this game?
Adunh Slavy wrote:Cannibal Kane wrote: How will it promote PVP in highsec? People will refuse to do it if it means going to a negative sec status. Only those that like flying around from gate to gate in shuttles or ceptor might like it since it changes nothing for them.
I'll tell you how it will promote it for me ... I don't have to worry about some guy warping in some neut repper or his silly orca alt - i'll be more inclined to fight, and more inclined to flip a few cans. He's not going to warp in "some neut repper," but he is going to warp in some neut repperS. Significant numerical superiority will be the most efficient counter for these changes. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
401
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:51:00 -
[187] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted
Adunh Slavy wrote:Cannibal Kane wrote: How will it promote PVP in highsec? People will refuse to do it if it means going to a negative sec status. Only those that like flying around from gate to gate in shuttles or ceptor might like it since it changes nothing for them.
I'll tell you how it will promote it for me ... I don't have to worry about some guy warping in some neut repper or his silly orca alt - i'll be more inclined to fight, and more inclined to flip a few cans. He's not going to warp in "some neut repper," but he is going to warp in some neut repper[i wrote:S[/i]. Significant numerical superiority will be the most efficient counter for these changes.
I'll make sure to pick my fights near gates and stations then. Let the chaos begin. |
Garven Dreis
Count With Teddy Mercenaries Stay Calm Don't Panic
13
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:51:00 -
[188] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:All the carebears hail these proposed changes as things that will "promote pvp" because they know they're being thrown a bone. They know that now they will seldom have to worry about fending for themselves. They simply don't want to admit as such, and are instead trying to make the changes seem like a boon to the types of players who have historically picked on them. .
This pretty much sums it up for me.
In Manticore we Trust |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
210
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:56:00 -
[189] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:I'll make sure to pick my fights near gates and stations then. Let the chaos begin. It doesn't matter where you're going to pick your fights, because MeanGriefer has three dozens Guardians, and you don't. Good luck convincing your miner buddies to throw themselves into the fray, because much more often than not, the people with actual guns on their ships will be on my side, and not yours.
"Promote pvp." What a joke. |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
152
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:58:00 -
[190] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:All the carebears hail these proposed changes as things that will "promote pvp" because they know they're being thrown a bone. They know that now they will seldom have to worry about fending for themselves. They simply don't want to admit as such, and are instead trying to make the changes seem like a boon to the types of players who have historically picked on them.
On the surface, these changes seem like they will promote pvp, but the actual effect will be the exact opposite. Most players will avoid performing actions that will expose them to being shot by literally everyone in empire (and on top of that not being allowed to defend themselves without penalties). The few who do will be employing significant amounts of neutral assistance. The only people taking cans will be the ones who are rolling with thirty friends/alts, employing absolute numerical superiority to crush any white knight attempts.
Deep down inside, everyone knows that this will happen. It won't be a difficult task for empire pvpers to band together into much larger groups for mutual safety. Is more blobbing what we want in this game? In other words, you will now face some real consequences and you're QQ'ing about it.
Welcome to Eve. Where there will now be consequences and risk for everyone.
EVERYONE.
If Eve gets too harsh and dark you could always try Hello Kitty Online. |
|
Grumpy Owly
361
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 03:01:00 -
[191] - Quote
Cannibal Kane wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote:Am sure there are final tweaks and kinks to resolve and I'd like to see more of the war dec and FW mechanics in detail to have a complete picture of the move of PvP activities in Empire.
However, the proposal by CCP here I welcome as a much needed change to add more fun and promote PvP in Empire whilst also giving some ramifications to criminal activity that at present is sadly missing. With further corrections to the Bounty Hunting system it could potentially give realistic white knighting opportunities a real career chance in Empire.
+1 CCP How will it promote PVP in highsec? People will refuse to do it if it means going to a negative sec status. Only those that like flying around from gate to gate in shuttles or ceptor might like it since it changes nothing for them. The ramification of going criminal is EVERYBODY gets to shoot you... mob justice which is fine. The sec status thing bugs me.
The advent of the "suspect" system should encourage more PvP open opportunities.
I'm not thinking from the point of GCC in HS this wont change anything for suicide ganking as an activity, the end result is still the same.
The aftermath is how they will be treated due to their sec hit changes. And also the potential enrichment of some low sec gameplay should people try to seek out the more fervant criminal element.
In this sense it may encourage more PvP. It has the potential to enliven low sec quite a bit as a result. Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
401
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 03:03:00 -
[192] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:I'll make sure to pick my fights near gates and stations then. Let the chaos begin. It doesn't matter where you're going to pick your fights, because MeanGriefer has three dozens Guardians, and you don't. Good luck convincing your miner buddies to throw themselves into the fray, because much more often than not, the people with actual guns on their ships will be on my side, and not yours. "Promote pvp." What a joke.
I don't have any miner buddies. I'm a loner that wanders into low sec and null alone. Go bleat to some miners that may fall for your appeal to bravado. |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
462
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 03:05:00 -
[193] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Welcome to Eve. Where there will now be consequences and risk for everyone.
EVERYONE.
If Eve gets too harsh and dark you could always try Hello Kitty Online. Totally. ...and I think when salvaging first cam out everyone kind of expected the highsec mechanics to change... there should be risks to everything.
I just want to make sure highsec ganking is still possible.
|
Mentat Cthulhu
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 03:06:00 -
[194] - Quote
If this is what CCP is doing with criminal mechanics, just imagine how gay war dec "improvements" will be.
|
Tarsas Phage
Pain Delivery.
52
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 03:14:00 -
[195] - Quote
I was at the preso and the roundtable afterwards. Here's my overall take on this.
The primary reason behind these huge, proposed changes is that Greyscale wants to programmatically rid the aggression trees of nodes which involve individual players. Basically, having to account for player-player and player-corp aggression is hard from a server logic perspective, so the primary motivation behind these changes are to make the implementation of Crimewatch simpler by making it all person-everyone.
In other words, it's not because these are necessarily "needed" mechanics changes from a gameplay perspective... it's the "easy button" from a coding perspective. This is an utter crock, and it's a cop-out. In addition to this, it's moving player "safeties" from player's own brain into a hand-holding client.
I've always considered Aggression Management a skill, nay, an art form, when it comes to highsec shenanigans, and even now it has always been up to any of the players involved to escalate a confrontation or to not. If I flip your can, you AND/OR your corpmates could aggress me back, easily turning it into a 1-vs-n. Some choose to, some chose not to. So you're in a NPC corp and thus you have no corpmates to come to your aid? Well, that's the tradeoff you have for being in a non-dec'able NPC corp. Want to wish death on the flipper but all your SP are in Industry and can't field a proper ship to fight him with? It's not anyone's fault but your own that is how you chose to spend your skill queue time.
One of the most disturbing moments came when, under the proposed rules, the following scenario was given:
1) Player A flips the can of Player B and gains a Suspect flag, making A shootable by everyone
2) Players C-Z go to town on Player A as a result.
Here's the kicker - going into this preso, CCP Greyscale said that once Player A gets aggressed by Players C-Z, Player A will not be allowed to shoot his aggressors back. Yes, this is basically making anyone with a mere Suspect flag the equivalent of GCC, just without the sec drop and CONCORD spawn. Many people in the audience, including myself, collectively WTF'd and suggested that he's off his rocker... and he seemed a bit surprised at this reaction.
In the end, the proposed Crimewatch 2.0 gameplay changes have big problems. First, for being presented at a fanfest in a embryonic state, and second, the impetus behind them is to make the implementation of aggression mechanics easier (as in lazy-easier.) I don't think this is even close to being a sound basis.
/T
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
211
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 03:20:00 -
[196] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:All the carebears hail these proposed changes as things that will "promote pvp" because they know they're being thrown a bone. They know that now they will seldom have to worry about fending for themselves. They simply don't want to admit as such, and are instead trying to make the changes seem like a boon to the types of players who have historically picked on them.
On the surface, these changes seem like they will promote pvp, but the actual effect will be the exact opposite. Most players will avoid performing actions that will expose them to being shot by literally everyone in empire (and on top of that not being allowed to defend themselves without penalties). The few who do will be employing significant amounts of neutral assistance. The only people taking cans will be the ones who are rolling with thirty friends/alts, employing absolute numerical superiority to crush any white knight attempts.
Deep down inside, everyone knows that this will happen. It won't be a difficult task for empire pvpers to band together into much larger groups for mutual safety. Is more blobbing what we want in this game? In other words, you will now face some real consequences and you're QQ'ing about it. Welcome to Eve. Where there will now be consequences and risk for everyone. EVERYONE. If Eve gets too harsh and dark you could always try Hello Kitty Online. Then would you also agree to providing "consequences" to people who choose to run missions? I'm fine with being flagged to everyone, in principle. I wouldn't even be against being permanently flagged without any specific reason. But if that's the case, then I want every single person who has ever taken a mission from a Caldari or an Amarr agent to be flagged to me as well. You see, I'm Gallente, and we don't really take kindly to people shooting our navies without provocation..
You know, let's take it up a notch. What have those level 2 mission NPC mercenaries in the deadspace pocket done to you, that you have the right to shoot them with impunity? If I get flagged to everyone in the universe by taking from your can, then it's only fair that you're flagged to everyone in the universe by shooting entities that you really have no reason to shoot in the first place. They haven't done anything to you, so what gives you the right to just come in and blow them up without repercussions?
Consequences.
Do you support them? |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1116
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 03:21:00 -
[197] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Defending yourself while you're suspect-flagged is an ongoing conversation; we've not decided on anything yet, and we'll devblog when we've got it better nailed down
Are you ******* serious m8? That's the dumbest thing you've ever said - and that's saying a lot.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
401
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 03:25:00 -
[198] - Quote
Tarsas Phage wrote:Here's the kicker - going into this preso, CCP Greyscale said that once Player A gets aggressed by Players C-Z, Player A will not be allowed to shoot his aggressors back. Yes, this is basically making anyone with a mere Suspect flag the equivalent of GCC, just without the sec drop and CONCORD spawn. Many people in the audience, including myself, collectively WTF'd and suggested that he's off his rocker... and he seemed a bit surprised at this reaction. /T
That part is bad, if someone is shooting at you, you should have every right to shoot them back. |
Grumpy Owly
361
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 03:28:00 -
[199] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:All the carebears hail these proposed changes as things that will "promote pvp" because they know they're being thrown a bone. They know that now they will seldom have to worry about fending for themselves. They simply don't want to admit as such, and are instead trying to make the changes seem like a boon to the types of players who have historically picked on them.
On the surface, these changes seem like they will promote pvp, but the actual effect will be the exact opposite. Most players will avoid performing actions that will expose them to being shot by literally everyone in empire (and on top of that not being allowed to defend themselves without penalties). The few who do will be employing significant amounts of neutral assistance. The only people taking cans will be the ones who are rolling with thirty friends/alts, employing absolute numerical superiority to crush any white knight attempts.
Deep down inside, everyone knows that this will happen. It won't be a difficult task for empire pvpers to band together into much larger groups for mutual safety. Is more blobbing what we want in this game? In other words, you will now face some real consequences and you're QQ'ing about it. Welcome to Eve. Where there will now be consequences and risk for everyone. EVERYONE. If Eve gets too harsh and dark you could always try Hello Kitty Online. Then would you also agree to providing "consequences" to people who choose to run missions? I'm fine with being flagged to everyone, in principle. I wouldn't even be against being permanently flagged without any specific reason. But if that's the case, then I want every single person who has ever taken a mission from a Caldari or an Amarr agent to be flagged to me as well. You see, I'm Gallente, and we don't really take kindly to people shooting our navies without provocation.. You know, let's take it up a notch. What have those level 2 mission NPC mercenaries in the deadspace pocket done to you, that you have the right to shoot them with impunity? If I get flagged to everyone in the universe by taking from your can, then it's only fair that you're flagged to everyone in the universe by shooting entities that you really have no reason to shoot in the first place. They haven't done anything to you, so what gives you the right to just come in and blow them up without repercussions? Consequences. Do you support them?
Isnt that a faction issue though, for which you take appropriate reputation hits for actions and navies of empire states react accordingly?
Criminal aspects of security status are co-ordinated by the SCC (Concord) which is effectively a neutral commision for ensuring the safety of trade and other regulated interests from criminal activities.
Be interesting though if FW guys could respond to people who have low factional status perhaps?
Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
157
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 03:37:00 -
[200] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Then would you also agree to providing "consequences" to people who choose to run missions? I'm fine with being flagged to everyone, in principle. I wouldn't even be against being permanently flagged without any specific reason. But if that's the case, then I want every single person who has ever taken a mission from a Caldari or an Amarr agent to be flagged to me as well. You see, I'm Gallente, and we don't really take kindly to people shooting our navies without provocation..
You know, let's take it up a notch. What have those level 2 mission NPC mercenaries in the deadspace pocket done to you, that you have the right to shoot them with impunity? If I get flagged to everyone in the universe by taking from your can, then it's only fair that you're flagged to everyone in the universe by shooting entities that you really have no reason to shoot in the first place. They haven't done anything to you, so what gives you the right to just come in and blow them up without repercussions?
Consequences.
Do you support them?
What? Stop crying and whipe the boogies off your nose for a second because I'm not sure I understand what you ask for. Are you suggesting that someone not committing an aggression against another player and thus not aggroing Concord be flagged to you anyway because if you commit a crime against another player you are flagged?
|
|
Liam Mirren
338
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 03:45:00 -
[201] - Quote
I'm not entirely sure greyscale really understands the implications of these proposed changes, seems like it'll become a lot be exploitable and silly than it is now. Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
211
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 03:45:00 -
[202] - Quote
The point I tried to make is that when carebears spit drivel like "now everyone will have consequences for their actions, they mean that everyone but themselves will have consequences for their actions. So far, I have yet to see what consequences the missioners and miners have for the choices they make, aside from the varying amounts of money they receive from their choices of what rats to shoot and what rocks to mine.
If I'm going to be penalized for even looking at these people funny, then they should be penalized for the veritable crimes against humanity they commit each time they warp to a deadspace or an asteroid belt.
I don't care how CCP does it. Let players join pirate factions for all I care, as long as they get a free pass on anyone who shoots one of those factions' NPCs. CONCORD doesn't shoot Serpentis rats, so this system would be completely acceptable to all mission runners.
Right?
Right?
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:What? Stop crying and whipe the boogies off your nose for a second because I'm not sure I understand what you ask for. Are you suggesting that someone not committing an aggression against another player and thus not aggroing Concord be flagged to you anyway because if you commit a crime against another player you are flagged? Exactly. I fail to see why performing a non-hostile action against a pod-pilot should be treated with more hostility than a hostile action against a non-pod-pilot NPC entity. Both are part of the EVE universe. For example, why should a pod-pilot who runs missions for the Gallente Navy be flagged to everyone after stealing a can from a pod-pilot who runs missions for the Caldari Navy, but the pod-pilot who runs missions for the Caldari Navy not be flagged to everyone after shooting a non-pod-pilot ship that belongs to the Gallente Navy? |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
401
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 03:48:00 -
[203] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: I fail to see why performing a non-hostile action against a pod-pilot should be treated with more hostility than a hostile action against a non-pod-pilot NPC entity.
NPCs don't pay the bills. |
Grumpy Owly
361
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 03:52:00 -
[204] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:If I'm going to be penalized for even looking at these people funny, then they should be penalized for the veritable crimes against humanity they commit each time they warp to a deadspace or an asteroid belt.
I don't care how CCP does it. Let players join pirate factions for all I care, as long as they get a free pass on anyone who shoots one of those factions' NPCs. CONCORD doesn't shoot Serpentis rats, so this system would be completely acceptable to all mission runners.
Right?
Right?
Wrong.
Wrong.
There's already implications associated with standings and missions.
Suggest also re-reading the topic at hand. This is a topic about crimewatch and the associated aggression mechanics. Not inter-factional relationships.
Since neither of the areas you are dicussing are considered criminal activities, I don't see much relevance to the subject material. I'd love to see your arguments for making mining illegal in a seperate thread however, be fun seeing the responce. Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises
305
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 03:57:00 -
[205] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: Can-flipping as-is will be impossible once the safeties are added. People should be able to choose to do dumb things, but they should also have the information they need to figure out that the thing they're doing is dumb.
Duelling we're planning to support with an explicit mechanic rather than the current hacky workaround.
They do have that right to do stupid things. And in space, when you do something stupid, it gets you killed. That is how you learn. How about you protect me when i approach a cyno dominix with my webbing loki and cant get away in time? i mean, if i was smart i'd have stayed out of point range, but hey i'm dumb and i need you to hold my hand through it.
Seriously though, carebear gets canflipped and gets a POPUP WARNING EXPLAINING EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN when he steals it back. If he chooses to ignore it the first time, that's his own fault and he receives his lesson. If he refuses to listen to it time and time again, that's his own stupidity getting him killed.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
211
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 03:57:00 -
[206] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:If I'm going to be penalized for even looking at these people funny, then they should be penalized for the veritable crimes against humanity they commit each time they warp to a deadspace or an asteroid belt.
I don't care how CCP does it. Let players join pirate factions for all I care, as long as they get a free pass on anyone who shoots one of those factions' NPCs. CONCORD doesn't shoot Serpentis rats, so this system would be completely acceptable to all mission runners.
Right?
Right? Wrong. Wrong. There's already implications associated with standings and missions. Suggest also re-reading the topic at hand. This is a topic about crimewatch and the associated aggression mechanics. Not inter-factional relationships. Since neither of the areas you are dicussing are considered criminal activities, I don't see much relevance to the subject material. I'd love to see your arguments for making mining illegal in a seperate thread however, be fun seeing the responce. So why is stealing a can from a random State War Academy bro a criminal action, but shooting a Gallente Navy Admiral (or whatever they're called, I don't run missions) not a criminal action? Let's not be inconsistent for the sake of comfort, shall we?
Adunh Slavy wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote: I fail to see why performing a non-hostile action against a pod-pilot should be treated with more hostility than a hostile action against a non-pod-pilot NPC entity. NPCs don't pay the bills. See, this guy gets it. |
Tarsas Phage
Pain Delivery.
52
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 04:01:00 -
[207] - Quote
Liam Mirren wrote:I'm not entirely sure greyscale really understands the implications of these proposed changes, seems like it'll become a lot be exploitable and silly than it is now.
With all due respect to the Devs, I'm worried that they're a good bit out of touch with things given their position behind the curtain with the limits that puts on their first-hand experience in EVE. Devs aren't allowed to grief on their non-Dev accounts, so that means no can flipping, no ninja looting, no ganking, no nothing that could possibly bring CCP's Internal Affairs to their desk one day. As a Dev, you have to be benign and as we all know, fliipers, looters, gankers and griefers are anything but.
By and large, this means that they have to rely on what they remember from their (perhaps dated) pre-Dev EVE experience and what they hear second-hand when it comes to aggression mechanics. More importantly, this also means that they're largely out of touch with the social dynamic that surrounds these activities, further making any impressions artificial in nature.
We have T20 to thank for this.
/T |
Grumpy Owly
362
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 04:02:00 -
[208] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:If I'm going to be penalized for even looking at these people funny, then they should be penalized for the veritable crimes against humanity they commit each time they warp to a deadspace or an asteroid belt.
I don't care how CCP does it. Let players join pirate factions for all I care, as long as they get a free pass on anyone who shoots one of those factions' NPCs. CONCORD doesn't shoot Serpentis rats, so this system would be completely acceptable to all mission runners.
Right?
Right? Wrong. Wrong. There's already implications associated with standings and missions. Suggest also re-reading the topic at hand. This is a topic about crimewatch and the associated aggression mechanics. Not inter-factional relationships. Since neither of the areas you are dicussing are considered criminal activities, I don't see much relevance to the subject material. I'd love to see your arguments for making mining illegal in a seperate thread however, be fun seeing the responce. So why is stealing a can from a random State War Academy bro a criminal action, but shooting a Gallente Navy Admiral (or whatever they're called, I don't run missions) not a criminal action? Let's not be inconsistent for the sake of comfort, shall we? Adunh Slavy wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote: I fail to see why performing a non-hostile action against a pod-pilot should be treated with more hostility than a hostile action against a non-pod-pilot NPC entity. NPCs don't pay the bills. See, this guy gets it.
When a player pays a war dec Concord looks the other way, don't you think that it's possible factions will take out similar contracts (aka mission elements) in a similar way? Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
211
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 04:07:00 -
[209] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote:When a player pays a war dec Concord looks the other way, don't you think that it's possible factions will take out similar contracts (aka mission elements) in a similar way? Okay, well, give me a call when your good Serpentis buds decide to decshield after your second mission. Or better yet, leave their corporation right before you arrive on the mission grid. |
Grumpy Owly
362
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 04:12:00 -
[210] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote:When a player pays a war dec Concord looks the other way, don't you think that it's possible factions will take out similar contracts (aka mission elements) in a similar way? Okay, well, give me a call when your good Serpentis buds decide to decshield after your second mission. Or better yet, leave their corporation right before you arrive on the mission grid.
lmao
Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1069
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 04:12:00 -
[211] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:In the design as it stands, yes, if you defend yourself and kill the other party you're going to take a smallish sec hit. I'm more sanguine about the outcome here though - I have confidence that people doing this stuff will find a way to make the system work for them .
Can we at least confirm that you are not going pants-on-head mode by not allowing the can-flipper to shoot back when the victim shoots first or steals the liberated materials? |
Liam Mirren
338
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 04:13:00 -
[212] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Defending yourself while you're suspect-flagged is an ongoing conversation; we've not decided on anything yet, and we'll devblog when we've got it better nailed down
How is that an ongoing conversation? Any DEV who feels you shouldn't be able to shoot back at someone who's shooting you ought to be sacked from CCP. Seem like the Crucible "nono, we're back to our old good ways honest" were just a lie, CCP still has some pretty moronic ppl making quite ******** decisions.
Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
385
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 04:19:00 -
[213] - Quote
Liam Mirren wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Defending yourself while you're suspect-flagged is an ongoing conversation; we've not decided on anything yet, and we'll devblog when we've got it better nailed down How is that an ongoing conversation? Any DEV who feels you shouldn't be able to shoot back at someone who's shooting you ought to be sacked from CCP. Seem like the Crucible "nono, we're back to our old good ways honest" were just a lie, CCP still has some pretty moronic ppl making quite ******** decisions. CCP Greyscale is just continuing his long pattern of making horrible changes to game mechanics without running them past anyone. If you liked Sov mechanics and the sanctum nerf I'm sure you'll enjoy greyscale's new and improved aggression system. |
Grumpy Owly
362
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 04:20:00 -
[214] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Liam Mirren wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Defending yourself while you're suspect-flagged is an ongoing conversation; we've not decided on anything yet, and we'll devblog when we've got it better nailed down How is that an ongoing conversation? Any DEV who feels you shouldn't be able to shoot back at someone who's shooting you ought to be sacked from CCP. Seem like the Crucible "nono, we're back to our old good ways honest" were just a lie, CCP still has some pretty moronic ppl making quite ******** decisions. CCP Greyscale is just continuing his long pattern of making horrible changes to game mechanics without running them past anyone. If you liked Sov mechanics and the sanctum nerf I'm sure you'll enjoy greyscale's new and improved aggression system.
This is just as bad as making assumptions about war dec mechanics.
CCP have already said they will present blogs for discussion with the players prior to any finalsing of details. Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Liam Mirren
338
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 04:23:00 -
[215] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote:This is just as bad as making assumptions about war dec mechanics.
CCP have already said they will present blogs for discussion with the players prior to any finalsing of details.
Wrong, the simple fact that there's even a NEED to discuss this is already enough proof that the DEVS don't actually understand the game, OR they're willing to sacrifice the game as it was in favour of WOW in space.
Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd Ferguson Alliance
104
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 04:25:00 -
[216] - Quote
Please, for the love of god, scrap these pants-on-head ******** new aggression mechanics and go invent a bunch of stupid new names for modules or something.
No duels. Once you introduce those you'll get 3v3's and then 10v10's and then there will be no spontaneous gang PvP. Arenas have been proposed and rejected because they kill the sandbox you twats.
ffs, they never learn. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1069
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 04:26:00 -
[217] - Quote
Terminal Insanity wrote:They do have that right to do stupid things. And in space, when you do something stupid, it gets you killed. That is how you learn. How about you protect me when i approach a cyno dominix with my webbing loki and cant get away in time? i mean, if i was smart i'd have stayed out of point range, but hey i'm dumb and i need you to hold my hand through it.
Seriously though, carebear gets canflipped and gets a POPUP WARNING EXPLAINING EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN when he steals it back. If he chooses to ignore it the first time, that's his own fault and he receives his lesson. If he refuses to listen to it time and time again, that's his own stupidity getting him killed.
Moving from a click-through popup to a system where part of the UI has to be twiddled first means that noobs won't be caught out by their laziness in reading dialog boxes that pop up at importune moments. For example, running missions in hisec with a war target, I am expecting the "this pilot is a war target, if you rep her, her enemies can shoot you". But I target the wrong ship by mistake and start repping the Serpentis guy shooting my friend and CONCORD arrives to remind me that I am not supposed to do that,
With the safeties in place, and my "war dec safety" disabled, I would get Aura telling me, "You need to disable your criminal action safety interlock to perform that criminal action" at which point I then my friend like I was supposed to and start repping. No annoying popup.
I think the switch to "pre-commitment" safety locks is a good idea. |
Grumpy Owly
362
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 04:31:00 -
[218] - Quote
Liam Mirren wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote:This is just as bad as making assumptions about war dec mechanics.
CCP have already said they will present blogs for discussion with the players prior to any finalsing of details. Wrong, the simple fact that there's even a NEED to discuss this is already enough proof that the DEVS don't actually understand the game, OR they're willing to sacrifice the game as it was in favour of WOW in space.
Sorry I dont see it that way. Not all developments are uniquely black and white even when knowing the full details. Or the issues held therein without the need to see player preferences or attitudes to various features of a change. The theme surrounding the change is obvious but I don't see anything written in stone yet about some of subtleties.
CCP seem to be trying to improve communications, especially after the fiasco with incarna gate and calls for them to improve interaction with players. Now the minute they start doing so with blog discussions everyone just sees them as imposed future ideas rather than discussion topics.
As such I will honour the proposal and future suggested discussions with players with the respect its intended, especially when its been re-iterated thats the purpose behind this blogging process.
Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1069
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 04:34:00 -
[219] - Quote
Just to clarify, "safety switches" is a great idea.
Being visited upon by CONCORD because I have the temerity to shoot back at people shooting me is pants on head, batshit insane. Welcome back to Incarna. Or welcome to Inferno, which is the expansion where CCP dies in flames.
If CCP wants to take can flipping away, does this mean jetcan mining is supposed to be safe? If people are not free to make stupid decisions, we are not really playing in a sandbox.
PS: batshit insane: check up on lyssavirus. It is a fatal disease, which means first you act pants on head crazy, then you die. |
Liam Mirren
338
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 04:35:00 -
[220] - Quote
So you're going to be a good consumer and wait till it's set in stone and THEN you'll do... what again? RIGHT NOW a DEV is stating that they're unsure whether you should be allowed to shoot back if you're being shot at. That means that RIGHT NOW at least a portion of DEVS think that you shouldn't be able to do so, otherwise it wouldn't even be up for discussion. Which means that they're either diehard carebears, morons or don't actually know EVE all too well, perhaps all 3 at the same time.
So RIGHT NOW is the moment to voice your opinion. Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
|
Grumpy Owly
362
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 04:42:00 -
[221] - Quote
Liam Mirren wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote:Sorry I dont see it that way. Not all developments are uniquely black and white even when knowing the full details. Or the issues held therein without the need to see player preferences or attitudes to various features of a change. The theme surrounding the change is obvious but I don't see anything written in stone yet about some of subtleties. CCP seem to be trying to improve communications, especially after the fiasco with incarna gate and calls for them to improve interaction with players. Now the minute they start doing so with blog discussions everyone just sees them as imposed future ideas rather than discussion topics. As such I will honour the proposal and future suggested discussions with players with the respect its intended, especially when its been re-iterated thats the purpose behind this blogging process. So you're going to be a good consumer and wait till it's set in stone and THEN you'll do... what again? RIGHT NOW a DEV is stating that they're unsure whether you should be allowed to shoot back if you're being shot at. That means that RIGHT NOW at least a portion of DEVS think that you shouldn't be able to do so, otherwise it wouldn't even be up for discussion. Which means that they're either diehard carebears, morons or don't actually know EVE all too well, perhaps all 3 at the same time. So RIGHT NOW is the moment to voice your opinion.
Nothing wrong with voicing your opnion now at all.
The issue brought up was to do with people believing they didnt have a voice at all or that a dialouge wouldnt exist before it was implemented. This was what I feel was an incorrect projection that it would be an imposed process.
Nothing to do with disccusions at all or any of the relevant details therein. So please don't label me as apathetic to the issues, I'm just bothered that people want to label CCP as dictators when they are if anything trying to encourage discussion. Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
36
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 04:44:00 -
[222] - Quote
Liam Mirren wrote:...So RIGHT NOW is the moment to voice your opinion. Actually no, not so much. The correct time is when the 'plans' are not on beer stained napkins but on the test server .. if you blow your load on every hypothetical you come across you'll die from dehydration.
|
Liam Mirren
338
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 04:46:00 -
[223] - Quote
I'm not "angry" because of them having made the decision already, I'm "angry" because they're even contemplating it. It shows me that they din't really actually changed their Incarna way of thinking. This is the exact moment to start yelling, while they're still "thinking about it" rather than waiting till they put it in writing and/or code. Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1116
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 04:49:00 -
[224] - Quote
Liam Mirren wrote:I'm not "angry" because of them having made the decision already, I'm "angry" because they're even contemplating it. It shows me that they din't really actually changed their Incarna way of thinking. This is the exact moment to start yelling, while they're still "thinking about it" rather than waiting till they put it in writing and/or code.
This is my take on the topic too.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
212
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 04:51:00 -
[225] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Liam Mirren wrote:...So RIGHT NOW is the moment to voice your opinion. Actually no, not so much. The correct time is when the 'plans' are not on beer stained napkins but on the test server .. if you blow your load on every hypothetical you come across you'll die from dehydration. You really think that's how business works? When information is released, at the very least groundwork is already laid down. At this stage a well-run company is focus-grouping and analyzing feedback (not in the interpersonal communication meaning of the word). The fact that they're putting this information out signifies that it's already integrated into the roadmap. This information is released now to either soften the blow of upcoming changes, or to present a very negative outlook that will then be pulled back in the other direction to make them seem like heroes who listen to their customers' demands. Either way, their positions are covered.
The time to voice our negativity is indeed now, because by the time the changes are in the patch notes, it will already be too late. Or did you already forget Incarna? |
Grumpy Owly
362
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 04:51:00 -
[226] - Quote
Liam Mirren wrote:I'm not "angry" because of them having made the decision already, I'm "angry" because they're even contemplating it. It shows me that they din't really actually changed their Incarna way of thinking. This is the exact moment to start yelling, while they're still "thinking about it" rather than waiting till they put it in writing and/or code.
Oh I see, you simply believe it shouldn't be discussed at all, as it has no meaning to others. Now I see where the dictator attitude is. Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1116
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 04:55:00 -
[227] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote:Liam Mirren wrote:I'm not "angry" because of them having made the decision already, I'm "angry" because they're even contemplating it. It shows me that they din't really actually changed their Incarna way of thinking. This is the exact moment to start yelling, while they're still "thinking about it" rather than waiting till they put it in writing and/or code. Oh I see, you simply believe it shouldn't be discussed at all, as it has no meaning to others. Now I see where the dictator attitude is.
No, its more just the fact that the suggestion so thoroughly violates the spirit of what currently exists. Furthermore, the suggestion is pants on head stupid even by the PVP mechanics of other MMOs. Basically what is being suggested in WOW (or other MMO) terms: Players are not flagged for PVP when attacking PVP flagged players.
This is batshit insane.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3347
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 04:57:00 -
[228] - Quote
First and foremost, NEUTRAL RR IS A DUMB GIMMICK STOP WHINING ABOUT IT THIS IS LONG OVERDUE.
Now, my question is: how will these changes affect nonconsensual PvP? Specifically, suicide ganking. "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Liam Mirren
338
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:00:00 -
[229] - Quote
What Liang said. Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
213
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:01:00 -
[230] - Quote
Andski wrote:First and foremost, NEUTRAL RR IS A DUMB GIMMICK STOP WHINING ABOUT IT THIS IS LONG OVERDUE.
Now, my question is: how will these changes affect nonconsensual PvP? Specifically, suicide ganking. I don't think there's been a single post in this thread in opposition to the proposed changes to neutral RR. |
|
Terazul
The Scope Gallente Federation
28
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:03:00 -
[231] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:The point I tried to make is that when carebears spit drivel like "now everyone will have consequences for their actions, they mean that everyone but themselves will have consequences for their actions. So far, I have yet to see what consequences the missioners and miners have for the choices they make, aside from the varying amounts of money they receive from their choices of what rats to shoot and what rocks to mine. Not everything has to be low-/null-sec, you know.
I don't understand why this is such a difficult thing to grasp.
Mining has no real big choices by design. It's the most basic activity there is in the entirety of the game, is it really surprising that there's little in the way of complexities? And even now, with the current system, miners have to deal with the constant threat of suicide ganks. Let's face it, there's no big "consequence" for a bunch of folks in destroyers going out and ganking these people (and may I remind you, hulks are not cheap) for pennies on the dollar.
Missioning is just dull and repetitive. Really, if people like that sort of activity, what do you care? I'd be more concerned about making missioning an engaging activity more than anything else.
Also, for new players, missioning can actually be highly dangerous all on its own if they're not properly skilled/fit. I know, hard to imagine for a veteran who can sleepwalk through level IVs, but it's a thing, and it's there.
But again... it's high-sec. Why are you so horrified to find that most of the consequence lies on the head of the aggressor? The law of the land doesn't care for your bullshit, pure and simple.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Exactly. I fail to see why performing a non-hostile action against a pod-pilot should be treated with more hostility than a hostile action against a non-pod-pilot NPC entity. Both are part of the EVE universe. For example, why should a pod-pilot who runs missions for the Gallente Navy be flagged to everyone after stealing a can from a pod-pilot who runs missions for the Caldari Navy, but the pod-pilot who runs missions for the Caldari Navy not be flagged to everyone after shooting a non-pod-pilot ship that belongs to the Gallente Navy? For one, capsuleers are special. Every one capsuleer is worth at least 20 equivalent NPC ships. A single capsuleer getting aggro status after killing a single NPC is NOT an even remotely equivalent exchange, no matter how you slice it.
Secondly, it would make sense in your example for the Caldari Navy player to be aggressed to Gallente players... if said Gallente players were also aggressed to the entire Caldari Navy. But guess what? That's what faction warfare is for. It is a deliberate design choice for the player to actually have to volunteer to be subject to that kind of situation. Don't like it? Take it up with CCP, why don't you?
Thirdly, most of those operations are under-the-radar, especially the ones deep within a given faction's territory. How do they get the word out that said capsuleer is a serious threat and needs to be killed-on-sight if they're at least five LYs away from the nearest friendly solar system? And besides that... that's something accounted for by the standings system.
AkJon Ferguson wrote:Please, for the love of god, scrap these pants-on-head ******** new aggression mechanics and go invent a bunch of stupid new names for modules or something.
No duels. Once you introduce those you'll get 3v3's and then 10v10's and then there will be no spontaneous gang PvP. Arenas have been proposed and rejected because they kill the sandbox you twats.
ffs, they never learn. LOL. I guess this is news to you, but people already do consensual duels all the freakin' time!
Such a horrible thing, isn't it? I guess you should quit now while you're ahead, the process has already begun... |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3347
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:04:00 -
[232] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:I don't think there's been a single post in this thread in opposition to the proposed changes to neutral RR.
Literally any thread about changes to neutral RR is filled with handwaving about how it's a "valid tactic" so I decided to assume that this thread was full of that noise. My mistake. "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1069
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:06:00 -
[233] - Quote
Tarsas Phage wrote:In addition to this, it's moving player "safeties" from player's own brain into a hand-holding client.
Moving the "I am going to do a silly thing" decision to before the weapon is activated means the user doesn't fall into the situation of mistaking the "you are about to get CONCORDOKKENED" dialog with the "you are assisting someone who is at war" dialog, which has bitten me more than once (because when people need repairs, they need them now). The alternative is a round trip to the settings/reset panel every time I switch from running incursions to running missions. That is, the "safety switch" is a shortcut to enabling or disabling the dialog box, while simultaneously removing the dialog box.
Quote:I've always considered Aggression Management a skill, nay, an art form, when it comes to highsec shenanigans - it's one of the precious few areas of EVE where you can out-fox or be out-foxxed with strategy
I have always considered aggression mechanics to be a twisted pile of rotten spaghetti. Removing the single player aggression map is probably over-simplifying the problem, allowing everyone to shoot me because I flipped someone's can is just as broken as a system which causes seconds of lag because I happened to open fire on a new target in a lowsec fight currently involving 200 pilots. The worst feature of the current aggression system is that it requires significant study and trial+error to grok. It does not make sense to me that someone who was blinky red to me 15 minutes ago, shooting their own jetcan should result in CONCORD visiting me for a little talk.
If I can't explain the rules of aggression to a new player who is already competent at flying their ship and blowing up people in w-space or nullsec, the system is too complex.
Quote:In the end, the proposed Crimewatch 2.0 gameplay changes have big problems. First, for being presented at a fanfest in a embryonic state, and second, the impetus behind them is to make the implementation of aggression mechanics easier (as in lazy-easier) and not really because they might make gameplay better. I don't think this is even close to being a sound basis.
I concur: because Greyscale chose to only put some of his cards on the table, we are left with the impression that he is a few cards short of a deck. There is merit in bringing the discussion to the players sooner rather than later but it felt like Greyscale wasn't showing us all the cards. Maybe he really does want crime watch to be easy to program. That is not what we are paying him for. Imagine if the company responsible for my business's accounting system didn't want to code in all the deductions that tax law allows me to make because that legislation is "too hard" GÇö how is that accounting package any better than my home-built spreadsheet?
CCP Greyscale might want to publish that 45 page document he was talking about, so the players can help build the design for Crimewatch 2.0.
|
Alain Kinsella
97
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:06:00 -
[234] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: Can-flipping as-is will be impossible once the safeties are added. People should be able to choose to do dumb things, but they should also have the information they need to figure out that the thing they're doing is dumb.
Highlighted the important part. What, exactly, is the problem here?
-> Safeties on (default), will not let you can-flip. -> Safeties OFF (have to do manually), WILL let you can-flip.
They are *only* letting people learn a bit better about the criminal system. Instead of just blindly becoming a target, the game will instead tell you its a criminal action and you need to turn off the safeties (or become +10 to the target).
@ Mara et al - I also agree that if someone *does* steal/agress me I should have the right to take a swing at him. I'm not familiar with other combat MMOs, but I'd also be fine with being flagged with the new 'misdemeanor' setup - seems reasonable to even this Uruite. If that's not the case (perhaps the flag only occurs in high-sec?) not sure what to think. It's a slightly grey area that they will need to hash out.
I may have come here from Myst Online, but that does not make me any less bloodthirsty than the average Eve player.
Just more subtle.
|
Grumpy Owly
362
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:09:00 -
[235] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote:Liam Mirren wrote:I'm not "angry" because of them having made the decision already, I'm "angry" because they're even contemplating it. It shows me that they din't really actually changed their Incarna way of thinking. This is the exact moment to start yelling, while they're still "thinking about it" rather than waiting till they put it in writing and/or code. Oh I see, you simply believe it shouldn't be discussed at all, as it has no meaning to others. Now I see where the dictator attitude is. No, its more just the fact that the suggestion so thoroughly violates the spirit of what currently exists. Furthermore, the suggestion is pants on head stupid even by the PVP mechanics of other MMOs. Basically what is being suggested in WOW (or other MMO) terms: Players are not flagged for PVP when attacking PVP flagged players. This is batshit insane. -Liang
You mean you want to be able to throw bottles at the two people scrapping on the floor and for it to not to be considered hostile?
I really don't see how it vilotes the mechanics at all, if anything it simplifies it without loopholes to sit on the sidelines and effect things in a fight without consequences to those choices. Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Liam Mirren
338
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:10:00 -
[236] - Quote
Alain Kinsella wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: Can-flipping as-is will be impossible once the safeties are added. People should be able to choose to do dumb things, but they should also have the information they need to figure out that the thing they're doing is dumb.
Highlighted the important part. What, exactly, is the problem here? -> Safeties on (default), will not let you can-flip. -> Safeties OFF (have to do manually), WILL let you can-flip. They are *only* letting people learn a bit better about the criminal system. Instead of just blindly becoming a target, the game will instead tell you its a criminal action and you need to turn off the safeties (or become +10 to the target). @ Mara et al - I also agree that if someone *does* steal/agress me I should have the right to take a swing at him. I'm not familiar with other combat MMOs, but I'd also be fine with being flagged with the new 'misdemeanor' setup - seems reasonable to even this Uruite. If that's not the case (perhaps the flag only occurs in high-sec?) not sure what to think. It's a slightly grey area that they will need to hash out.
- You mine - I can flip you (with safeties off) I can now be attacked by ANYONE - you still can't shoot/loot my can because you have safeties on - if you take safeties off then you can start shooting me, but if I shoot BACK I get in trouble (this is the idiot bit)
The simple fact that stealing now makes you aggressed to anyone removes the whole idea of having an allround corp, where some do the mining/gathering and others pay attention. It makes corps even less useless in high sec than they already are. It's just dumb.
Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
Liam Mirren
338
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:13:00 -
[237] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote:You mean you want to be able to throw bottles at the two people scrapping on the floor and for it to not to be considered hostile?
I really don't see how it vilotes the mechanics at all, if anything it simplifies it without loopholes to sit on the sidelines and effect things in a fight without consequences to those choices.
I think you're missing the point, not that odd once you realise how dumb the DEVS ideas are. It's like this, if I steal form you you're allowed to shoot me but if you do so I am NOT allowed to shoot back. THAT is the implication of what they're "considering".
Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1116
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:15:00 -
[238] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote: You mean you want to be able to throw bottles at the two people scrapping on the floor and for it to not to be considered hostile?
I really don't see how it vilotes the mechanics at all, if anything it simplifies it without loopholes to sit on the sidelines and effect things in a fight without consequences to those choices.
I don't see how you got that out of my post. What CCP is suggesting is that players who are not PVP flagged will not be PVP flagged when attacking players who ARE PVP flagged. If the PVP flagged player defends himself from players who are not PVP flagged, he will be destroyed by the NPC Concord Death Ray.
This is absolutely batshit insane for every MMO's PVP standards - even the "infamous" carebearsville that is WOW. I am suggesting that players attacking a PVP flagged player should be similarly PVP flagged.
-Liang
Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Terazul
The Scope Gallente Federation
28
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:17:00 -
[239] - Quote
Good grief, the level of insane paranoia in this thread is palpable.
Your nebulous "worst-case scenarios" ARE NOT HAPPENING. I know you guys love to think CCP is full of **** all the time and that they are all complete morons who do not play their own game at all, but that is just a fabrication you've created to justify your insane, trollish rants. Perhaps when CCP management had their heads stuck up their own arseholes your paranoia would have been justified, but that is no longer the case. Get over yourselves, would you?
I mean, good grief, you guys talk about collecting carebear tears all the time, but you guys cry the hardest! |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3348
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:18:00 -
[240] - Quote
Terazul wrote:Not everything has to be low-/null-sec, you know.
I don't understand why this is such a difficult thing to grasp.
Mining has no real big choices by design. It's the most basic activity there is in the entirety of the game, is it really surprising that there's little in the way of complexities? And even now, with the current system, miners have to deal with the constant threat of suicide ganks. Let's face it, there's no big "consequence" for a bunch of folks in destroyers going out and ganking these people (and may I remind you, hulks are not cheap) for pennies on the dollar.
Missioning is just dull and repetitive. Really, if people like that sort of activity, what do you care? I'd be more concerned about making missioning an engaging activity more than anything else.
Also, for new players, missioning can actually be highly dangerous all on its own if they're not properly skilled/fit. I know, hard to imagine for a veteran who can sleepwalk through level IVs, but it's a thing, and it's there.
But again... it's high-sec. Why are you so horrified to find that most of the consequence lies on the head of the aggressor? The law of the land doesn't care for your bullshit, pure and simple.
High-sec is not supposed to be a PvE-only zone or "consensual-only PvP" zone. Suicide ganking is effectively the only non-consensual PvP that one can engage in hisec - wardecs are easily evaded. There is no incentive to join a corp, and the way corp hangar mechanics work allows an entire mining fleet to be in starter/NPC corps, immune to wardecs, with all the mining ships hugging an Orca and dumping ore into its CHA. Nothing in this game, not even mining veldspar in a Bantam, should be free of risk. But please, tell me more about how HIGH-SEC IS SUPPOSED TO BE SAFE HURR "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1116
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:19:00 -
[241] - Quote
Terazul wrote:Good grief, the level of insane paranoia in this thread is palpable.
Your nebulous "worst-case scenarios" ARE NOT HAPPENING. I know you guys love to think CCP is full of **** all the time and that they are all complete morons who do not play their own game at all, but that is just a fabrication you've created to justify your insane, trollish rants. Perhaps when CCP management had their heads stuck up their own arseholes your paranoia would have been justified, but that is no longer the case. Get over yourselves, would you?
I mean, good grief, you guys talk about collecting carebear tears all the time, but you guys cry the hardest!
Dude, the man directly said it at the round table. That's ... not us assuming the worst.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Grumpy Owly
362
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:20:00 -
[242] - Quote
Liam Mirren wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote:You mean you want to be able to throw bottles at the two people scrapping on the floor and for it to not to be considered hostile?
I really don't see how it vilotes the mechanics at all, if anything it simplifies it without loopholes to sit on the sidelines and effect things in a fight without consequences to those choices. I think you're missing the point, not that odd once you realise how dumb the DEVS ideas are. It's like this, if I steal form you you're allowed to shoot me but if you do so I am NOT allowed to shoot back. THAT is the implication of what they're "considering".
You are allowed to shoot back and kill. The proposal is that you take a small sec hit as a result.
This is much like you steal something from someone and then you stab them when they try to take it back. Whilst it might seem mean in a game mechnics issue to be unfair to the criminal element. Why should you not be penalised for taking what was a simply theft situation to now assault and murder especially when you instigated the issue?
And from what I understand the security hits may not be as significant as you might believe for these actions. Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Liam Mirren
338
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:20:00 -
[243] - Quote
Terazul wrote:Good grief, the level of insane paranoia in this thread is palpable.
Your nebulous "worst-case scenarios" ARE NOT HAPPENING. I know you guys love to think CCP is full of **** all the time and that they are all complete morons who do not play their own game at all, but that is just a fabrication you've created to justify your insane, trollish rants. Perhaps when CCP management had their heads stuck up their own arseholes your paranoia would have been justified, but that is no longer the case. Get over yourselves, would you?
I mean, good grief, you guys talk about collecting carebear tears all the time, but you guys cry the hardest!
Your post is made invalid by a CCP DEV statement talking them considering to you not being allowed to shoot back at people who just shot you. Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1116
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:23:00 -
[244] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote:Liam Mirren wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote:You mean you want to be able to throw bottles at the two people scrapping on the floor and for it to not to be considered hostile?
I really don't see how it vilotes the mechanics at all, if anything it simplifies it without loopholes to sit on the sidelines and effect things in a fight without consequences to those choices. I think you're missing the point, not that odd once you realise how dumb the DEVS ideas are. It's like this, if I steal form you you're allowed to shoot me but if you do so I am NOT allowed to shoot back. THAT is the implication of what they're "considering". You are allowed to shoot back and kill. The proposal is that you take a small sec hit as a result. This is much like you steal something from someone and then you stab them when they try to take it back. Whilst it might seem mean in a game mechnics issue to be unfair to the criminal element. Why should you not be penalised for taking what was a simply theft situation to now assault and murder especially when you instigated the issue? And from what I understand the security hits may not be as significant as you might believe for these actions.
No, you are not allowed to shoot back: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=982743#post982743
Quote:
One of the most disturbing moments came when, under the proposed rules, the following scenario was given:
1) Player A flips the can of Player B and gains a Suspect flag, making A shootable by everyone
2) Players C-Z go to town on Player A as a result.
Here's the kicker - going into this preso, CCP Greyscale said that once Player A gets aggressed by Players C-Z, Player A will not be allowed to shoot his aggressors back. Yes, this is basically making anyone with a mere Suspect flag the equivalent of GCC, just without the sec drop and CONCORD spawn. Many people in the audience, including myself, collectively WTF'd and suggested that he's off his rocker... and he seemed a bit surprised at this reaction.
Any questions?
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Liam Mirren
339
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:26:00 -
[245] - Quote
Here's the post Greyscale replied to:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:Tippia wrote:1. The inability to fight back, which basically makes the whole GÇ£suspectGÇ¥ flag completely redundant in highsec. This could be fixed by using the duelling contract system that was discussed during the panel, which would allow for some kind of escalation of the conflict without necessarily having everything be a complete dichotomous situation where you either have no semi-legal attacks ever; and everyone fighting everyone do to how quickly it would escalate of suspect flags were handed out as liberally as suggested.
Could you rephrase that? Those of us not there don't have all the details so I am not sure I understand what you wrote. If a player is flagged suspect, to everyone presumably from the way I heard it, and someone shoots a suspect, then the suspect can shoot back. Does the suspect shooting player also become suspect or just get aggro with the initial suspect? Apparently not. A suspect retaliating against a "vigilante" will be conferred all of the "benefits" of a criminal flag.
Here's his reply:
CCP Greyscale wrote:Defending yourself while you're suspect-flagged is an ongoing conversation; we've not decided on anything yet, and we'll devblog when we've got it better nailed down
In other words, they're thinking about NOT being allowed to shoot back at people who just shot you, if you do you get concorded. This isn't a sec hit thing, this is a "concord with nuke you" thing. Again, them even giving the idea more than 3 seconds of thought is just wrong. Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
Grumpy Owly
362
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:27:00 -
[246] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote:Liam Mirren wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote:You mean you want to be able to throw bottles at the two people scrapping on the floor and for it to not to be considered hostile?
I really don't see how it vilotes the mechanics at all, if anything it simplifies it without loopholes to sit on the sidelines and effect things in a fight without consequences to those choices. I think you're missing the point, not that odd once you realise how dumb the DEVS ideas are. It's like this, if I steal form you you're allowed to shoot me but if you do so I am NOT allowed to shoot back. THAT is the implication of what they're "considering". You are allowed to shoot back and kill. The proposal is that you take a small sec hit as a result. This is much like you steal something from someone and then you stab them when they try to take it back. Whilst it might seem mean in a game mechnics issue to be unfair to the criminal element. Why should you not be penalised for taking what was a simply theft situation to now assault and murder especially when you instigated the issue? And from what I understand the security hits may not be as significant as you might believe for these actions. No, you are not allowed to shoot back: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=982743#post982743Quote:
One of the most disturbing moments came when, under the proposed rules, the following scenario was given:
1) Player A flips the can of Player B and gains a Suspect flag, making A shootable by everyone
2) Players C-Z go to town on Player A as a result.
Here's the kicker - going into this preso, CCP Greyscale said that once Player A gets aggressed by Players C-Z, Player A will not be allowed to shoot his aggressors back. Yes, this is basically making anyone with a mere Suspect flag the equivalent of GCC, just without the sec drop and CONCORD spawn. Many people in the audience, including myself, collectively WTF'd and suggested that he's off his rocker... and he seemed a bit surprised at this reaction.
Any questions? -Liang
Who quoted that though? I didnt get that impression from when I watched the proceedings I thought the intention was to apply a sec hit as consequences but not prevent being able to attack or defend. Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1116
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:28:00 -
[247] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote: Who quoted that though? I didnt get that impression from when I watched the proceedings I thought the intention was to apply a sec hit as consequences but not prevent being able to attack or defend.
That's from the round table afterwards, not from the presentation. That is his direct response to a direct question about a specific situation.
He believes players should be able to kill PVP flagged players without PVP flagging themselves.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Alain Kinsella
97
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:28:00 -
[248] - Quote
Liam Mirren wrote:- You mine - I can flip you (with safeties off) I can now be attacked by ANYONE - you still can't shoot/loot my can because you have safeties on - if you take safeties off then you can start shooting me, but if I shoot BACK I get in trouble (this is the idiot bit)
Valid point, that does sound dumb and needs fixing or some other clarification. I'm happy about defending myself, but if the guy who started it can't fight back its going to feel like a turkey shoot or some other missed opportunity; No satisfaction to *either* side. I may have come here from Myst Online, but that does not make me any less bloodthirsty than the average Eve player.
Just more subtle.
|
Harrigan VonStudly
The Generic Pirate Corporation Fusion.
13
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:29:00 -
[249] - Quote
Petty theft being met with deadly force from everyone, people who aren't even involved in the least otherwise, and the right to fight back being removed is about as ******* dumb as it gets. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3348
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:30:00 -
[250] - Quote
Anybody who says that this is the answer to the "risk-averse" playstyle that is ninja-looting is completely overlooking the fact that this creates a risk-averse playstyle based around shooting ninja looters without any risk of retaliation. "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
|
Grumpy Owly
362
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:34:00 -
[251] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote: Who quoted that though? I didnt get that impression from when I watched the proceedings I thought the intention was to apply a sec hit as consequences but not prevent being able to attack or defend.
That's from the round table afterwards, not from the presentation. That is his direct response to a direct question about a specific situation. He believes players should be able to kill PVP flagged players without PVP flagging themselves. -Liang
Is this player reported though or an actual CCP citiation? If it's a player shouldn't you question the validity of that. Especially when the only real talk was from the Fanfest presentation?
Either way I don't agree with any supression of being able to attack of defend in that situation. But until I see it, I really don't think CCP indicated that at all, just the security staus effects.
Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1116
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:36:00 -
[252] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote: Who quoted that though? I didnt get that impression from when I watched the proceedings I thought the intention was to apply a sec hit as consequences but not prevent being able to attack or defend.
That's from the round table afterwards, not from the presentation. That is his direct response to a direct question about a specific situation. He believes players should be able to kill PVP flagged players without PVP flagging themselves. -Liang Is this player reported though or an actual CCP citiation? If it's a player shouldn't you question the validity of that. Especially when the only real talk was from the Fanfest presentation? Either way I don't agree with any supression of being able to attack of defend in that situation. But until I see it, I really don't think CCP indicated that at all, just the security staus effects.
Its both, actually. Its CCP saying something which could potentially be interpreted in a good way (but really shouldn't be) and a player relating what the CCP Dev explained to him in person. That's the current plan. It is the intended behavior of the new Crimewatch that players will not PVP flag for killing PVP flagged players.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Grumpy Owly
363
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:39:00 -
[253] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote: Who quoted that though? I didnt get that impression from when I watched the proceedings I thought the intention was to apply a sec hit as consequences but not prevent being able to attack or defend.
That's from the round table afterwards, not from the presentation. That is his direct response to a direct question about a specific situation. He believes players should be able to kill PVP flagged players without PVP flagging themselves. -Liang Is this player reported though or an actual CCP citiation? If it's a player shouldn't you question the validity of that. Especially when the only real talk was from the Fanfest presentation? Either way I don't agree with any supression of being able to attack of defend in that situation. But until I see it, I really don't think CCP indicated that at all, just the security staus effects. Its both, actually. Its CCP saying something which could potentially be interpreted in a good way (but really shouldn't be) and a player relating what the CCP Dev explained to him in person. That's the current plan. It is the intended behavior of the new Crimewatch that players will not PVP flag for killing PVP flagged players. -Liang
Are you not confusing the ability for players to attack low security individuals due to sec hits?
I'm getting confused now about what you mean for PvP flagged. Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
387
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:41:00 -
[254] - Quote
Taking a sec status hit for defending yourself is stupid too, why should you be punished for defending yourself against an act of violence initiated by another player? If the initial action that gets you flagged doesn't incur a sec status hit, why should anything resulting from it?
The entire thing smacks of poorly thought out game design and the intent to disincentivize PVP in high security space, which is the last thing highsec needs. |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1116
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:42:00 -
[255] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote: Are you not confusing the ability for players to attack low security individuals due to sec hits?
I'm getting confused now about what you mean for PvP flagged.
Fortunately for us all, I am not as easily confused as you are. Primarily because I know how to read.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Skex Relbore
Space Exploitation Inc
136
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:45:00 -
[256] - Quote
Andski wrote:First and foremost, NEUTRAL RR IS A DUMB GIMMICK STOP WHINING ABOUT IT THIS IS LONG OVERDUE.
Now, my question is: how will these changes affect nonconsensual PvP? Specifically, suicide ganking.
Personally I could give a **** about neutral RR in high sec. But you do realize that such changes basically fucks logi in null and low as well were neutral RR isn't an issue?
Cause I sure as hell won't be throwing my 170mil Scimi to keep your drake alive long enough to jump leaving me with a ******* aggression timer.
Please tell me someone has thought about how this change will effect legitimate use of Logistics?
Because unless someone has carved out some exceptions to how this mechanic behaves in null and low sec this is going to have some severe unintended consequences to the null and low sec logi pilots. (oh and carrier pilots too).
|
Grumpy Owly
363
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:45:00 -
[257] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Taking a sec status hit for defending yourself is stupid too, why should you be punished for defending yourself against an act of violence initiated by another player? If the initial action that gets you flagged doesn't incur a sec status hit, why should anything resulting from it?
The entire thing smacks of poorly thought out game design and the intent to disincentivize PVP in high security space, which if you live in highsec you know full well is the last thing highsec needs.
Citation please.
So far the only sec hits inferrred I believe are related to initiating aggresive activities not defending against them.
Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Grumpy Owly
363
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:47:00 -
[258] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote: Are you not confusing the ability for players to attack low security individuals due to sec hits?
I'm getting confused now about what you mean for PvP flagged.
Fortunately for us all, I am not as easily confused as you are. Primarily because I know how to read. -Liang
Erm, no sorry. Then provide the details in context, all you have done so far is elluded to comments from elsewhere. You havent provided any details to be able to see the things as presented to understand what was trying to be conveyed, only your intepretations.
Can't blame me for having limited information and poor definitions being presented. Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Liam Mirren
339
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:49:00 -
[259] - Quote
How about you start at page 1 of this thread and read all DEV replies, instead of replying with "I dunno, I don't think so" 17 times. Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
Grumpy Owly
363
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:50:00 -
[260] - Quote
Liam Mirren wrote:How about you start at page 1 of this thread and read all DEV replies, instead of replying with "I dunno, I don't think so" 17 times.
I dont have to. I saw the TV program and I have been following the thread. Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
|
Liam Mirren
339
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:52:00 -
[261] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote:Liam Mirren wrote:How about you start at page 1 of this thread and read all DEV replies, instead of replying with "I dunno, I don't think so" 17 times. I dont have to. I saw the TV program.
That's your problem, you really should read Greyscales replies. Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1116
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:52:00 -
[262] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:Taking a sec status hit for defending yourself is stupid too, why should you be punished for defending yourself against an act of violence initiated by another player? If the initial action that gets you flagged doesn't incur a sec status hit, why should anything resulting from it?
The entire thing smacks of poorly thought out game design and the intent to disincentivize PVP in high security space, which if you live in highsec you know full well is the last thing highsec needs. Citation please. So far the only sec hits inferrred I believe are related to initiating aggresive activities not defending against them.
Everything is well formed and cited (with links and context) here: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/fanfest-and-crimewatch/
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Grumpy Owly
363
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:57:00 -
[263] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:Taking a sec status hit for defending yourself is stupid too, why should you be punished for defending yourself against an act of violence initiated by another player? If the initial action that gets you flagged doesn't incur a sec status hit, why should anything resulting from it?
The entire thing smacks of poorly thought out game design and the intent to disincentivize PVP in high security space, which if you live in highsec you know full well is the last thing highsec needs. Citation please. So far the only sec hits inferrred I believe are related to initiating aggresive activities not defending against them. Everything is well formed and cited (with links and context) here: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/fanfest-and-crimewatch/-Liang
So you are using your editorial on the words of one player and not CCPs to formulate this conclusion and without any corroboration. Nice reporting technique. Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
402
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:58:00 -
[264] - Quote
Andski wrote:High-sec is not supposed to be a PvE-only zone or "consensual-only PvP" zone. Suicide ganking is effectively the only non-consensual PvP that one can engage in hisec - wardecs are easily evaded. There is no incentive to join a corp, and the way corp hangar mechanics work allows an entire mining fleet to be in starter/NPC corps, immune to wardecs, with all the mining ships hugging an Orca and dumping ore into its CHA. Nothing in this game, not even mining veldspar in a Bantam, should be free of risk. But please, tell me more about how HIGH-SEC IS SUPPOSED TO BE SAFE HURR
Refer back to your earlier RR post. Part of the problem with high sec war is RR and the spaghetti of aggression rules surrounding all the possible scenarios. Cleaning up a lot of these side issues and abuse, not exploits, of Byzantine loop holes, that many first time war deced players don't understand, will be mitigated.
Sooner or later some people are going to discover that camping a few long range BS outside a station or off gates, with destroyer/notics alts in close, is a great way to snipe RR "suspects" and other aggro tricksters, while the DD flying alt scoops up loot.
I hate to use this word in Eve because we all know it doesn't really work, but maybe war will be a little more "fair" and perhaps a few more people might enjoy it, even if and hopefully will remain, non-consensual. |
Grumpy Owly
363
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:58:00 -
[265] - Quote
Liam Mirren wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote:Liam Mirren wrote:How about you start at page 1 of this thread and read all DEV replies, instead of replying with "I dunno, I don't think so" 17 times. I dont have to. I saw the TV program. That's your problem, you really should read Greyscales replies.
I have. Show me where he says your explicitly unable to defend. Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Harrigan VonStudly
The Generic Pirate Corporation Fusion.
13
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 05:59:00 -
[266] - Quote
@ Liang and Liam
Just go to McD's and talk to the 'tard. He'll understand and it's easier vov |
Liam Mirren
339
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 06:02:00 -
[267] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote:I have. Show me where he says your explicitly unable to defend.
Then you need glasses.
Post 151 and Greyscales reply, first bit of post 152, I even linked it in post 245.
Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1116
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 06:04:00 -
[268] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote:I have. Show me where he says your explicitly unable to defend.
It is fully cited and the two quotes do not disagree with each other even in the slightest. A reasonable interpretation of what CCP Greyscale actually said (himself, on this here forum) is that they have not decided whether you will be able to defend yourself when aggressed by non-flagged players.
His further explanation at the round table rather confirms this interpretation and does notconflict with it at all. There is no realistic reason to doubt that he said what was said that he said.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Baneken
Hyvat Pahat ja Eric The Polaris Syndicate
79
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 06:04:00 -
[269] - Quote
Hey people that flag only means "if you do this you will die" nothing else you can still gank people in high sec all you like. Though getting a target painted on your forehead for doing bad stuff but you're a criminal so. |
Grumpy Owly
363
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 06:09:00 -
[270] - Quote
Liam Mirren wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote:I have. Show me where he says your explicitly unable to defend. Then you need glasses. Post 151 and Greyscales reply, first bit of post 152, I even linked it in post 245.
CCP Greyscale wrote:Defending yourself while you're suspect-flagged is an ongoing conversation; we've not decided on anything yet, and we'll devblog when we've got it better nailed down ..... Switch off first-level safety, steal from wreck, get suspect flag, do whatever you like with it.
I see why you are confused.
The first part does not infer an exclusion at all. Have you considered that CCP may simply be deciding on the details surrounding what happens in these situations?
And if anything the second comment about freedom to do what you like when safeties (aka the replacement of checkboxes) are turned off should provide some indication to attitudes and a perspective to abilities.
Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
|
Liam Mirren
339
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 06:15:00 -
[271] - Quote
Looks like you're either an idiot or just trolling, doesn't credit the ideas you're trying to champion in your sig.
There's a post where several people go "wait, what? You're not allowed to shoot back if getting shot at?" to which Greyscale replies "yeah, we're not sure on that yet". The only reasonable reply would have been "no, that would be daft, but we're still working on some details", but he didn't. He gave a direct reply to a silly situation without simply defusing the elephant in the room question. Thus we must conclude that they're actually thinking pushing this through.
And what liang stated. Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
403
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 06:19:00 -
[272] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote: So you are using your editorial on the words of one player and not CCPs to formulate this conclusion and without any corroboration. Nice reporting technique.
It's two so far that I have seen, Tippia reported the same statements much earlier in the thread.
To sum up, the issues are,
1. "A suspect player that is shot, can't shoot back with out further penalty."
This is not a good thing. Who ever and where ever you are, you should be allowed to shoot back no matter what. I think there may be two interpretations floating around. From the presentation, I recall Greyscale saying that the suspect could shoot back but would get the penalty, and then these other two statements from the round table. It needs to be cleared up obviously. Personally, from my experience, I just can't fathom CCP creating a scenario where someone can't shoot back.
2. That a suspect player takes a sec status hit for being a suspect that does shot back. - Though this is probably a minor penalty, there are quite a few legitimate reasons to do "suspect" things, especially when one comes across a bot. Secondly, by invoking a penalty, it will create a condition that may limit possible uses of the suspect flag in the future like smuggling, factional warfare and being on good terms with a pirate faction. Creating a need for new spaghetti is not a good idea.
Get those two things cleared up and it'll make for a good foundation. |
Zarnak Wulf
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
292
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 06:20:00 -
[273] - Quote
War decs are going to have to be consensual? Where did that rumor come from? I saw one thread started with that premise. The devs themselves trolled the hell out of it. |
Grumpy Owly
364
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 06:21:00 -
[274] - Quote
Liam Mirren wrote:Looks like you're either an idiot or just trolling, doesn't credit the ideas you're trying to champion in your sig.
There's a post where several people go "wait, what? You're not allowed to shoot back if getting shot at?" to which Greyscale replies "yeah, we're not sure on that yet". The only reasonable reply would have been "no, that would be daft, but we're still working on some details", but he didn't. He gave a direct reply to a silly situation without simply defusing the elephant in the room question. Thus we must conclude that they're actually thinking pushing this through.
And what liang stated.
No i think you are simply putting something there that doesn't exist, because "you" want it to be. CCP Greyscale was addressing many points in his comment. It doesn't mean he was directly addressing the previous comment at all as a result. Merely summarising the position or laying down a foundation generally for a number of new points that he was responding to. As such the only white elephant I see is the one you want to invent for it.
Either way I have already previously said I dont agree with an exclusion mechanic to being able to defend previously (not including safeties as part of that as they can be turned off) so please don't start inventing stances for me either. Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Liam Mirren
339
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 06:23:00 -
[275] - Quote
He was, as it was the first paragraph and he didn't quote first, meaning he replied to the post directly above him, and yes there was enough time between the 2 posts to make that happen. Either way, I'm tired of pursuing this, I'll simply expect each and any of your future posts to be either dumb or trolling. Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
216
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 06:24:00 -
[276] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:War decs are going to have to be consensual? Where did that rumor come from? I saw one thread started with that premise. The devs themselves trolled the hell out of it. A few years ago, the devs consistently trolled the hell out of threads that presented anxiety in regards to CCP potentially succumbing to the lure of the gaming industry's new pseudostandard: micro transactions. |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1116
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 06:26:00 -
[277] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote: No i think you are simply putting something there that doesn't exist, because "you" want it to be
Heh, my initial post in this thread was asking why everyone was so bent out of shape. Being able to can flip one guy and gain aggression to all of Eve would be ******* epic - almost amazing enough to rat my sec status back up for. It wasn't until I went and read what Greyscale said (both directly and at the round table) that I began to say... "Umm, WTF?"
-Liang
Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Grumpy Owly
365
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 06:29:00 -
[278] - Quote
Liam Mirren wrote:He was, as it was the first paragraph and he didn't quote first, meaning he replied to the post directly above him, and yes there was enough time between the 2 posts to make that happen. Either way, I'm tired of pursuing this, I'll simply expect each and any of your future posts to be either dumb or trolling.
Likewise, though at least I have clear evidence of you trying to fabricate points about myself. Interesting behavioural stance to take don't you think?
Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Grumpy Owly
365
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 06:31:00 -
[279] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote: No i think you are simply putting something there that doesn't exist, because "you" want it to be
Heh, my initial post in this thread was asking why everyone was so bent out of shape. Being able to can flip one guy and gain aggression to all of Eve would be ******* epic - almost amazing enough to rat my sec status back up for. It wasn't until I went and read what Greyscale said (both directly and at the round table) that I began to say... "Umm, WTF?" -Liang
Meaningless without CCP coroborated evidence. Merely trying to push the same argument through. Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
405
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 06:31:00 -
[280] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:War decs are going to have to be consensual? Where did that rumor come from? I saw one thread started with that premise. The devs themselves trolled the hell out of it.
What is the source of this? Guess we'll know more soon. |
|
Bump Tremor
Tremor Recorded Variable Enterprise Training Standards
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 06:31:00 -
[281] - Quote
After reading all the posts up to where i posted thishttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=978520#post978520
and reading everything from there until here - I have now read every post in this thread and the last five pages are the same thing about 4 times. The same people are saying the same thing over and over again - the only thing is the tears get bigger.
I like the idea of the wailing about not being able to defend yourself without a small sec hit when you are attacked by someone.
uh... that person would not be shooting you if you had not stolen from them
You stole
You got shot
You now move from being a simple thief to using deadly force related to the commision of a crime and you get a minor sec hit.
Do that is real life and your jail sentence in most US states usually gets doubled and if you kill the person you stole from, then you are guilty of first degree murder - meaning it is premeditated because you killed someone in the commision of a robbery you decided to do. Yes - actions have consequences.
Every decision has consequences. Your decision to steal starts the whole thing - you are the one who initiates the whole thing. If you don't want it happen, don't initiate it.
Just like when I accept a mission and I know i will take sec hit from wherever the rats come from to break the laws of where I am. I have to decide if I want to take that sec hit to go and kill a make believe group of pixels who will never quit the game and don't pay a sub. I dunno - maybe the equal rights for NPCs movement has started. Wonder if they will somehow elect a CSM? Will they be able to petition? Will they have a Fan Fest?
These are some big tears!!! You guys think only carebears whine and cry - but the blubbering here is in biblical proportions.
Farm town is looking for players who don't want to be held responsible for their actions.
Go ahead and quote me and argue with me, but I'm going back to my fleet right now and I could really care less how much stupidity you want to get involved with. you are just going to have to do it without me. have fun! |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1116
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 06:32:00 -
[282] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote: No i think you are simply putting something there that doesn't exist, because "you" want it to be
Heh, my initial post in this thread was asking why everyone was so bent out of shape. Being able to can flip one guy and gain aggression to all of Eve would be ******* epic - almost amazing enough to rat my sec status back up for. It wasn't until I went and read what Greyscale said (both directly and at the round table) that I began to say... "Umm, WTF?" -Liang Meaningless without CCP coroborated evidence. Merely trying to push the same argument through.
You obviously haven't anything to contribute to the discussion, because there IS CCP corroborated evidence in the form of a direct post in his own words and multiple players reporting his words at the round table. I'm not going to respond to you anymore because your posts are blocked.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
404
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 06:33:00 -
[283] - Quote
Harrigan VonStudly wrote:Petty theft being met with deadly force from everyone, people who aren't even involved in the least otherwise, and the right to fight back being removed is about as ******* dumb as it gets.
It's pretty smart. Puts the law in the hands of the players at large, not those who can best abuse the mechanics. |
EnslaverOfMinmatar
BRAPELILLE MACRO BOT MINERS
19
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 06:39:00 -
[284] - Quote
Tarsas Phage wrote: Here's the kicker - going into this preso, CCP Greyscale said that once Player A gets aggressed by Players C-Z, Player A will not be allowed to shoot his aggressors back. Yes, this is basically making anyone with a mere Suspect flag the equivalent of GCC, just without the sec drop and CONCORD spawn. Many people in the audience, including myself, collectively WTF'd and suggested that he's off his rocker... and he seemed a bit surprised at this reaction.
/T
Is there a recording of this? I wanna see his expression when that happened. LOL
Getting aggro to everyone by looting a can is irrelevant. I loot cans from up to 7 different corps to get a fight and I get shot at like only 1 out of 20 times. Every EVE player must read this http://www.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=29-01-07 or uninstall and DIAF |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
220
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 06:45:00 -
[285] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Harrigan VonStudly wrote:Petty theft being met with deadly force from everyone, people who aren't even involved in the least otherwise, and the right to fight back being removed is about as ******* dumb as it gets. It's pretty smart. Puts the law in the hands of the players at large, not those who can best abuse the mechanics. If you want to go in this direction, I'll oblige.
Launching cans is abandonment, no different from throwing an empty cup out into the highway. High-sec is empire space; it doesn't belong to the pod-pilot launching the can. Therefore, all cans should be considered garbage. Unless of course the pilot jettisoning a can buys licenses from the empires that specifically allow him to secure his jettisoned property. CCP can decide what the fee should be, but I propose a simple X ISK per Y cubic meters system.
Oh, and in line with these rules, all NPC cans belong strictly to the NPC faction they originated from. Anyone taking from NPC cans should be subject to the same "suspicion" flag. Property rules are property rules, after all. |
Grumpy Owly
365
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 06:45:00 -
[286] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote: No i think you are simply putting something there that doesn't exist, because "you" want it to be
Heh, my initial post in this thread was asking why everyone was so bent out of shape. Being able to can flip one guy and gain aggression to all of Eve would be ******* epic - almost amazing enough to rat my sec status back up for. It wasn't until I went and read what Greyscale said (both directly and at the round table) that I began to say... "Umm, WTF?" -Liang Meaningless without CCP coroborated evidence. Merely trying to push the same argument through. You obviously haven't anything to contribute to the discussion, because there IS CCP corroborated evidence in the form of a direct post in his own words and multiple players reporting his words at the round table. I'm not going to respond to you anymore because your posts are blocked. -Liang
No worries, I have sent a request to CCP Greyscale via eve mail to hopefully clarify the point as to wether CCP would create a situation in EvE where you would be unable to explicitily defend yourself through Crimewatch mechanics. (Not including safeties which you can turn off). Better than going round in circles on it. Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
119
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 06:48:00 -
[287] - Quote
Stealing in EVE was never about theft. It was about drawing aggro and everyone knows it. The new mechanics don't allow the criminal to cherry pick thier aggro.
Cry moar. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
220
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 06:53:00 -
[288] - Quote
Ocih wrote:Stealing in EVE was never about theft. It was about drawing aggro and everyone knows it. The new mechanics don't allow the criminal to cherry pick thier aggro.
Cry moar. The old mechanics don't allow anti-theft aggressors to be immune from counterattack.
Cry less. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
180
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 06:54:00 -
[289] - Quote
Tarsas Phage wrote: Here's the kicker - going into this preso, CCP Greyscale said that once Player A gets aggressed by Players C-Z, Player A will not be allowed to shoot his aggressors back. Yes, this is basically making anyone with a mere Suspect flag the equivalent of GCC, just without the sec drop and CONCORD spawn. Many people in the audience, including myself, collectively WTF'd and suggested that he's off his rocker... and he seemed a bit surprised at this reaction.
Yes this is confirmation that many CCP devs really don't seem to have a clue what they're doing design wise. The Crimewatch presentation has already dampened the flames of Inferno, soon we'll see if their Wardec ideas smother the flames entirely.
Thanks for posting that Tarsas. |
knobber Jobbler
Seniors Clan Get Off My Lawn
68
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 06:54:00 -
[290] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:
He believes players should be able to kill PVP flagged players without PVP flagging themselves.
Confirming Greyscale has no idea about game design...again.
Greyscale is like CCP's self flagination device. When ever they want abuse, they tell him to come up with an idea and make it public.
|
|
Roime
Shiva Furnace
305
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 06:57:00 -
[291] - Quote
So shortly CCP is planning changes that will:
1) make hisec safer for new players and carebears
2) allow more and more realistic PVP for those who want it in hisec
sounds like win
|
Thryson
Bondage Goat Zombie
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 06:58:00 -
[292] - Quote
Thabiso wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Pak Narhoo wrote:Just know it's still on paper. Nothing hard, nothing coded. Can go anyway from here.
Like a good point: friendly can flipping to have a 1 on 1 fight is out the window with these presumed changes.
Oh, I'm by no means jumping to conclusions; I know these things aren't set in stone. However, if a change like this is even on the table, it has to be fought tooth and nail for the sake of this game's integrity. If can-flipping is just an "example," think of how many other "suspect" actions might result in this type of flag: - Scanning someone's ship/cargo - Trying to access someone's secure container - Shooting an NPC that's part of someone else's mission - Why not just go ahead and say it: locking someone without their permission If you start going through my backpack on the street to see if anything was worth stealing, I guarentee you there will be repercussions or if I catch you stabbing the tire on my bike there will be consequences. Also, shooting someone elses NPC should be a punisable offence, you might kill his trigger/trigger drop, which could end farming or prevent a turn-in of mission.
What are you like six years old, bike, backpack ill just stab you instead of your tire and use it as the get away vecichle |
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 07:06:00 -
[293] - Quote
.... Wow. That just sucks.
There goes one of my favorite pastimes. Flipping a can and fighting an entire corp, win or lose.
Under this new plan, it's flip a can. Fight all of local. And if somehow I win (which is unlikely), I'm gonna be -5 and Concord will come kill me anyway. Greeeaatttt.
I'm not sure what the purpose of this is. To coddle hi-sec players even more? To push players into lowsec? To destroy the last vestiges of small scale PvP? Wish we could get an explanation on that. (Or have they already given one and I missed it?) |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
181
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 07:10:00 -
[294] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:The point I tried to make is that when carebears spit drivel like "now everyone will have consequences for their actions, they mean that everyone but themselves will have consequences for their actions. So far, I have yet to see what consequences the missioners and miners have for the choices they make, aside from the varying amounts of money they receive from their choices of what rats to shoot and what rocks to mine.
If I'm going to be penalized for even looking at these people funny, then they should be penalized for the veritable crimes against humanity they commit each time they warp to a deadspace or an asteroid belt.
I don't care how CCP does it. Let players join pirate factions for all I care, as long as they get a free pass on anyone who shoots one of those factions' NPCs. CONCORD doesn't shoot Serpentis rats, so this system would be completely acceptable to all mission runners. [...] Exactly. I fail to see why performing a non-hostile action against a pod-pilot should be treated with more hostility than a hostile action against a non-pod-pilot NPC entity. Both are part of the EVE universe. For example, why should a pod-pilot who runs missions for the Gallente Navy be flagged to everyone after stealing a can from a pod-pilot who runs missions for the Caldari Navy, but the pod-pilot who runs missions for the Caldari Navy not be flagged to everyone after shooting a non-pod-pilot ship that belongs to the Gallente Navy?
This 1000 times!!
Not only is Sandbox PvP being shat on, so too is Roleplaying and game immersion. Basically everything that makes EVE or any Sandbox MMORPG interesting, dynamic, and immersive is piece by piece being sucked out to provide safe predictable Themepark rides. Instead they should be doing exactly as you suggest and making ALL player actions and choices have meaningful consequences and give us a real game world to immerse ourselves in.
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3351
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 07:24:00 -
[295] - Quote
all of you are dumb
stop talking about can flipping being "risk-free" when you want a safer hisec "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3351
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 07:27:00 -
[296] - Quote
Andski wrote:Anybody who says that this is the answer to the "risk-averse" playstyle that is ninja-looting is completely overlooking the fact that this creates a risk-averse playstyle based around shooting ninja looters without any risk of retaliation.
just dropping this here again for emphasis "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
119
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 07:33:00 -
[297] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Ocih wrote:Stealing in EVE was never about theft. It was about drawing aggro and everyone knows it. The new mechanics don't allow the criminal to cherry pick thier aggro.
Cry moar. The old mechanics don't allow anti-theft aggressors to be immune from counterattack. Cry less.
LOL, you PvP in High Sec?
Here have some more crow sammich. You look hungry. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
401
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 07:35:00 -
[298] - Quote
Xorv wrote:This 1000 times!!
Not only is Sandbox PvP being shat on, so too is Roleplaying and game immersion. Basically everything that makes EVE or any Sandbox MMORPG interesting, dynamic, and immersive is piece by piece being sucked out to provide safe predictable Themepark rides. Instead they should be doing exactly as you suggest and making ALL player actions and choices have meaningful consequences and give us a real game world to immerse ourselves in.
Sandbox PvP, Roleplaying and Game Immersion. Big words for flipping a newb can.
Till yesterday you could p!ss in someone else's sandbox from upstairs and they'd only see yellow rain.
Tomorrow you will wade thru your own yellow rain in the same sandbox. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
220
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 07:52:00 -
[299] - Quote
EVE isn't the real world. It is a game set 20,000 years into the future, in another galaxy, populated by human descendants who not only don't remember what 21st century Earth morality is, but don't even have stone tablet records of what Earth was like. |
Pheusia
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
41
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 07:53:00 -
[300] - Quote
CCP sure must love suicide ganking is all I can say. You know, since they're making every other kind of PvP in hi-sec effectively equivalent to it. |
|
Lexmana
Imperial Stout
260
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 07:55:00 -
[301] - Quote
Tippia wrote:The alternative, strictly using this system, would be that anyone who attacks a suspect becomes a suspect. This creates a massive escalation problem: I steal your can (everyone can shoot me); you shoot me for my isolence (now everyone can shoot you); my backstabbing bastard buddies warp in because we successfully baited you and they shoot you, now everyone can shoot them. Suddenly, we have 20 free-for-all targets in the system just because I took your loot. No-one will come out of this alive and salvage prices will be reaching an all-time low from the massive increase in availability from all those wrecks.
Nice write up!
But why is this escalation a problem? There would definitively be times where this might escalate further than you thought and result in lots of wrecks. But that is just fun right? That is what we want.
If the timer is short (say 5 min) this would resolve itself rather quickly too.
It just makes a lot of sense and no-one would be caught in this mess without actually committing an agressive act in highsec anyway. You have to actually opt-in. And everyone should know that shooting at someone is dangerous and may lead to an unexpected situation and a loss of a ship.
I like it. |
Liam Mirren
340
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 08:04:00 -
[302] - Quote
Lexmana wrote:Nice write up!
But why is this escalation a problem? There would definitively be times where this might escalate further than you thought and result in lots of wrecks. But that is just fun right? That is what we want.
If the timer is short (say 5 min) this would resolve itself rather quickly too.
It just makes a lot of sense and no-one would be caught in this mess without actually committing an agressive act in highsec anyway. You have to actually opt-in. And everyone should know that shooting at someone is dangerous and may lead to an unexpected situation and a loss of a ship.
I like it.
While it would be hilarious from the aggressor POV, it's too easily exploitable, have several friends in system, flip someone, wait till you get shot at, send in 1 person to deal with him hoping for it to escalate even more. I honestly don't think that just because you stole some corp's loot you should be flagged to everyone. That's like saying if you're wardecced anyone can attack you. Game mechanic wise it's just as silly. The can aggression mechanic doesn't NEED changing, there's nothing wrong with it.
Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
222
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 08:04:00 -
[303] - Quote
Lexmana wrote:Tippia wrote:The alternative, strictly using this system, would be that anyone who attacks a suspect becomes a suspect. This creates a massive escalation problem: I steal your can (everyone can shoot me); you shoot me for my isolence (now everyone can shoot you); my backstabbing bastard buddies warp in because we successfully baited you and they shoot you, now everyone can shoot them. Suddenly, we have 20 free-for-all targets in the system just because I took your loot. No-one will come out of this alive and salvage prices will be reaching an all-time low from the massive increase in availability from all those wrecks. Nice write up! But why is this escalation a problem? There would definitively be times where this might escalate further than you thought and result in lots of wrecks. But that is just fun right? That is what we want. If the timer is short (say 5 min) this would resolve itself rather quickly too. It just makes a lot of sense and no-one would be caught in this mess without actually committing an agressive act in highsec anyway. You have to actually opt-in. And everyone should know that shooting at someone is dangerous and may lead to an unexpected situation and a loss of a ship. I like it. It's an interesting system on paper, but when you think about it, it doesn't make any sense. First of all, if we take this whole white-knight thing into account, then the vigilante who comes to the miner's aid shouldn't be flagged to anyone when he interferes on behalf of the miner. It's like he's punishing a criminal, but in doing so becomes a criminal himself, and the friends of the original criminals are now white knights punishing the criminal who is also a vigilante, but in doing so they also become criminals, etc etc.
And now you have 40 dead people just because some guy in a Rifter stole 120 units of Veldspar from a bot. They might as well call this game Halmet Online if this is how it's going to be. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
181
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 08:14:00 -
[304] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Xorv wrote:This 1000 times!!
Not only is Sandbox PvP being shat on, so too is Roleplaying and game immersion. Basically everything that makes EVE or any Sandbox MMORPG interesting, dynamic, and immersive is piece by piece being sucked out to provide safe predictable Themepark rides. Instead they should be doing exactly as you suggest and making ALL player actions and choices have meaningful consequences and give us a real game world to immerse ourselves in
Sandbox PvP, Roleplaying and Game Immersion. Big words for flipping a newb can [...] So, in EvE if you want to be a burger flipper you get to take a grenade in your eye in Nigeria and call it meaningful, immersion and consequences
I really don't give a **** about flipping a newbie can, I don't think it should be necessary to play the system like that in the first place to shoot another player without a CCP deathray annihilating you. WTF does a burger flipper have to do with what our characters are in EVE? Sorry your analogy is full on fail. What are EVE characters? They're powerful independent military based corporations built around an immortal, not one of the marines or a servant stacked in your hanger. Mission runners, Ratters, and Incursion runners etc murder millions of non immortals from Empire and Pirate factions yet that has almost no consequences, shoot another pod pilot who in all likelihood has little affiliation or loyalty to any Faction or CONCORD and somehow that elicits immediate and deadly response from Faction Navies and CONCORD.
Doesn't matter how you cut it, people like you have no real interest in making an immersive game world or having a real Sandbox game, you're just out to turn EVE into a full on Themepark game and another WoW clone. |
Vila eNorvic
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 08:17:00 -
[305] - Quote
Liam Mirren wrote:It's like this, if I steal form you you're allowed to shoot me but if you do so I am NOT allowed to shoot back. THAT is the implication of what they're "considering". Yep, that's the general principle on present-day planet Earth. Why should it be unreasonable in a far-distant far-future galaxy?
|
Rico Minali
Sons Of 0din Fatal Ascension
375
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 08:19:00 -
[306] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Velicia Tuoro wrote:New "suspect" flag - Minor crimes. Anyone can shoot you without penalty. - Flipping a can for example - Shooting someone makes you a suspect (I think) - Anyone assisting a suspect becomes a suspect - Not sure if gate guns will attack a suspect. Undecided yet. So you're basically saying that they're deviating from their course of gradually removing pvp from high-sec by removing it entirely in one fell swoop? Even a can flip duel will no longer be viable?
No, I think what they are saying is that if you commit a crime in hisec you get treated like a criminal and can be shot at. I reckon itll increase teh pvp fun of can flippers since thats what they are looking for right? Some pvp? Or are they just looking to shoot some low sp noobies who havnt yet learned to play properly? Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
405
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 08:23:00 -
[307] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:It's an interesting system on paper, but when you think about it, it doesn't make any sense. First of all, if we take this whole white-knight thing into account, then the vigilante who comes to the miner's aid shouldn't be flagged to anyone when he interferes on behalf of the miner. It's like he's punishing a criminal, but in doing so becomes a criminal himself, and the friends of the original criminals are now white knights punishing the criminal who is also a vigilante, but in doing so they also become criminals, etc etc.
And now you have 40 dead people just because some guy in a Rifter stole 120 units of Veldspar from a bot. They might as well call this game Halmet Online if this is how it's going to be.
From what I gather, that's not quite what will happen. I am assuming the round table reports and suggested course of action is what will be done, so I could be wrong too.
This is the walk through as best I can tell, and perhaps some wishful thinking ...
Jim finds a miner, Jim flips the miner's can. Everyone can shoot Jim BoobyNoob Boots tries to shoot Jim. Booby gets a message "you're a noob, turn off the safety" Meanwhile Galahad on his white horse comes along and takes a shot at Jim. Jim can shoot at Galahad, but now takes a sec penalty. (Good that Jim can shoot, but bad idea Jim has to take a sec hit IMO) Jim is still "Suspect" to everyone, but Jim and Galahad are now in "duel", meaning, anyone who reps either of them will also pick up the "suspect" flag.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
222
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 08:29:00 -
[308] - Quote
Rico Minali wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Velicia Tuoro wrote:New "suspect" flag - Minor crimes. Anyone can shoot you without penalty. - Flipping a can for example - Shooting someone makes you a suspect (I think) - Anyone assisting a suspect becomes a suspect - Not sure if gate guns will attack a suspect. Undecided yet. So you're basically saying that they're deviating from their course of gradually removing pvp from high-sec by removing it entirely in one fell swoop? Even a can flip duel will no longer be viable? No, I think what they are saying is that if you commit a crime in hisec you get treated like a criminal and can be shot at. I reckon itll increase teh pvp fun of can flippers since thats what they are looking for right? Some pvp? Or are they just looking to shoot some low sp noobies who havnt yet learned to play properly? Except as it stands right now, CCP isn't "entirely sure" whether they're going to let the can flipper fight back against anyone who aggresses them without CONCORD intervention/sec status penalty.
Also, as long as we're making real-life parallels, please list some civilized countries that allow you to shoot and kill a robber who is in the process of hauling a TV set from someone else's house (read: not your house and not your TV set). |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
222
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 08:35:00 -
[309] - Quote
Vila eNorvic wrote:Liam Mirren wrote:It's like this, if I steal form you you're allowed to shoot me but if you do so I am NOT allowed to shoot back. THAT is the implication of what they're "considering". Yep, that's the general principle on present-day planet Earth. Why should it be unreasonable in a far-distant far-future galaxy? Because even today's moral codes would be entirely esoteric to people who lived just five decades ago in the same country. To claim that morality doesn't change much tens of thousands of years into the future and millions of light years away quite possibly makes you dumber than our Glorious CCP Overlords (all hail Glorious CCP Overlords, I beg forgiveness for my insolence, all hail Glorious CCP Overlords). |
Diva Ex Machina
Son's of The Hammer The Methodical Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 08:42:00 -
[310] - Quote
Vila eNorvic wrote:Liam Mirren wrote:It's like this, if I steal form you you're allowed to shoot me but if you do so I am NOT allowed to shoot back. THAT is the implication of what they're "considering". Yep, that's the general principle on present-day planet Earth. Why should it be unreasonable in a far-distant far-future galaxy?
On present day earth the police aren't an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent force that kill you as soon as you do something wrong.
Aside from which, this is a game not reality, and what matters is what makes the game more interesting.
CCP I am pretty much a carebear and I have to say that making high sec even safer and dumber is NOT the way to go. There are already plenty of ways for players in high sec to look after themselves if they care to learn the game mechanics and take proper precautions. Catering to those who don't care to learn the game they're playing isn't going to keep them from rage quitting it's just making things duller for the rest of us. |
|
lilol' me
Comply Or Die Drunk 'n' Disorderly
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 08:46:00 -
[311] - Quote
Be interesting to see the full details. But you have to remember guys CCP are trying to bring in new players as well as fulfill the needs of the older players. Being constantlyu ganked and griefed by vets that cant pvp proper is going to lose them valuable players for the future, hence severely effecting retention.
There is low sec and nullsec (yes 2 massivee areas of eve) for you to pvp in. Get some balls and go there, instead of being lame and getting easy kills in empire on poor noobies.
Oh for the record i am bitter vet... so before you start crying poor noob player, |
Liam Mirren
340
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 08:48:00 -
[312] - Quote
Vila eNorvic wrote:Liam Mirren wrote:It's like this, if I steal form you you're allowed to shoot me but if you do so I am NOT allowed to shoot back. THAT is the implication of what they're "considering". Yep, that's the general principle on present-day planet Earth. Why should it be unreasonable in a far-distant far-future galaxy?
Because this is a game.
Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
Grumpy Owly
367
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 08:57:00 -
[313] - Quote
I really don't see the logical problem to the issue.
People want to see in the logic either an inability to defend, without Concord taking over, which seems an unfair overkill for the task.
Or they want to see a domino effect of "suspect" status being transfered. Which could be interesting.
What about the other logical argument, that only the person who actually commits the crime/missdemenor and gets flagged as a suspect is the only one who actually attains this status, unless someone helps the "suspect" of course.
As a result if anyone attacks a suspect to enact white knighting, then why not simply allow the "suspect" to have clear defence to aggress that person without Concord intervention.
i.e.:
Can flipper flips can > Suspect1
WK1 aggresses Suspect1.
Suspect1 can now aggress WK1.
WK2 aggresses Suspect1.
Suspect1 can now aggress WK2.
RR heals Suspect1 > Suspect2 ... treated seperatley but now open to attack by WKs or Suspects.
In this sense only those who deliberatley attack a suspect can be aggressed by that suspect but they dont become suspects themselves.
In this sense the Suspect or can flipper, chooses his battlefield carefully and likley wont be agressed unless there is a protective force already there or one close by to intervene, or the miner has to reship to do so personally.
The only potential disparity is the WK's can be RR'd without becoming suspects. But even their aggressions can be tied into each WK and their associated suspect(s) if needs be.
Of course how much this complicates what is meant to be a more simplified model is unclear I guess. But it is certainly a possibility in terms of no Concord or no cascade outcome? Unless I missed something.
The best alternative with a completely "suspect" model would be to allow it to cascade I guess. This would be preferable to a Concord intervention that as a result I don't think is intended for this category. That is why can flipping is labelled in the missdemeanor category as opposed to GCC. Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
222
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:03:00 -
[314] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote:As a result if anyone attacks a suspect to enact white knighting, then why not simply allow the "suspect" to have clear defence to aggress that person without Concord intervention. How many times do multiple people have to tell you that under the current proposal, the suspect will not be able to aggress the white knight without CONCORD intervention/and or security status penalties? |
Diva Ex Machina
Son's of The Hammer The Methodical Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:04:00 -
[315] - Quote
lilol' me wrote:Be interesting to see the full details. But you have to remember guys CCP are trying to bring in new players as well as fulfill the needs of the older players. Being constantlyu ganked and griefed by vets that cant pvp proper is going to lose them valuable players for the future, hence severely effecting retention.
There is low sec and nullsec (yes 2 massivee areas of eve) for you to pvp in. Get some balls and go there, instead of being lame and getting easy kills in empire on poor noobies.
Oh for the record i am bitter vet... so before you start crying poor noob player,
People keep saying this but what I want to know is are those new players going to stick around long term when level 4 missions start to pall and they can't sell what they manufacture because nobody is blowing ships up in high sec anymore? Ia a player who quits because he got ganked a few times really the type of player that will enjoy Eve long term?
Oh and for the record I am a noob player (five months still feels noobish to me) and one of the things that attracted me to this game is that it seemed like one that could keep me entertained for years just by virtue of the fact that it has complicated mechanics and a lot of people who would like to make ruin my day.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
402
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:07:00 -
[316] - Quote
Xorv wrote:Doesn't matter how you cut it, people like you have no real interest in making an immersive game world or having a real Sandbox game, you're just out to turn EVE into a full on Themepark game and another WoW clone.
Balls. I have played DFO and other pure PvP games. EvE is actually the one PvP game whose PvP I got bored the quickest (blobs, neutral reps, pocket cynos, lack of positional fighting, awfully BAD collision mechanics).
I just happen to prefer killing people who can fight back instead of throwing axes on the short bus guys to engross my e-peen.
This is the pure and only truth and does not matter how YOU cut it.
Because if PvP was really what you were after, you'd go where there's real PvP: low sec, WH, NPC 0.0. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Chanina
ASGARD HEAVY INDUSTRIES Viking Empire
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:08:00 -
[317] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote:As a result if anyone attacks a suspect to enact white knighting, then why not simply allow the "suspect" to have clear defence to aggress that person without Concord intervention. How many times do multiple people have to tell you that under the current proposal, the suspect will not be able to aggress the white knight without CONCORD intervention/and or security status penalties?
Maybe you should take is post more like a proposal. Sometimes devs happen do read some posts. I'm totally against the option of fighting someone who can't fight back. if i decide to protect my can (attack the flipper) it should result in a "normal" fight. The exception that anyone can join this fight (hole alliance not only just the corp the conti was from) sounds like a good improvement.
If they can't fight back the only thing that will happen is that they use noob ships to do it and continue their business without real fights just to annoy miners and co. |
Diva Ex Machina
Son's of The Hammer The Methodical Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:09:00 -
[318] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote:I really don't see the logical problem to the issue.
People want to see in the logic either an inability to defend, without Concord taking over, which seems an unfair overkill for the task.
Or they want to see a domino effect of "suspect" status being transfered. Which could be interesting.
What about the other logical argument, that only the person who actually commits the crime/missdemenor and gets flagged as a suspect is the only one who actually attains this status, unless someone helps the "suspect" of course.
As a result if anyone attacks a suspect to enact white knighting, then why not simply allow the "suspect" to have clear defence to aggress that person without Concord intervention.
Are you hard of thinking? That is exactly what people are worried about: that CCP have clearly indicated that the suspect won't be able to attack back. It has been said multiple times in this very thread by people who heard it from CCP and also from one of the devs himself that this is on the table.
Open your bloody eyes! |
Tsubutai
The Tuskers
74
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:12:00 -
[319] - Quote
Uh.... wow. Most of the stuff in the Crimewatch presentation was very nice, and I can understand the desire to simplify the aggression scheme (both conceptually and in terms of server load), but I have to echo the concerns expressed regarding a Suspect being shot by an Innocent player in highsec:
There must never be a situation in which one player can shoot another who is not allowed to respond in kind. |
Tarsas Phage
Pain Delivery.
56
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:17:00 -
[320] - Quote
Andski wrote:First and foremost, NEUTRAL RR IS A DUMB GIMMICK STOP WHINING ABOUT IT THIS IS LONG OVERDUE.
Now, my question is: how will these changes affect nonconsensual PvP? Specifically, suicide ganking.
The RR turns red in highsec once it reps someone you're aggressed to, you know. You can like, shoot at it and stuff to shoo it off.
You want to know what's the real gimmick in this game? Drag bubbles. So suck it, 0.0 smuggos. |
|
Grumpy Owly
367
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:20:00 -
[321] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote:As a result if anyone attacks a suspect to enact white knighting, then why not simply allow the "suspect" to have clear defence to aggress that person without Concord intervention. How many times do multiple people have to tell you that under the current proposal, the suspect will not be able to aggress the white knight without CONCORD intervention/and or security status penalties?
Actually no, the argument was about wether you would be able to defend against White nights who aggress you without the Concord intervention. Security penalties I stated as something that would happen however small or whatever.
CCP have yet to confirm this. Only players are making this assumption or reporting from a limited source it seems. I have no idea how trustworthy that source is.
Considering the only "official" evidence I have at this time is the Fanfest presentation where these missdemeanors would not invoke GCC or Concord in the process. There is nothing directly linking the fact they would do so due to being a suspect. That is what I want clarified by CCP.
To re-iterate however Concord attacking can flippers who defend against white knights is obviously not something I would like to see introduced anyhow. A WK making a "choice" to aggress should be able to be met with a defence. The interesting part I guess be the suspect flagging length and the fact he is flagged to more than just the offended parties. Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Jethro Winchester
The Logistical Nightmare
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:21:00 -
[322] - Quote
As far as can flipping is concerned I see no problem with the current system. If you are experienced enough to know what jetcan mining is then you deserve whatever you get if somebody steals ore from said can. In short if you don't want your ore stolen, don't leave it laying around. With the current mechanic if your can is flipped you have the option to retaliate, which you do at your own risk. If you want to jetcan mine safely have your corpmates (Oh, your in an NPC corp? Well then too bad.) provide cover while you jettison cans to your hearts content. If somebody DOES flip your can at least your corpmates can make sure he regrets it. Again, the way I see it the current mechanics are just fine, and if people were smarter about how they played the game they could avoid a lot of the 'problems' that the proposed changes aim to 'fix'. |
OT Smithers
Cult of Baal
119
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:23:00 -
[323] - Quote
Sounds fine to me. I can easily see it adding more PvP rather than less.
Love the changes to the KM's
Love having Logi and what now grab a timer. About freaking time. Maybe that will cut down the some of the carrier fagging in low sec.
I really love the tears from all the high sec can flippers and station huggers. Maybe they will have to learn some actual PvP.
........
I would like to see all profit removed from suicide ganking.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
225
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:27:00 -
[324] - Quote
Jethro Winchester wrote:Again, the way I see it the current mechanics are just fine, and if people were smarter about how they played the game they could avoid a lot of the 'problems' that the proposed changes aim to 'fix'. Three threads and thousands of posts might unfortunately mean that this is simply too much to ask of the generation whose general ineptitude is responsible for the health hazard warnings on plastic forks and styrofoam coffee cups. |
Liam Mirren
340
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:31:00 -
[325] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:I really love the tears from all the high sec can flippers and station huggers. Maybe they will have to learn some actual PvP.
I heard that hanging in Tama with a bunch of friends and some added gang links, waiting for a poor sod who's hoping to find solo action and then blobbing the living **** out of him is a far superior form of PVP (and yes, 6 v1 IS blobbing, in Tama).
I could have heard wrong tho. Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5745
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:36:00 -
[326] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:I'll tell you how it will promote it for me ... I don't have to worry about some guy warping in some neut repper or his silly orca alt - i'll be more inclined to fight, and more inclined to flip a few cans. He's not going to warp in "some neut repper," but he is going to warp in some neut repper S. Significant numerical superiority will be the most efficient counter for these changes. There will be no neutral reppers with this change. There will be reppers who are one of more of the following: a) free for all to shoot; b) locked out by docking timers (while being free-for-all targets); c) killed by CONCORD.
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Liam Mirren wrote:...So RIGHT NOW is the moment to voice your opinion. Actually no, not so much. The correct time is when the 'plans' are not on beer stained napkins but on the test server .. if you blow your load on every hypothetical you come across you'll die from dehydration. Actually, yes, very much. Now is when they're deciding what the design goals of the refactoring is and right now, that list pretty much consists of GÇ£get rid of one-to-one flaggingGÇ¥. This is the point in the process where we GÇö who live with these mechanics on a daily basis GÇö chip in and say GÇ£no, this reduction removes functionalities X, Y, and Z, and it's imperative that they remainGÇ¥. This is when we get the message across that other goals need to be on the list, and that we can see severe exploits and gaps in the system as proposed so far.
If anything, IMO, this is the exact opposite of Incarna: they're telling us something that needs to happen and why, and they're asking for our feedback on what needs to still be there at the other end and what issues we have that need to be fixed at the ground floor, rather than be clumsily patched in at a later date.
Oh, and Grumpy and Liang: as someone who was there for both the presentation and the roundtable, and who also took part in the discussions on the stairs afterwards let's make this clear: right now the plan is that flagging yourself as GÇ£suspsectGÇ¥ gives you no special rights. You are now a legal target for everyone. Attacking you does not make anyone a suspect. Anyone attacking you are therefore illegal targets, and if you try to shoot back at them as they kill you, CONCORD smacks you down hard. Directly from the devs' mouths. Also from their mouths is the only alternative with the current proposed implementation: anyone who attacks a GÇ£susspectGÇ¥ is also flagged a GÇ£susspectGÇ¥. You can now fire back at your attackers. The problem with this (and why they're reticent to do it) is that this will very quickly lead to a situation where half the system is flagged a free-for-all target. There's also the notion that, if people know they'll become free-for-all, they won't use the opportunity to shoot suspects, and that kind of ruins the point of having them GÇö it basically means highsec becomes an opt-in lowsec. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
921
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:38:00 -
[327] - Quote
Hey dudes, I see you made a lot of posts while I was asleep.
Ok, thing up front, here's how talking about things at fanfest works. When we do a devblog, we generally hold it off until we've got a good idea how we think everything's going to work, and then we explain our plan.
When we do a talk or a roundtable at fanfest, we're wheeling out designs at whatever stage they happen to be at. It's not the same as a devblog because stuff isn't always "done". I'll come back to this in a bit.
Weaselior wrote:Is this intended as a nerf to suicide ganking, or will the concord replacement allow similar amounts of DPS to be done before death?
Nope, not intended as a change to suicide ganking at all. Any CONCORD replacement will keep the same time interval as current CONCORD spawns. We're kicking around the idea of deploying an instant warp-scrambler to prevent warping-around shenanigans, but we don't have any plans to alter the DPS delay right now.
Weaselior wrote:In addition, I would suggest you consider that CONCORD's very exploitability makes it fun: it's interesting to have it as something you jerk around and abuse (within limits, of course) that makes it interesting. Things like prepping concord, moving it, these all add flavor to the game. It's much better to leave CONCORD as it is, while tweaking it every time something really broken is discovered, than just say fuckit and go the death ray route.
It is fun, and I always find it amusing when people find some new trick (someone explained the tornado circle-warp to me last night), but at the same time it's the clear and explicit policy of CCP that avoiding CONCORD is an exploit ,and we shouldn't be relying on our CS staff to enforce failures of the game mechanics in this regard. That's where we're coming from on this - if it's the design intent that something be the case (you can't avoid CONCORD), then the game should actually enforce that intent.
Severian Carnifex wrote:Are you trying to solve a problem of excessive (and really to easy and cheap) suicide ganking of miners with this changes too??? I hope you will look at that problem too with this.
Nope, not something we're considering right now, see above.
Tarsas Phage wrote:What Crimewatch 2.0 needs to be is a reimplementation of current logic - ie, the current aggression mechanics. Yes, the current Crimewatch code is buggy and convoluted, it needs to be modularized, it needs latent bugs fixed and some additional non-gameplay-affecting features added such as KM's for self-destructs while under aggression. CCP Greyscale and Masterplan need to do this first. Then and only then should actual gameplay-affecting changes be considered.
/T
Which is exactly what we're currently doing, as explained by Masterplan at the beginning ofthe presentation. |
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
921
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:39:00 -
[328] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Defending yourself while you're suspect-flagged is an ongoing conversation; we've not decided on anything yet, and we'll devblog when we've got it better nailed down Are you ******* serious m8? That's the dumbest thing you've ever said - and that's saying a lot. -Liang Ed: Just to be clear: it should never be in doubt that the player will have the right to defend themselves while merely a suspect. The fact you haven't even decided if that's possible is just out of this ******* world.
Ok, so firstly, see the first bit of my previous post. This isn't something we flagged up as an issue early on, but which looks like it should be solvable so we've not dedicated a whole lot of work to it yet.
Here's the awkwardness with all three obvious solutions to this problem:
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.
What we're actually considering right now, based on player suggestions, is to formalize the concept of a "limited engagement", which is effectively needed for both wardecs and some kind of duelling system, and carry that across to here too. To whit, anyone who engages a suspect becomes part of a "limited engagement" with the suspect on one side and all their aggressors on the other side, and any further interference by anyone else in that engagement gets a suspect flag.
And yes, I know "I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU EVEN CONSIDERED THAT OPTION"; we consider all the options, and yesterday I threw one out to gauge the player reaction to it, which generated some useful feedback.
Vimsy Vortis wrote: CCP Greyscale is just continuing his long pattern of making horrible changes to game mechanics without running them past anyone. If you liked Sov mechanics and the sanctum nerf I'm sure you'll enjoy greyscale's new and improved aggression system.
Forgive my slow brain, I've just woken up, but... a thirty-minute presentation, 15 minutes of Q&A, a one-hour roundtable and a 16-page-and-counting forum thread... and I'm not running this past anyone? Bwuh?
Liang Nuren wrote: Its both, actually. Its CCP saying something which could potentially be interpreted in a good way (but really shouldn't be) and a player relating what the CCP Dev explained to him in person. That's the current plan. It is the intended behavior of the new Crimewatch that players will not PVP flag for killing PVP flagged players.
-Liang
You literally just quoted me saying "we've not made our mind up what the intended behavior is". |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5745
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:42:00 -
[329] - Quote
GǪalso, Greyscale, if you feel I'm misrepresenting what you or Masterplan said at either the panel or the presentation, please correct it. I'm not awake either at this point. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
225
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:49:00 -
[330] - Quote
Greyscale, have you considered the possibility that the current can-flagging mechanics are already adequate? I know you want to add on to the game, but sometimes new additions do more harm than good. Having a system where a can-flipper gets aggro toward the can owner's corporation is quite fair and balanced. Extending that aggro to the whole alliance might also be tolerable. But extending it to every single player in high-sec is ridiculous.
Also, note how we're not criticizing the RR and security status proposals. It's this specific change that we have an issue with, and quite frankly, it should be dropped without further discussion. I feel like my words are falling upon deaf ears, however. I shudder to think what kind of surprises Sunday will bring. |
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1121
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:52:00 -
[331] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: Ok, so firstly, see the first bit of my previous post. This isn't something we flagged up as an issue early on, but which looks like it should be solvable so we've not dedicated a whole lot of work to it yet.
Here's the awkwardness with all three obvious solutions to this problem:
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.
What we're actually considering right now, based on player suggestions, is to formalize the concept of a "limited engagement", which is effectively needed for both wardecs and some kind of duelling system, and carry that across to here too. To whit, anyone who engages a suspect becomes part of a "limited engagement" with the suspect on one side and all their aggressors on the other side, and any further interference by anyone else in that engagement gets a suspect flag.
Here's the awkwardness of your solutions: 1. Players are able to kill PVP flagged players without PVP flagging themselves. In ALL other MMOs this would be an exploit - even the really carebear ones that barely implement PVP. 2. Why do you feel that there needs to be a penalty involved with being flagged as a suspect? Why is ships blowing up a bad thing? You implemented your "safety off" - they know what the consequences are. This is notably how other games handle PVP flagging. Its why its called "PVP flagging". 3. This seems really complicated and you're probably going to end up with a similar set of byzantine rules regarding aggression. You're probably better off with #2.
Quote:Liang Nuren wrote: Its both, actually. Its CCP saying something which could potentially be interpreted in a good way (but really shouldn't be) and a player relating what the CCP Dev explained to him in person. That's the current plan. It is the intended behavior of the new Crimewatch that players will not PVP flag for killing PVP flagged players.
-Liang
You literally just quoted me saying "we've not made our mind up what the intended behavior is".
Dude:
Quote:And yes, I know "I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU EVEN CONSIDERED THAT OPTION"; we consider all the options, and yesterday I threw one out to gauge the player reaction to it, which generated some useful feedback.
You threw a suggestion out there that's so carebear its not even implemented in WOW. And you think the player base isn't going to say WTF m8?
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Grumpy Owly
367
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:55:00 -
[332] - Quote
Tippia wrote: Oh, and Grumpy and Liang: as someone who was there for both the presentation and the roundtable, and who also took part in the discussions on the stairs afterwards let's make this clear: right now the plan is that flagging yourself as GÇ£suspsectGÇ¥ gives you no special rights. You are now a legal target for everyone. Attacking you does not make anyone a suspect. Anyone attacking you are therefore illegal targets, and if you try to shoot back at them as they kill you, CONCORD smacks you down hard. Directly from the devs' mouths. Also from their mouths is the only alternative with the current proposed implementation: anyone who attacks a GÇ£susspectGÇ¥ is also flagged a GÇ£susspectGÇ¥. You can now fire back at your attackers. The problem with this (and why they're reticent to do it) is that this will very quickly lead to a situation where half the system is flagged a free-for-all target. There's also the notion that, if people know they'll become free-for-all, they won't use the opportunity to shoot suspects, and that kind of ruins the point of having them GÇö it basically means highsec becomes an opt-in lowsec.
I'll be gracious and assume it's legit. (More grief from being skeptical of players it seems.)
At least it's interesting they have an alternative proposal.
What's the argument if anything against affording aggression rights to can flippers specifically to those WK's who attack them. Is this simply the case that it would kind of revert back to the old or current complicated list of linked mechanics to individual statuses that would become a jumbled mess as per in some what similar to what we have now?
As the proposal with the CONCORD smackdown would kind of leave can flipping to the exercise of smash and grab then flee. Not really the PvP promoting situation I was hoping for really.
I realise they were proposing a seperate dueling system however to compensate for arbitary PvP encounters.
Edit: Answers from CCP Greyscale came in after I posted. Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Vila eNorvic
University of Caille Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:56:00 -
[333] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Because even today's moral codes would be entirely esoteric to people who lived just five decades ago in the same country. To claim that morality doesn't change much tens of thousands of years into the future and millions of light years away quite possibly makes you dumber than our Glorious CCP Overlords (all hail Glorious CCP Overlords, I beg forgiveness for my insolence, all hail Glorious CCP Overlords). Diva Ex Machina wrote:On present day earth the police aren't an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent force that kill you as soon as you do something wrong.
Aside from which, this is a game not reality, and what matters is what makes the game more interesting. Liam Mirren wrote: Because this is a game. None of which makes CCP's proposal unreasonable.
Diva Ex Machina wrote:People keep saying this but what I want to know is are those new players going to stick around long term when level 4 missions start to pall and they can't sell what they manufacture because nobody is blowing ships up in high sec anymore. I'm fairly new around here, but I've always understood that many more ships are lost in low- and null-sec than high-sec. So are you saying that isn't so, or are you saying that only high-sec players buy ships built by high-sec industrialists?
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
404
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:58:00 -
[334] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: Here's the awkwardness with all three obvious solutions to this problem:
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.
What we're actually considering right now, based on player suggestions, is to formalize the concept of a "limited engagement", which is effectively needed for both wardecs and some kind of duelling system, and carry that across to here too. To whit, anyone who engages a suspect becomes part of a "limited engagement" with the suspect on one side and all their aggressors on the other side, and any further interference by anyone else in that engagement gets a suspect flag.
What about:
4. Anyone who attacks a suspect becomes a suspect *in current grid* (plus a timer to avoid flag => warp => clear flag => get back)? It'd avoid the "viral" flagging (except at Jita undock). A follow up addition would be "in current grid + gang links in current system".
Also, will you deal with the "circumvent CONCORD with Orca and never lose a ship" trick? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
225
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 10:03:00 -
[335] - Quote
Diva Ex Machina wrote:People keep saying this but what I want to know is are those new players going to stick around long term when level 4 missions start to pall and they can't sell what they manufacture because nobody is blowing ships up in high sec anymore. I'm fairly new around here, but I've always understood that many more ships are lost in low- and null-sec than high-sec. So are you saying that isn't so, or are you saying that only high-sec players buy ships built by high-sec industrialists? [/quote] Numerically, a significantly higher amount of ships gets destroyed in high-sec than in all other areas of space combined. We're talking multiples here. However, from a mineral perspective, the become more even due to the fact that material-intensive capitals and super-capitals only get blown up in non-high-sec space. I forget what the exact numbers are, but high-sec both has a higher player concentration (about two-thirds of total), and a higher amount of asset destruction (not including those days when someone loses a whole capital fleet). |
Grumpy Owly
367
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 10:04:00 -
[336] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: What we're actually considering right now, based on player suggestions, is to formalize the concept of a "limited engagement", which is effectively needed for both wardecs and some kind of duelling system, and carry that across to here too. To whit, anyone who engages a suspect becomes part of a "limited engagement" with the suspect on one side and all their aggressors on the other side, and any further interference by anyone else in that engagement gets a suspect flag.
Would see this as the most preferable and sensible option.
Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Liam Mirren
340
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 10:08:00 -
[337] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Here's the awkwardness with all three obvious solutions to this problem:
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.
1. is the silly thing you blurted out at the round table 2. a totally new way of doing things, obviously fueled by the overall agression changes. Thing is this will lead to far more "exploitive" behaviour. If you think that this helps the poor miners then you're very mistaken, what will happen are massive slaughter scenarios which will be far more disruptive that you can imagine. 3. the logical thing to do, it stays small scale and limited. Also, there is no reason for this to cause endless breakages if you simply implement it properly
We don't need high sec to become low sec, what needs to happen is for high sec to become less profitable while low sec needs to get some sort of pull so that people actually WANT to move there.
I'm still amazed by your seemingly "pff, we just wanted to see how people would react to this", first of all I don't believe that and secondly, if you can't decently gauge people's reaction to such a rediculous idea beforehand then uhm... yeah. So no, not buying that, I would assume that you'd use some ideas you actually consider and then gauge people's reaction to it on fanfest, so AS you voiced the idea we must assume you are taking it seriously. Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
baltec1
853
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 10:11:00 -
[338] - Quote
Forgive me if you have gone over this but this is important to me.
The agro everyone change to can flipping I kinda like even if it does mean my battle haulers life will be made much harder but the loss in sec status is a bit of a kick in the teeth. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
305
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 10:15:00 -
[339] - Quote
I think this direction is excellent, it will improve safety and also introduce more and better pvp in hisec.
However, no matter how suspect you are, you need to able shoot back at your aggressors without CONCORD interference.
How it should work imho:
A conducts a crime towards B, thus becoming suspect, and free to shoot by anyone.
B and his corp starts shooting A
B and his corp become flashies to A and his corp, but not suspect as there was no crime involved
Same goes for C,D,E,F and their corps.
|
Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies Joint Venture Conglomerate
47
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 10:17:00 -
[340] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: 1. You can't defend yourself. Silly but robust.
Very silly and very much against the spirit of the game. |
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
923
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 10:19:00 -
[341] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Greyscale, have you considered the possibility that the current can-flagging mechanics are already adequate? I know you want to add on to the game, but sometimes new additions do more harm than good. Having a system where a can-flipper gets aggro toward the can owner's corporation is quite fair and balanced. Extending that aggro to the whole alliance might also be tolerable. But extending it to every single player in high-sec is ridiculous.
Also, note how we're not criticizing the RR and security status proposals. It's this specific change that we have an issue with, and quite frankly, it should be dropped without further discussion. I feel like my words are falling upon deaf ears, however. I shudder to think what kind of surprises Sunday will bring.
Can you lay out for me the specific things you guys are currently trying to achieve involving can-flagging mechanics, so I can properly see the problem from your perspective?
Liang Nuren wrote: 2. Why do you feel that there needs to be a penalty involved with being flagged as a suspect? Why is ships blowing up a bad thing? You implemented your "safety off" - they know what the consequences are. This is notably how other games handle PVP flagging. Its why its called "PVP flagging".
If you're doing something mildly "illegal" (as defined by the very loose and approximate code of morality that the mechanics are trying to suggest), my default position is that there should be some mild negative consequences for that action. If aggressing someone with a suspect flag is always a statistically dumb move, we may as well just make all those actions legal and be done with it.
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: Here's the awkwardness with all three obvious solutions to this problem:
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.
What we're actually considering right now, based on player suggestions, is to formalize the concept of a "limited engagement", which is effectively needed for both wardecs and some kind of duelling system, and carry that across to here too. To whit, anyone who engages a suspect becomes part of a "limited engagement" with the suspect on one side and all their aggressors on the other side, and any further interference by anyone else in that engagement gets a suspect flag.
What about: 4. Anyone who attacks a suspect becomes a suspect *in current grid* (plus a timer to avoid flag => warp => clear flag => get back)? It'd avoid the "viral" flagging (except at Jita undock). A follow up addition would be "in current grid + gang links in current system". Also, will you deal with the "circumvent CONCORD with Orca and never lose a ship" trick?
That's actually an interesting idea.
(And yes, that's yet another thing that we would like to get rid of, because again, it's our stated policy that it shouldn't be possible, therefore we should be trying to ensure that it's not possible.) |
|
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
899
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 10:24:00 -
[342] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Greyscale, have you considered the possibility that the current can-flagging mechanics are already adequate? I know you want to add on to the game, but sometimes new additions do more harm than good. Having a system where a can-flipper gets aggro toward the can owner's corporation is quite fair and balanced. Extending that aggro to the whole alliance might also be tolerable. But extending it to every single player in high-sec is ridiculous.
Also, note how we're not criticizing the RR and security status proposals. It's this specific change that we have an issue with, and quite frankly, it should be dropped without further discussion. I feel like my words are falling upon deaf ears, however. I shudder to think what kind of surprises Sunday will bring.
They are not.
It's far too easy to grief noobs and +/- lazy players, get their aggression and easy kills to pave your so glorious Elite pvp killboard. Well, many people think that the first reasonable thing CCP should do is rename "High Sec" to "Arena Zone" that defines much better what's going on since it's nothing more than a wow arena, you get there you agress guys you kill them, yeye uberness and internets e-peen.
Secondly, is far to safe for you to force other players give you aggression timers, this is somehow a lack of knowledge but it's also your way of life and play witch is about abuse any game mechanic failure to show your smartness... Well, again many people like me think that if you are really a player pretending he enjoy pvp and likes pvp, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO DO IN HIGH SEC YOU PUBBIE !!
So stop showing yourself ridiculous with your fake and 10 year old rabble no one really cares and even laughs at anymore because you are really ridiculous for uber pvp players. Sad part being that CCP obviously lacks of understanding also and does nothing about, well, except if you have a massive unsub witch is even more stupid than the average high sec pvp hero.
Simple put: pvp? -> low/null High sec?- Grieffing (can flipping/Ganking), wardec, is enough to bring far too much pvp in high sec and far too much abuse of all sort as you high sec fake pvp pussies are used to, it's too safe for you, that has to change. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
923
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 10:24:00 -
[343] - Quote
Liam Mirren wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Here's the awkwardness with all three obvious solutions to this problem:
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. 1. is the silly thing you blurted out at the round table 2. a totally new way of doing things, obviously fueled by the overall agression changes. Thing is this will lead to far more "exploitive" behaviour. If you think that this helps the poor miners then you're very mistaken, what will happen are massive slaughter scenarios which will be far more disruptive that you can imagine. 3. the logical thing to do, it stays small scale and limited. Also, there is no reason for this to cause endless breakages if you simply implement it properly We don't need high sec to become low sec, what needs to happen is for high sec to become less profitable while low sec needs to get some sort of pull so that people actually WANT to move there.
Ok, so here's where we're at a fundamental disagreement. The current system of directed aggression graphs ("I'm flagged to you") makes a lot of sense when considering small isolated cases, and solves a lot of individual problems, but when viewed in aggregate it is IMO conceptually broken. It generates endless edge cases, and every edge case that's fixed generates new edge cases. It's not just slightly badly implemented, it's a fundamentally flawed design pattern, and we are *never* going to be able to implement it in a good way. Trying to pursue that course of action just dooms us to repeat all our past mistakes, which is why I'm trying very hard to stamp it out completely and why I'm honestly willing to make some small sacrifices in terms of what's currently possible to achieve that. If making a few specific tricks that are currently employed means that the system as a whole stays healthier for longer, that's a worthwhile exchange IMO. YMMV, obviously. |
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
925
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 10:26:00 -
[344] - Quote
OK I have a starbase roundtable in half an hour, I have to run. I'll be back later tonight (or tomorrow, or Sunday, IDK) to answer more questions, and I thank you in advance for your patience in the interim |
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
64
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 10:27:00 -
[345] - Quote
I will vouch for CCP Greyscale and am sure he will not make it so that you cannot defend yourself when attacked. This is kinda how he operates, he makes really carebear changes at first then loosens them up so they are more fun. I believe you will make the right choice CCP Greyscale.
Let the players decide how much they want to risk. If they want to shoot at a suspect and flag themselves and possibly die then let them. If they don't want to then they won't. |
baltec1
853
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 10:32:00 -
[346] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: Can you lay out for me the specific things you guys are currently trying to achieve involving can-flagging mechanics, so I can properly see the problem from your perspective?
I use the cans to pick fights in my battle hauler vs other corps/players. The goal is not the barge but the combat ships the come back in. Solo combat haulers don't really work in low sec/0.0 and going to war with people scares them into cowering in stations even if I am in a one man corp.
I like the idea of mass agro but the sec status drop is a bit too far. |
Liam Mirren
343
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 10:35:00 -
[347] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Can you lay out for me the specific things you guys are currently trying to achieve involving can-flagging mechanics, so I can properly see the problem from your perspective?
1) to initiate a "duel" or practise with out of corp pilots (this can easily be solved by using an "accept duel invite" option)
2) to bait newbies (sad to do and not allowed in starter systems, just mentioning it as it's used for that)
3) when ninja salvaging to gain aggression towards the mission runner, in hopes of him getting mad and shooting you after which you warp off, switch ship, get back and try to kill or ransom him
4) to annoy miner bots by relieving them of their profits (also very useful to gauge if they are indeed bots, if they just keep dropping ore cans which you invariably nick then you can be fairly sure they're bots, so you can then report them)
5) can flipping, getting aggressed to a miner (and his corp if he is in one) to try and initiate a fight of sorts, hoping to get kills or ransom. Note that jetcan mining is used less and less, the Orca isn't only OP for pvp situations, it's also very OP for mining scenarios, you might want to nerf it a bit there as well. Jetcan mining is the lazy, non-effort way of doing things and as such there should be a penalty for it, in the form of risk. Can flipping is that risk.
If Jetcan mining becomes as safe as any other form then there's no reason to use secure containers anymore, or actual teamwork or people having a brain. In other words, taking out lazy jetcan miners is in the spirit of EVE. Apart from that even with jetcans a smart and possibly prepared miner can still avoid trouble and even avoid loss of ore.
Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
305
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 10:35:00 -
[348] - Quote
Actually this could increase the interest in hisec pvp too much.
If you are free to fly around looking for targets (these wold probably be other fleets instead of miners or noobs after people realize the possibilities) without anyone being able to shoot you, then flag yourself as suspect when you decide, it will attract even more risk-averse pvpers to hisec.
Smells a bit too much like arena pvp to me :( |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
225
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 10:44:00 -
[349] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Greyscale, have you considered the possibility that the current can-flagging mechanics are already adequate? I know you want to add on to the game, but sometimes new additions do more harm than good. Having a system where a can-flipper gets aggro toward the can owner's corporation is quite fair and balanced. Extending that aggro to the whole alliance might also be tolerable. But extending it to every single player in high-sec is ridiculous.
Also, note how we're not criticizing the RR and security status proposals. It's this specific change that we have an issue with, and quite frankly, it should be dropped without further discussion. I feel like my words are falling upon deaf ears, however. I shudder to think what kind of surprises Sunday will bring. Can you lay out for me the specific things you guys are currently trying to achieve involving can-flagging mechanics, so I can properly see the problem from your perspective? That's the thing, we're not trying to achieve anything. We simply feel that the current system, in which the can-flipper becomes flagged to the can owner's corporation, is already fair. Think about it; a single person is exposing himself to hostility from the can's owner, as well as any number of that owner's corp members. This is, essentially, an already unfair fight, if you only consider numbers and not pilot skill.
There are two scenarios in which a person takes from the can of another person:
1. Person A takes from person B's can/wreck while person B performs some kind of pve activity, such as mining or killing mission rats. In this case, person A is stealing either to make a profit, get person B and his corporation to initiate hostilities, or both. It is objectively fair that discretion fall upon person B and his corporation regarding whether or not to engage the thief. It is entirely rational to expect person B's corporation to run interference or provide cover for its industrial base. The system works. It doesn't need to be touched.
2. Person A takes from person B's can/wreck after person B loses a ship in a pvp engagement against person C. The same reasons for the theft apply. It is objectively fair that discretion fall upon person B and his corporation, and person C (as well as any other parties on the killmail) regarding whether or not to engage the thief. So, a slight gameplay change can be made here, to extend can/wreck ownership to the victor of a pvp battle, at least if the battle happened legitimately, such as during war. If person B lost his ship to a suicide gank, then maybe, maybe it is okay to flag the thief as a suspect to the entirety of EVE, since he was following up on the criminal's action.
The last, and somewhat unconventional, scenario where one person takes another's property is when two (or more) players want to initiate a duel. I don't see why you can't simply add a "glove slap" mechanic that flags two players (or two groups of players) to each other. But leave the sandbox intact, and allow neutral assistance to be able to interfere, albeit with the aggression transfer mechanic that has been proposed (which most of us support, by the way).
I hope this answers your question. |
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
64
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 10:48:00 -
[350] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:
If you're doing something mildly "illegal" (as defined by the very loose and approximate code of morality that the mechanics are trying to suggest), my default position is that there should be some mild negative consequences for that action. If aggressing someone with a suspect flag is always a statistically dumb move, we may as well just make all those actions legal and be done with it.
Yeah well jet can mining is an exploit that was never intended. Why don't you fix that.
Oh hell, the whole reason you put in the flagging system in the first place is because people were upset that people were "stealing" and couldn't defend themselves by shooting the stealer. So you let people defend themselves. You are now going to put in a system where people cannot defend themselves. Come on man. |
|
OT Smithers
Cult of Baal
120
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 10:54:00 -
[351] - Quote
Tarsas Phage wrote:I was at the preso and the roundtable afterwards. Here's my overall take on this.
The primary reason behind these huge, proposed changes is that Greyscale wants to programmatically rid the aggression trees of nodes which involve individual players. Basically, having to account for player-player and player-corp aggression is hard from a server logic perspective, so the primary motivation behind these changes are to make the implementation of Crimewatch simpler by making it all person-everyone.
In other words, it's not because these are necessarily "needed" mechanics changes from a gameplay perspective... it's the "easy button" from a coding perspective. This is an utter crock, and it's a cop-out. In addition to this, it's moving player "safeties" from player's own brain into a hand-holding client.
I've always considered Aggression Management a skill, nay, an art form, when it comes to highsec shenanigans - it's one of the precious few areas of EVE where you can out-fox or be out-foxxed with strategy, and even now it has always been up to any of the players involved to escalate a confrontation or to not.. If I flip your can, you AND/OR your corpmates could aggress me back, easily turning it into a 1-vs-n. Some choose to, some chose not to. So you're in a NPC corp and thus you have no corpmates to come to your aid? Well, that's the tradeoff you have for being in a non-dec'able NPC corp. Want to wish death on the flipper but all your SP are in Industry and can't field a proper ship to fight him with? It's not anyone's fault but your own that is how you chose to spend your skill queue time.
One of the most disturbing moments came when, under the proposed rules, the following scenario was given:
1) Player A flips the can of Player B and gains a Suspect flag, making A shootable by everyone
2) Players C-Z go to town on Player A as a result.
Here's the kicker - going into this preso, CCP Greyscale said that once Player A gets aggressed by Players C-Z, Player A will not be allowed to shoot his aggressors back. Yes, this is basically making anyone with a mere Suspect flag the equivalent of GCC, just without the sec drop and CONCORD spawn. Many people in the audience, including myself, collectively WTF'd and suggested that he's off his rocker... and he seemed a bit surprised at this reaction.
In the end, the proposed Crimewatch 2.0 gameplay changes have big problems. First, for being presented at a fanfest in a embryonic state, and second, the impetus behind them is to make the implementation of aggression mechanics easier (as in lazy-easier) and not really because they might make gameplay better. I don't think this is even close to being a sound basis.
What Crimewatch 2.0 needs to be is a reimplementation of current logic - ie, the current aggression mechanics. Yes, the current Crimewatch code is buggy and convoluted, it needs to be modularized, it needs latent bugs fixed and some additional non-gameplay-affecting features added such as KM's for self-destructs while under aggression. CCP Greyscale and Masterplan need to do this first. Then and only then should actual gameplay-affecting changes be considered.
/T
Lame as hell |
OT Smithers
Cult of Baal
120
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 10:57:00 -
[352] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Defending yourself while you're suspect-flagged is an ongoing conversation; we've not decided on anything yet, and we'll devblog when we've got it better nailed down Are you ******* serious m8? That's the dumbest thing you've ever said - and that's saying a lot. -Liang Ed: Just to be clear: it should never be in doubt that the player will have the right to defend themselves while merely a suspect. The fact you haven't even decided if that's possible is just out of this ******* world.
Obviously. Anything else is freaking ridiculous.
|
Garmon
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
169
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 10:58:00 -
[353] - Quote
Adapt or die
Greyscale's presentation was absolutely amazing Check out GARMONATION 9 right now! Check out our site for PVP videos, guides and audio commentaries: www.EVEisEASY.com
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
407
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 11:01:00 -
[354] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: What we're actually considering right now, based on player suggestions, is to formalize the concept of a "limited engagement", which is effectively needed for both wardecs and some kind of duelling system, and carry that across to here too. To whit, anyone who engages a suspect becomes part of a "limited engagement" with the suspect on one side and all their aggressors on the other side, and any further interference by anyone else in that engagement gets a suspect flag.
Not so sure about consensual war decs, but the limited engagement / duel and flagging interference from others as a global suspect is the way to go, ship it. |
Lady Spank
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
1910
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 11:02:00 -
[355] - Quote
Roime wrote:Smells a bit too much like arena pvp to me :(
This is why the concept of duels is very VERY bad and why the flagging should set you red to everyone but then allow you to shoot back at anyone attacking you.
1. Uninterrupted 1v1 fights just discourage people from actually roaming about trying to find a fight. The more people just doing safe-mode 1v1 in high sec, the less people out there enriching the PVP game.
2. What's the point of initiating a fight where you lay yourself open to attack by everyone about you with no ability to fight back should they engage you. There is absolutely no way this idea is going to be put through in this form.
I think the mechanics need a change up and for the most part the suggestions have merit, but the above two points really are atrocious ideas not only from an individual engagements point of view but as a massively negative influence on the game overall. (a¦á_a¦â) ~ http://getoutnastyface.blogspot.com/ ~ (a¦á_a¦â) |
OT Smithers
Cult of Baal
120
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 11:09:00 -
[356] - Quote
Terminal Insanity wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: Can-flipping as-is will be impossible once the safeties are added. People should be able to choose to do dumb things, but they should also have the information they need to figure out that the thing they're doing is dumb.
Duelling we're planning to support with an explicit mechanic rather than the current hacky workaround.
They do have that right to do stupid things. And in space, when you do something stupid, it gets you killed. That is how you learn. How about you protect me when i approach a cyno dominix with my webbing loki and cant get away in time? i mean, if i was smart i'd have stayed out of point range, but hey i'm dumb and i need you to hold my hand through it. Seriously though, carebear gets canflipped and gets a POPUP WARNING EXPLAINING EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN when he steals it back. If he chooses to ignore it the first time, that's his own fault and he receives his lesson. If he refuses to listen to it time and time again, that's his own stupidity getting him killed.
You are talking about carebears and consequences while crying that it will be more difficult for you to to pursue the risk and consequence free high sec griefing you currently enjoy.
|
baltec1
853
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 11:15:00 -
[357] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:You are talking about carebears and consequences while crying that it will be more difficult for you to to pursue the risk and consequence free high sec griefing you currently enjoy.
Because the victims corp cant come and blow the can flipper away |
HellGate fr
Yarrbear Inc.
21
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 11:15:00 -
[358] - Quote
Is this a major nerf of ganking ?
I say this is bullshit. |
Cipher Jones
372
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 11:16:00 -
[359] - Quote
Quote: but you will only be able to retaliate against people who specifically aggress you.
Your guns won't turn on? lol. cipher jones, alone and unloved after his campaign against the evil goonies, resorts to stealing their techniques to become loved |
Blind Navigator
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 11:16:00 -
[360] - Quote
The system roughly sketched in the presentation will either be insanely complicated or will have massive loopholes.
Example "Suspect Baiting" A can flips and becomes suspect. B-D shoot the suspect as he is flagged "anyone can shoot him" A1-A20 "neutral" logis warpin and keep A safe while he kills unsuspecting B-D.
Example "Inherited Flipping" A1 flips a can of a mining fleet. B-G miners pop A1's Ibis. H orca loots the can after can flipper is popped. But can has been flipped so H becomes suspect. A2 warps cane on other account and has an easy go at the orca while B-G can only watch.
"suspect-baiting" "inherited flipping" will cause more tears than current system
Fixing such holes in the system will make it even harder for new playe and in the end easier for pirates.
Not a bad thing imo but I dont think its what CCP is trying to accomplish.
|
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
225
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 11:21:00 -
[361] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Terminal Insanity wrote:They do have that right to do stupid things. And in space, when you do something stupid, it gets you killed. That is how you learn. How about you protect me when i approach a cyno dominix with my webbing loki and cant get away in time? i mean, if i was smart i'd have stayed out of point range, but hey i'm dumb and i need you to hold my hand through it.
Seriously though, carebear gets canflipped and gets a POPUP WARNING EXPLAINING EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN when he steals it back. If he chooses to ignore it the first time, that's his own fault and he receives his lesson. If he refuses to listen to it time and time again, that's his own stupidity getting him killed.
You are talking about carebears and consequences while crying that it will be more difficult for you to to pursue the risk and consequence free high sec griefing you currently enjoy. The risks and consequences of "high sec griefing" are defined purely by the attitudes of the players being "griefed." Learn how to defend yourself, or learn how to not be such an overt target. Otherwise, you only have yourself to blame. I can't name a single time that I was griefed, though I can name plenty of times when I lost assets that I would rather have kept. I see no reason why carebears should receive special treatment. People who prefer to not be victims in this game pay for their subs too. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5747
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 11:22:00 -
[362] - Quote
Garmon wrote:Adapt or die
Greyscale's presentation was absolutely amazing GǪbut the roundtable was troubling. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Grumpy Owly
368
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 11:27:00 -
[363] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:OT Smithers wrote:Terminal Insanity wrote:They do have that right to do stupid things. And in space, when you do something stupid, it gets you killed. That is how you learn. How about you protect me when i approach a cyno dominix with my webbing loki and cant get away in time? i mean, if i was smart i'd have stayed out of point range, but hey i'm dumb and i need you to hold my hand through it.
Seriously though, carebear gets canflipped and gets a POPUP WARNING EXPLAINING EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN when he steals it back. If he chooses to ignore it the first time, that's his own fault and he receives his lesson. If he refuses to listen to it time and time again, that's his own stupidity getting him killed.
You are talking about carebears and consequences while crying that it will be more difficult for you to to pursue the risk and consequence free high sec griefing you currently enjoy. The risks and consequences of "high sec griefing" are defined purely by the attitudes of the players being "griefed." Learn how to defend yourself, or learn how to not be such an overt target. Otherwise, you only have yourself to blame. I can't name a single time that I was griefed, though I can name plenty of times when I lost assets that I would rather have kept. I see no reason why carebears should receive special treatment. People who prefer to not be victims in this game pay for their subs too.
Except that the culpability for criminal actions and the associated interactions lies with the criminal who initiated the reason for the interaction in the first place not the intended victim. So irrepsective of any PvP Outcomes there should still be some attributable associative penalty for bad outcomes to the vicitm, even if it's small. This is why I like the associated security hits for criminal actions as proposed. Otherwise it just propells an inconsequential outcome for criminal activities.
Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
225
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 11:33:00 -
[364] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote:Except that the culpability for criminal actions and the associated interactions lies with the criminal who initiated the reason for the interaction in the first place not the intended victim. So irrepsective of any PvP Outcomes there should still be some attributable associative penalty for bad outcomes to the vicitm, even if it's small. This is why I like the associated security hits for criminal actions as proposed. Otherwise it just propells an inconsequential outcome for criminal activities.
So you're saying for the sake of a bit of realism, criminal actions in EVE should have residual consequences, much like in real life? |
baltec1
853
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 11:34:00 -
[365] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote:
Except that the culpability for criminal actions and the associated interactions lies with the criminal who initiated the reason for the interaction in the first place not the intended victim. So irrepsective of any PvP Outcomes there should still be some attributable associative penalty for bad outcomes to the vicitm, even if it's small. This is why I like the associated security hits for criminal actions as proposed. Otherwise it just propells an inconsequential outcome for criminal activities.
The victim can avoid can flipping easily by not ejecting their cargo into space. |
Grumpy Owly
368
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 11:38:00 -
[366] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote:Except that the culpability for criminal actions and the associated interactions lies with the criminal who initiated the reason for the interaction in the first place not the intended victim. So irrepsective of any PvP Outcomes there should still be some attributable associative penalty for bad outcomes to the vicitm, even if it's small. This is why I like the associated security hits for criminal actions as proposed. Otherwise it just propells an inconsequential outcome for criminal activities.
So you're saying for the sake of a bit of realism, criminal actions in EVE should have residual consequences, much like in real life?
It's more to do with making a criminal action valid as such. I'm not going to be drawn into RL comparison arguments. My view is that criminal actions in a policed area needs to have some effect for participation and those players need to have some responsibility for the choices they make as a result. Irrespective of all your childish avoidance examples and desires this view won't be changed by you wanting to have an easy time being a criminal. Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
baltec1
853
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 11:39:00 -
[367] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote:
It's more to do with making a criminal action valid as such. I'm not going to be drawn into RL comparison arguments. My view is that criminal actions in a policed area needs to have some effect for participation and those players need to have some responsibility for the choices they make as a result. Irrespective of all your childish avoidance examples and desires this view won't be changed by you wanting to have an easy time being a criminal.
So whats wrong with the current system where you get flagged to the victims corp? |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
225
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 11:43:00 -
[368] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote:Except that the culpability for criminal actions and the associated interactions lies with the criminal who initiated the reason for the interaction in the first place not the intended victim. So irrepsective of any PvP Outcomes there should still be some attributable associative penalty for bad outcomes to the vicitm, even if it's small. This is why I like the associated security hits for criminal actions as proposed. Otherwise it just propells an inconsequential outcome for criminal activities.
So you're saying for the sake of a bit of realism, criminal actions in EVE should have residual consequences, much like in real life? It's more to do with making a criminal action valid as such. I'm not going to be drawn into RL comparison arguments. My view is that criminal actions in a policed area needs to have some effect for participation and those players need to have some responsibility for the choices they make as a result. Irrespective of all your childish avoidance examples and desires this view won't be changed by you wanting to have an easy time being a criminal. Fair enough. I'll take your security hit, but in exchange I want police response times to be "valid as such." I'm not going to be drawn into RL comparison arguments, so I won't ask for a full seven minutes. However, I feel that it is fair for CONCORD to take a similar amount of time to arrive that another player would. Irrespective of all your childish avoidance examples and desires this view won't be changed by you wanting to have the hand of God strike me down within two hundred milliseconds in a .9 system because I shot at your ship. |
Grumpy Owly
368
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 11:46:00 -
[369] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote:
Except that the culpability for criminal actions and the associated interactions lies with the criminal who initiated the reason for the interaction in the first place not the intended victim. So irrepsective of any PvP Outcomes there should still be some attributable associative penalty for bad outcomes to the vicitm, even if it's small. This is why I like the associated security hits for criminal actions as proposed. Otherwise it just propells an inconsequential outcome for criminal activities.
The victim can avoid can flipping easily by not ejecting their cargo into space.
Very true. Yet there are situations where cans are used. Nothing to stop miners from making an informed choice. But why should a player be penalised for using a can? It is just a tool at the end of the day with intrinsic value and skilling.
Players can avoid situations by using the right mods, criminal and victim. Again its a question of which tools you want to use for your activity.
So yes miners can choose to use a can. Guess what criminals can choose to flip or steal from them.
Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
317
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 12:07:00 -
[370] - Quote
Might have missed this suggestion (I read the dev comments, and about the first 10 pages)
Suggestion:
Four stage flagging.
a: Innocent. The regular state for people. Can attack anything, but they will lose this status. b: White Hats: People that can attack anything below, without changing status. And can be attacked without consequence by those below. But not innocents. No sec status hits for kills. c: Grey hat: Suspects. Can attack white hats without changing status, or sec status. d: Black hats: GCC
Avoids 1-1 tagging, and allows people to fight back, without everyone just becoming suspects. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
|
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 12:14:00 -
[371] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:[quote=CCP Greyscale Can you lay out for me the specific things you guys are currently trying to achieve involving can-flagging mechanics, so I can properly see the problem from your perspective
[/quote
I use the cans to pick fights in my battle hauler vs other corps/players. The goal is not the barge but the combat ships the come back in. Solo combat haulers don't really work in low sec/0.0 and going to war with people scares them into cowering in stations even if I am in a one man corp
I like the idea of mass agro but the sec status drop is a bit too far. Baltec summed it up very nicely. Though I'm not so much a fan of the idea of mass aggro. Extend the aggro to the whole alliance, sure (after all they do pay to be in an alliance). But aggro from the entire world just seems a bit... much
The whole reason for me is to get small scale PvP. One opponent. Two. Maybe three or four. And unfortunately that's not something I generally find in lowsec, nullsec, FW, or from observation of RvB. People just seem to be too risk adverse. It's usually blobtastic gangs and gatecamps looking for easy kills. And since I don't use an alt (link or scouting) that's generally not something I can take on with even a slim chance of winning. Also, the best part of the can-flipping aggro is that it is completely voluntary. You cannot force them to fight. You cannot make it non-consensual. You provoke them, but they have the choice to fight or walk away. So when you get a fight, you know that they want to PvP. |
Bump Tremor
Tremor Recorded Variable Enterprise Training Standards
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 12:20:00 -
[372] - Quote
suppose they don't want to be a mining bwitch for everyone who happens by AND they don't to PvP? Suppose they just want to mine without interruption? Suppose they want to play their own version of the game and not have to choose whether to be a miner for everyone who happens by or have to play another's version of the game and get into PvP? Suppose you go find PvPers to PvP with instead of thinking everyone who is mining is a secretly wanting to PvP? |
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 12:25:00 -
[373] - Quote
Bump Tremor wrote:suppose they don't want to be a mining bwitch for everyone who happens by AND they don't to PvP? Suppose they just want to mine without interruption? Then they can anchor and use a secure can? Or just warp back to station whenever their cargo hold is full? Or get a friend and transfer the ore to their hauler after every cycle? Hey! There's three possible solutions for ya.
|
Liam Mirren
346
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 12:31:00 -
[374] - Quote
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:Bump Tremor wrote:suppose they don't want to be a mining bwitch for everyone who happens by AND they don't to PvP? Suppose they just want to mine without interruption? Then they can anchor and use a secure can? Or just warp back to station whenever their cargo hold is full? Or get a friend and transfer the ore to their hauler after every cycle? Hey! There's three possible solutions for ya.
Also, "without interruption" isn't what EVE is about, it never was and never should be. This is an MMO where others can and should affect your gameplay. Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
Diva Ex Machina
Son's of The Hammer The Methodical Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 12:32:00 -
[375] - Quote
Vila eNorvic wrote: None of which makes CCP's proposal unreasonable.
'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.
Quote:Diva Ex Machina wrote:People keep saying this but what I want to know is are those new players going to stick around long term when level 4 missions start to pall and they can't sell what they manufacture because nobody is blowing ships up in high sec anymore. I'm fairly new around here, but I've always understood that many more ships are lost in low- and null-sec than high-sec. So are you saying that isn't so, or are you saying that only high-sec players buy ships built by high-sec industrialists?
Both. Looking at the map the majority of ship losses are in high sec systems. What percentage of those are lost to npcs I don't know for sure but my best guess would be a very large chunk of those losses are in PvP. Also, null and low sec players only buy ships and modules in high sec if they aren't available locally. |
Bump Tremor
Tremor Recorded Variable Enterprise Training Standards
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 12:33:00 -
[376] - Quote
3900 cap secure can cannot be anchored in the higher hisec systems so they are actually just very small version of jetcans, that can be dropped and picked up again.
Yeah, run back and for the to the station to avoid A-holes - great fun.
And not every player can find a "friend" who is not just a griefer right out of the gate when first starting to play.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
225
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 12:34:00 -
[377] - Quote
Bump Tremor wrote:Suppose they don't want to be a mining bwitch for everyone who happens by AND they don't want to PvP? Suppose they just want to play the game as a miner? Suppose they want to play their own version of the game and not have to choose whether to be a miner for everyone who happens by to steal out of a can they deployed next to their ship for their own use or have to play another's version of the game and get into PvP? Suppose you go find PvPers to PvP with instead of thinking everyone who is mining is secretly wanting to PvP? I wanted to play my own version of Call of Duty where I was a photographer, but it didn't work out so well. |
Ferocious FeAr
THE FINAL STAND The Final Stand.
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 12:36:00 -
[378] - Quote
Garmon wrote:Adapt or die
Greyscale's presentation was absolutely amazing
Exactly my friend. The only serious tears I see in this thread are from the noob can flipping hi-sec pvp experts that do not want consequences for their own actions.
Neutral RR - about time, cya Rebirth and Kai86 o/, pirates in low sec undocking 4 carriers to rep one bs that aggro'd, lets see how many of you want to risk your caps to the entire system. Greyscale you got this right.
Improved pvp in hi-sec and low-sec. Pirate hunting, sec raises and sec decreases due to making decisions about pvp on the spot instead of station camping for 6 hours and having people dock if they think they are going to lose. You got this right too Greyscale.
EvE is and should be about losing ships in pvp if you choose to pvp, if you are not losing a ship, you are merely trying to survive for the sake of a killmail instead of pvping to win, this makes you rubbish by default. Stop pretending you are better than you really are and buy another box of tissues.
I have been a Merc in MC, pirate in low sec, nullsec sov holder and through hi-sec war dec system as a Mercenary. In all of these situations there is risk in hitting F1-F8, if you perform a criminal type act, be it misdemeanor or felony there should be consequences. You made that choice the same as if you were shooting at a hauler on a gate in low sec. Free will ..... =/
Too long the can flippers, gankers, ninja looters have been able to go about their business with no risk at all, because they pick on the tiny willy instead of the big ball sack. Time for you people to adapt to a new situation where you reap what you sew.
The feeling you can get from head on toe to toe pvp and actually winning because of tactics, strategies, skill, vs patheric station games, neutral reppers x2 for each player you have in fleet, far exceeds the mini hard-on you get from believing you ruined the life of some noob in high sec that ended up in station wondering what happened to them when they only lost a free ship to begin with :)
If you get a mild sec hit from shooting someone who shot you back after you flipped their can, you can go shoot one of your stupider brothers in low sec and get that sec back in spades....
Where in all of this has anything Greyscale suggested, broken eve, destroyed pvp or made the sandbox a childs pissing potty?
Nowhere!.......
The faster these get implimented the better, because you have old vets like us from 2003/4/5/6 that quit in 2010 all wanting to come back and play hardcore again. Forget the noob player base, give us a reason to pay our subs... This is certainly a good start. |
Bump Tremor
Tremor Recorded Variable Enterprise Training Standards
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 12:37:00 -
[379] - Quote
This game has a rich and full content for players who do not want to interact with others, why should they be forced to interact beyond the limit they desire? There is no single player version of the game, yet.
|
Bump Tremor
Tremor Recorded Variable Enterprise Training Standards
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 12:38:00 -
[380] - Quote
Being a photographer was not a part of that game - there was no rich and full content for that role.
I wanted to be a miner/ manufacturer in that game and that didn't work out so well either - so I came to a game which has a wide berth for mining/manufacturing.
It also has a rich and deep content for those who choose to PvP and plenty of people who want to PvP with them.
Ask yourself, why is it that your fun can only come from bullying others? |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5750
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 12:41:00 -
[381] - Quote
Ferocious FeAr wrote:[Where in all of this has anything Greyscale suggested, broken eve, destroyed pvp or made the sandbox a childs pissing potty? GǪin the roundtable. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Diva Ex Machina
Son's of The Hammer The Methodical Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 12:44:00 -
[382] - Quote
Bump Tremor wrote:This game has a rich and full content for players who do not want to interact with others, why should they be forced to interact beyond the limit they desire? There is no single player version of the game, yet.
There is a test server (Sisi) where you can mine in totally empty systems to your heart's content and nobody will shoot, canflip or otherwise harass you. If that's what you really want then it's already there.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
226
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 12:44:00 -
[383] - Quote
Bump Tremor wrote:There is no single player version of the game Gee, that kind of tells you something, doesn't it? |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
470
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 12:45:00 -
[384] - Quote
If miners have such a problem with losing their multi-hundred million vessels, and it's a 'problem' they cannot anchor GSC in the highest security space, how about we just set a limit on where mining vessels can mine.
0.9-1.0 mining frigates and rookie vessels 0.7-0.8 mining cruisers, frigates and rookie vessels 0.5-0.6 mining barges, cruisers, frigates and rookie vessels low + null - anything
I mean, it's a "problem" for them they can't mine in peace/without interruption, and it's a "problem" to anchor cans, it's a "problem" to use lower highsec, it's a "problem" their extremely powerful endgame mining vessels with big cargo have to warp to stations when they are full (if they jetcan), it's a "problem" they have to bring friends in orca and/or haulers, etc.
I seem to remember when miners thought it was a problem that I stole from their can in highsec back in the day, so CCP gave them the right to attack me when I stole. They already had their boost/"fix" then. shiptoastin' liek a baws |
Bump Tremor
Tremor Recorded Variable Enterprise Training Standards
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 12:49:00 -
[385] - Quote
rabble rabble rabble - ok!
My corp has no problem mining in the rare times when the market - which some have not noticed is really absent in Sisi - demands we have more raw materials.
We have high volume miners with orca and transport support. We are not the targets of the griefers who want to prey on the helpless noobs who haven't struggled through a sea of A-holes who have brought their need to bully from the playground into a game to be where we are in the game's social structure. |
prolix travail
Blue Mountain Trails
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 12:50:00 -
[386] - Quote
I understand you're looking at this from a coding point of view, but could you also keep in mind that the changes you are making will affect a core part of EvE online: player responsibilty.
Individuals and corps have recourses against thieves, as they are flagged and can be shot. There are ways of preventing theft also, and If they choose to ignore the use of secured cans, friends in haulers and other such things there should be risks associated with that choice.
High-security space is a place for new players to learn about EvE, and pvp in whatever form is part of that, you could say the fundamental element which seems to have been missed by what some people call 'carebears'.
The most obvious proposal that goes against this nature is a suspect being flagged to everyone, for stealing from one person/corp. Are you saying that anything in wrecks or cans is the personal property of everyone? Concord isn't there to enforce socially acceptable behavior but to blow up those who unlawfully blow up someone else. Everything else is the responsibility of the players. Also why should the suspect be penalized for defending themselves from any consensual pvp that comes from that flag? the other guy has the choice to shoot, he isn't forced.
This proposed flagging game mechanic while easier for you to code will reduce pvp outside of wardecs, which at present can be avoided completely anyway, and so drastically reducing all pvp in highsec. This kind of environment wouldn't be a fair reflection for new players of EvE as it stands now. Can you tell me, us (those who think this way) what you are doing with the sandbox of new eden, will the ability to pvp wherever and whenever be protected? or are you going to eventually dictate where it's allowed to happen? |
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 12:52:00 -
[387] - Quote
Bump Tremor wrote:rabble rabble rabble - ok! I'm beginning to see why you might have problems finding that friend to haul for you that doesn't grief you right off the bat.... just saying.
|
Ferocious FeAr
THE FINAL STAND The Final Stand.
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 12:55:00 -
[388] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ferocious FeAr wrote:[Where in all of this has anything Greyscale suggested, broken eve, destroyed pvp or made the sandbox a childs pissing potty? GǪin the roundtable.
Which was your subjective interpretation of what was said around a table and not put in writing... Unlike here. I watched the Presentation myself and quite frankly theres still nothing that has been said that has suggested eve will be broken beyond repair and the sandbox has all of a sudden become WoW (some of you should actually play wow first before comparing the two games)
Right now the entire can flipping mechanic is totally unbalanced as there are little to no consequences for the perps and very serious implications for the people getting flipped.
This imo is just a very welcome balance, action=consequence = far more pvp options = win.
If you don't like it, don't flip the switch, the choice will always be yours. |
Bump Tremor
Tremor Recorded Variable Enterprise Training Standards
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 13:01:00 -
[389] - Quote
Why is it a bad thing to have some small part of space where there is law and order? Seems like the RP aspect demands that 20 thousand years into the future, we can expect to have laws enforced in some parts of space without relying on vigilante justice.
And no, I have not had trouble finding friends who I could trust - it just was't too easy for the first few months. |
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 13:04:00 -
[390] - Quote
Ferocious FeAr wrote:Right now the entire can flipping mechanic is totally unbalanced as there are little to no consequences for the perps and very serious implications for the people getting flipped. mmm.... Reckon that depends on how it is done.
In extreme cases where douchebags flip a can, pull aggro, have all their douche friends warp in and start RRing, and then Orcaswap to a combat ship, yeah... yeah that is unbalanced.
But there is also the situation where the guy flips the can, and then the victim and his entire corp stand-up to the flipper and deliver a beatdown. Which tends to be a relatively fair consequence.
|
|
Kinis Deren
EVE University Ivy League
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 13:07:00 -
[391] - Quote
Ferocious FeAr wrote:Tippia wrote:Ferocious FeAr wrote:[Where in all of this has anything Greyscale suggested, broken eve, destroyed pvp or made the sandbox a childs pissing potty? GǪin the roundtable. Which was your subjective interpretation of what was said around a table and not put in writing... Unlike here. I watched the Presentation myself and quite frankly theres still nothing that has been said that has suggested eve will be broken beyond repair and the sandbox has all of a sudden become WoW (some of you should actually play wow first before comparing the two games) Right now the entire can flipping mechanic is totally unbalanced as there are little to no consequences for the perps and very serious implications for the people getting flipped. This imo is just a very welcome balance, action=consequence = far more pvp options = win. If you don't like it, don't flip the switch, the choice will always be yours.
+1
Isn't this about the time when the can flippers should be told to HTFU or GTFO? Just saying
For every action, there should be a reaction, afterall isn't that what the sanbdox is fundementally all about? |
Alua Oresson
Demon-War-Lords BLACK-MARK
72
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 13:10:00 -
[392] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Psychotic Monk wrote:I see some exploitable flaws in killing low sec-status dudes for status. Not that that makes me against it. Just don't be suprised when I abuse it. But I also see it generating fights as white knights chase dudes like me around. I am all for this. Current plan is that the bonus you get for killing someone is halved for every time you've previously killed that person in the last 28 days, with the "halved" subject to further balancing. That should prevent at least the most obvious exploit cases.
Might I suggest that the bonus is "halved" per account that you get a kill on? Not that ANYONE would grind themselves to -10 on a new char quickly, then pod, recycle character, repeat.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
226
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 13:12:00 -
[393] - Quote
Kinis Deren wrote:Isn't this about the time when the can flippers should be told to HTFU or GTFO? Just saying For every action, there should be a reaction, afterall isn't that what the sanbdox is fundementally all about? So you're saying that being flagged to the person you stole from, and his entire corporation, isn't a reaction? |
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 13:20:00 -
[394] - Quote
Alua Oresson wrote:Might I suggest that the bonus is "halved" per account that you get a kill on? Not that ANYONE would grind themselves to -10 on a new char quickly, then pod, recycle character, repeat. Indeed. Nor would an entire corp/alliance dedicated to suicide ganking all create -10 alts and then take turns popping each alt til their sec status is fixed. That simply would not happen in our EvE.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Kinis Deren wrote:Isn't this about the time when the can flippers should be told to HTFU or GTFO? Just saying For every action, there should be a reaction, afterall isn't that what the sanbdox is fundementally all about? So you're saying that being flagged to the person you stole from, and his entire corporation, isn't a reaction? No, I think the subtext of what he is saying is that he is intrinsically a better player and PvPer cuz he doesn't can-flip. Which is a cool opinion and all. Hell, maybe he is right. *shrug*
|
Bump Tremor
Tremor Recorded Variable Enterprise Training Standards
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 13:20:00 -
[395] - Quote
Good citizens are now forced to stand by and helplessly watch innocents be preyed upon by far more experienced and better equipped players.
The changes I see on the horizon are the real world equivalent of a good citizen holding down a pickpocket until the police arrive.
Now go ahead and ignore the magic of clones and start talking about deadly force is more than holding down a perp. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
409
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 13:36:00 -
[396] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:Harrigan VonStudly wrote:Petty theft being met with deadly force from everyone, people who aren't even involved in the least otherwise, and the right to fight back being removed is about as ******* dumb as it gets. It's pretty smart. Puts the law in the hands of the players at large, not those who can best abuse the mechanics. If you want to go in this direction, I'll oblige. Launching cans is abandonment, no different from throwing an empty cup out into the highway. High-sec is empire space; it doesn't belong to the pod-pilot launching the can. Therefore, all cans should be considered garbage. Unless of course the pilot jettisoning a can buys licenses from the empires that specifically allow him to secure his jettisoned property. CCP can decide what the fee should be, but I propose a simple X ISK per Y cubic meters system. Oh, and in line with these rules, all NPC cans belong strictly to the NPC faction they originated from. Anyone taking from NPC cans should be subject to the same "suspicion" flag. Property rules are property rules, after all.
I enjoy your semi-RP responses, they are amusing. They however are not very relevant to a mechanics discussion. The next time an NPC complains about me looting his wreck, I will send him to you so that you can be his lawyer. But make sure he has filed a petition with a GM prior to bothering the NPC judges. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
227
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 13:42:00 -
[397] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:I enjoy your semi-RP responses, they are amusing. They however are not very relevant to a mechanics discussion. The next time an NPC complains about me looting his wreck, I will send him to you so that you can be his lawyer. But make sure he has filed a petition with a GM prior to bothering the NPC judges. And how exactly are my semi-RP responses that concern player interaction with NPC entities irrelevant to a mechanics discussion in the context of an MMORPG? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5750
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 13:51:00 -
[398] - Quote
Bump Tremor wrote:Why is it a bad thing to have some small part of space where there is law and order? Because it fundamentally breaks the game in a number of ways and will be abused to hell and back.
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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Bump Tremor
Tremor Recorded Variable Enterprise Training Standards
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 13:55:00 -
[399] - Quote
I'm just missing how this whole can flipping change will really benefit anyone but the most vulnerable players who are still struggling to establish themselves in the game. It is a logical next step in the very important restriction of poaching newbs in a starter system. As soon as they have enough time to train up and enough resources to obtain decent gear, they can decide if they want to fight or not
The only players who will lose anything are the butts who want to prey on the inexperienced, the as yet insufficently trained, and the least invested in remaining in the game. Very important demographic to a company that wants to retain paying subs, the least invested in remaining in the game! Say it again,
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ THE LEAST INVESTED IN REMAINING IN THE GAME PAYING FOR THEIR SUBS! $$$$$$$$$$$$$
Let these players stay in the minor leagues for a while without having to face major league interference. Why is that such a bad thing or hard to understand, or even harder to realize it is something you are going to have to accept. CCP can stand the loss a few thousand hard core griefers better than the tens of thousands of newbs who leave in the first few months - some of whom return, but most don't
Quite frankly, you are pissing up a rope as Greyscale has stated that can baiting is over.
What I am hearing from most of the butts is the same thing they should be hearing from the newbs - "I can't fare well in null, where I'll get blobbed by large alliances!" Well, if you want to fight, you have to pick your fights. If you don't want to fight, you should not have to dance around to keep playing the part of the game you want to play or be forced out of it.
There are plenty of other players who are where you are - unable to fit in with large groups and wanting a fight. Oh, wait - I forgot, you don't want a FAIR fight, you just want to slaughter the helpless! Ok, I get it, now. The bully desire. Now tell me the fairy tale about how a corp which cannot afford an orca is going to be able to muster enough strength to fight off the griefers who are flagged to just them. |
Terazul
The Scope Gallente Federation
30
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 13:55:00 -
[400] - Quote
Vladimir Norkoff wrote: The whole reason for me is to get small scale PvP. One opponent. Two. Maybe three or four. And unfortunately that's not something I generally find in lowsec, nullsec, FW, or from observation of RvB. People just seem to be too risk adverse. It's usually blobtastic gangs and gatecamps looking for easy kills. And since I don't use an alt (link or scouting) that's generally not something I can take on with even a slim chance of winning.
Hmmmm, maybe this should tell you something...
To paraphrase an earlier poster, everyone in EVE is risk-averse and everyone in EVE is a hypocrite.
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:Also, the best part of the can-flipping aggro is that it is completely voluntary. You cannot force them to fight. You cannot make it non-consensual. You provoke them, but they have the choice to fight or walk away. So when you get a fight, you know that they want to PvP. You know, I find it somewhat amusing that people are focusing on the cans. Miners aren't the only ones affected by this, believe it or not.
As a mission runner, for example, I get to deal with ninja looters who can just steal all the tags from my wrecks freely (that's millions of isk per mission for no real effort, mind) and there's simply no way I can stop them from doing so, and since they're always in a speedy frigate it's pretty much impossible to gank them in the first place. This is risk-free thievery, and it sucks. It really, really sucks.
I'm sure this will prompt the inevitable anti-carebear comments, but seriously? Should people be able to just steal from mission wrecks without consequence like that? Millions and millions of isk, just like that? No effort at all? How does that make any bloody sense!?
Mind you, this goes hand-in-hand with the problem that mission fits are completely incompatible with PvP. If they could fix that, I wouldn't be concerned about this. As it is, it's just stupidly one-sided. I'll also note that this is obviously not so much of a problem outside the most crowded mission hubs, but it is still a glaring logical error that can adversely affect the income of dedicated mission runners. I hear people harping about "risk vs. reward" all the time, but where's the risk in going in a tiny frigate and speeding around grabbing tags from wrecks? That's almost no risk at all (when the mission runner had to tank and kill those ships in the first place, while also taking a standing hit with the faction they're killing) with a HUGE reward as tags are worth a lot in level 4 missions.
So yes, I am in favor of wreck-stealing being highly and obviously illegal. Let's face it, it makes little difference even as proposed since they're running in tiny frigates anyway, but at least there's a chance someone will catch the bastard before they sneak away to sell their stolen goods.
(Edit: I am open to the possibility that can-flipping can be separate from wreck-stealing in their legal consequences - however, that just makes things more complicated than they already are, which is what CCP is trying to avoid in the first place. YMMV.)
Annnnd let the anti-carebear rebuttals begin! |
|
Bump Tremor
Tremor Recorded Variable Enterprise Training Standards
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 14:00:00 -
[401] - Quote
If you have no faith in CCP managing it to not be abused to hell and back, then you probably need to find another game provider you can have faith in.
And what in what form would the abuse be? Letting players who don't want to play the part of the game you want them to play have a place to play it within the rich and deep content that is already available to them? |
Bump Tremor
Tremor Recorded Variable Enterprise Training Standards
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 14:06:00 -
[402] - Quote
The worst part of the mission can issue is when the ninjas take the item you are required to have to complete the mission. That is for pure grief. The ignored part of the EULA.
Now tell me I am being inconsistent with what I stated here and by telling you earlier to find a game provider you have faith in. Missions are very small part of my gaming while preying on newbs seems to be the major part game you want to preserve. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
228
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 14:11:00 -
[403] - Quote
Terazul wrote:As a mission runner, for example, I get to deal with ninja looters who can just steal all the tags from my wrecks freely (that's millions of isk per mission for no real effort, mind) and there's simply no way I can stop them from doing so, and since they're always in a speedy frigate it's pretty much impossible to gank them in the first place. This is risk-free thievery, and it sucks. It really, really sucks. The thief becomes flagged to your entire corporation. Please tell me what exactly is stopping you from bringing a pvp-geared corp member along for defense, aside from your innate greed which categorically prohibits you from compensating this person for his time? |
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 14:11:00 -
[404] - Quote
Terazul wrote: As a mission runner, for example, I get to deal with ninja looters who can just steal all the tags from my wrecks freely (that's millions of isk per mission for no real effort, mind) and there's simply no way I can stop them from doing so, and since they're always in a speedy frigate it's pretty much impossible to gank them in the first place. This is risk-free thievery, and it sucks. It really, really sucks.
I'm sure this will prompt the inevitable anti-carebear comments, but seriously? Should people be able to just steal from mission wrecks without consequence like that? Millions and millions of isk, just like that? No effort at all? How does that make any bloody sense!?
...
Annnnd let the anti-carebear rebuttals begin! Actually it may amuse you to know that I am a huge fan of carebears. There are few things I like more in this game than seeing a bunch of carebears stand-up and fight back. And fight back well. Which would probably be my suggestion to you on how to deal with ninja-looters. Join a decent corp.
Little frig is in your mission stealing tags? Call up a corpmate to come in a frig, or dessie, or cloaky recon (if he's feeling spunky) to deal with the problem. Or if you do not like conflict, have a corp noob tag along with you and his primary job is to loot/salvage wrecks. Or train up to a Marauder and do it yourself on the fly. Or offer to hire the ninja salvager to become your partner for L4s and split the loot each time (half is better than nothing). Really there are many many solutions.
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
409
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 14:14:00 -
[405] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:I enjoy your semi-RP responses, they are amusing. They however are not very relevant to a mechanics discussion. The next time an NPC complains about me looting his wreck, I will send him to you so that you can be his lawyer. But make sure he has filed a petition with a GM prior to bothering the NPC judges. And how exactly are my semi-RP responses that concern player interaction with NPC entities irrelevant to a mechanics discussion in the context of an MMO RPG?
You are apparently intelligent enough to attempt to make the abstract argument, linking the two unlike things, but apparently not wise enough to know better than to base your position on an equivocation.
Players are not NPCs. If you want to make an argument for faction based "suspect" flags when players get below a certain faction standing and are in that faction's space, then make that argument, I might even support it. But this nandy pandy BS about taking rat loots from the poor miserable abused rats is below your abilities. |
Bump Tremor
Tremor Recorded Variable Enterprise Training Standards
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 14:21:00 -
[406] - Quote
Abusing poor rats has already been addressed - shoot a rat for good of the agent's faction and you take a sec hit from the rat's faction. Rats are present to be killed by real people to provide a wide assortments of game features. End of story. But feel free to continue to look foolish arguing 2003's arguments all over again. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
228
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 14:23:00 -
[407] - Quote
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:Little frig is in your mission stealing tags? Call up a corpmate to come in a frig, or dessie, or cloaky recon (if he's feeling spunky) to deal with the problem. Or if you do not like conflict, have a corp noob tag along with you and his primary job is to loot/salvage wrecks. Or train up to a Marauder and do it yourself on the fly. Or offer to hire the ninja salvager to become your partner for L4s and split the loot each time (half is better than nothing). Really there are many many solutions.
None of those ideas will be acceptable to him because he is unwilling to share in his mission profits. He has to have all of the profit, not just most of it. Anything less than that requires CCP intervention.
Adunh Slavy wrote:You are apparently intelligent enough to attempt to make the abstract argument, linking the two unlike things, but apparently not wise enough to know better than to base your position on an equivocation.
Players are not NPCs. If you want to make an argument for faction based "suspect" flags when players get below a certain faction standing and are in that faction's space, then make that argument, I might even support it. But this nandy pandy BS about taking rat loots from the poor miserable abused rats is below your abilities. I adjust my debate strategy to not go too far above the heads of the people I'm arguing with. What's the point of using high-end logic when most of the responses you get are "htfu gankbear"? Might as well hit closer to home and stick to things they understand. Luckily, mission NPCs are one of these things. |
Grumpy Owly
371
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 14:29:00 -
[408] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Bump Tremor wrote:Why is it a bad thing to have some small part of space where there is law and order? Because it fundamentally breaks the game in a number of ways and will be abused to hell and back. .
Actually Tippia it does not break the game. If anything it corrects what the actual view of high sec should be according to the SCC mandate. The complacency if anything is the fact that criminals believe they can get away with their actions with no consequence or culpability for the choices they make in this regard.
As such the proposals do not exclude criminal behaviour, nor do they intend to make HS free of criminal activity. They simply go a step towards re-inforcing some reaction or consequence for the involvement in criminal behaviour. So I can't see how it breaks the game at all as a result, thats just exagerrating to a point of irrational deduction. I personally see it as just a shift in the right direction from my point of view to make criminal actions less inconsequential and to be honest it's been a long time coming.
This is akin with the problem to the broken and abusable Bounty Hunter system. Criminals as a result have had the luxury of this mechanic being ineffective or potentially rewarding to them for ages. Again this complacency by criminals is as a result of the luxury of an ineffective player policing system, yet a Bounty Hunter is meant to be applied as an effective career in EvE, it's even listed on the new Web Career options by CCP. Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Jethro Winchester
The Logistical Nightmare
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 14:35:00 -
[409] - Quote
I have multiple reasons for opposing the proposed changes to canflipping mechanics and high security space in general. But there is one major reason that I feel I should explain
Eve is a sandbo
EvE is all about player interaction. It's the experiences we share with other players that make the game what it is. Good, bad, or otherwise. It's the only MMO I have ever ever played where your actions have real consequences no matter what profession you follow, or what side of the law you choose to be on. In highsec the advantage already goes to miners and other carebears (As it should.) who have just a little bit of common sense because if you don't want to participate in can flipping games you don't have to. But If you choose to not to make use of those advantages and launch your ore into the cold vacuum of space without escorts to run off potential looters instead of keeping it safely tucked in your cargohold, you run the risk of having it stolen. And if you choose to engage the thief who looted the ore that you carelessly left floating around you run the risk of losing your ship to said thief. Just like if I choose to flip somebody's can I run the risk of losing my ship to that persons entire corporation, and I WOULD like to see that extended to the players entire alliance
There are ways to avoid being a victim, or even turn the tables (I would suggest that everybody take a short break about now and watch When Carebears Attack) if you will take ten minutes to stop and think of them instead of expecting CCP to hold your hand and punish other players so you can semi-afk jetcan mine with relative impunity
I found a corp that I enjoy flying with because I snatched a bait-can and lost my ship. (Actually made most of my friends in this game by killing or being killed by them at one time or another.) After the fight we struck up a conversation and a day later I was invited to join up with his corp. If flipping that can had led to everybody in local being able to shoot me I doubt that would have happened, I doubt I would have flipped it at all, and I probably would have stopped spending my money on this game a long time ago. I'm not saying that it's all rainbows and sunshine, if it were the game wouldn't be nearly as interesting as it is. I am saying take the good with the bad and learn to fly smarter instead of taking away my player interaction because you made a bad decision
So the next time somebody flips your can don't just cry in local. Call up your buddies, come up with a plan, and have some fun. You might win, you might lose. Either way say 'gf' at the end. If you don't come out on top don't worry about it. Chat up the pilot, chances are he'll give you some tips and you might even get along with the thieving bastard. =P |
Corelin
The Fancy Hats Corporation S I L E N T.
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 14:41:00 -
[410] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Can-flipping as-is will be impossible once the safeties are added. People should be able to choose to do dumb things, but they should also have the information they need to figure out that the thing they're doing is dumb.
Duelling we're planning to support with an explicit mechanic rather than the current hacky workaround.
So... let me get this straight. Taking from an unsecure container is stupid. Putting stuff you value into an unsecure container is somehow not stupid? When you "jettison" something you are getting rid of it. You are choosing to give up control. This is a choice that should have consequences. When I take from a jet can I get a consequence. I flag myself to that guy and his entire corporation. He has the opportunity to defend his stuff but again he has to choose to expose himself to danger. If he is never exposed to danger, even after opening fire, you may as well just bring CONCORD in to kill can flippers. |
|
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
470
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 14:43:00 -
[411] - Quote
Bump Tremor wrote:Why is it a bad thing to have some small part of space where there is law and order? Seems like the RP aspect demands that 20 thousand years into the future, we can expect to have laws enforced in some parts of space without relying on vigilante justice.
And no, I have not had trouble finding friends who I could trust - it just was a little difficult for the first few months.- far more A-holes, than trustworthy players.
You want a serious reply to that or should I make another joke? shiptoastin' liek a baws |
Bump Tremor
Tremor Recorded Variable Enterprise Training Standards
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 14:48:00 -
[412] - Quote
Great Idea, Corelin! But only in very few 1.0 and newb starter systems should Concord be expected to enforce laws about thievery.
I'm opting out of the convo here to watch the presentations, but please feel free to resist change and fight the inevitable crush of the will of the majority in this sandbox.
I'm told in fleet chat CCP Sunset has very nice legs, but everyone would like her to face the camera every now and then - even wave! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5751
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 14:55:00 -
[413] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote:Actually Tippia it does not break the game. If anything it corrects what the actual view of high sec should be according to the SCC mandate. The complacency if anything is the fact that criminals believe they can get away with their actions with no consequence or culpability for the choices they make in this regard. No. The complacency lies in people absolutely refusing to provide consequences. There are tons of themfor criminals, but the victoms then immediately void them.
This proposal excludes criminal behaviour because it reduces aggression to two types: suicide and wardecs. Neither is a good platform for proper criminality. While it opens up for bounty hunting, it will not enable it because it immediately becomes 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
470
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 15:00:00 -
[414] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote:Actually Tippia it does not break the game. If anything it corrects what the actual view of high sec should be according to the SCC mandate. The complacency if anything is the fact that criminals believe they can get away with their actions with no consequence or culpability for the choices they make in this regard. No. The complacency lies in people absolutely refusing to provide consequences. There are tons of themfor criminals, but the victoms then immediately void them. This proposal excludes criminal behaviour because it reduces aggression to two types: suicide and wardecs. Neither is a good platform for proper criminality. While it opens up for bounty hunting, it will not enable it because it immediately becomes pointless.
I think that's a key issue with younger players, they can't accept that EVE from the get-go always forced you to accept the consequences to your actions. A big vocal part of the playerbase don't want that today. You can always discuss/argue why they play this game since it's always been an integral part of the EVE identity (i.e. sandbox), but they tend to scream "but we don't want it and we're more than you, stfu bittervet" or "but the game should be for everyone, part of space should have XYZ because I want it".
Whatever they say, you're right, it is gamebreaking. Not sure it mean EVE will die tho, but it definately kills the very identity and core of this game. Where's the consequences. And how will you learn the game if new/young players don't learn there is always consequences. We all went through that process at some point. shiptoastin' liek a baws |
Grumpy Owly
372
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 15:02:00 -
[415] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote:Actually Tippia it does not break the game. If anything it corrects what the actual view of high sec should be according to the SCC mandate. The complacency if anything is the fact that criminals believe they can get away with their actions with no consequence or culpability for the choices they make in this regard. No. The complacency lies in people absolutely refusing to provide consequences. There are tons of themfor criminals, but the victoms then immediately void them. This proposal excludes criminal behaviour because it reduces aggression to two types: suicide and wardecs. Neither is a good platform for proper criminality. While it opens up for bounty hunting, it will not enable it because it immediately becomes pointless.
Thats also an incorrect view as you forget that your "victim" directly suffers from the behaviour of the criminal activity. An effective suicide gank is meant to provide a loss to the vicitim. And for some they have already demonstrating the ability to significantly profit from this activity or easily afford a disparity in assest losses in favour of the ganker. Sometimes in different orders.
If you think the promotion of PvP that can provide a more fun and enlivened EvE for both sides of this equation as pointless? Especially when Bounty Hunting will open up new game play and career options in EvE. Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Grumpy Owly
373
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 15:07:00 -
[416] - Quote
Misanth wrote:Tippia wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote:Actually Tippia it does not break the game. If anything it corrects what the actual view of high sec should be according to the SCC mandate. The complacency if anything is the fact that criminals believe they can get away with their actions with no consequence or culpability for the choices they make in this regard. No. The complacency lies in people absolutely refusing to provide consequences. There are tons of themfor criminals, but the victoms then immediately void them. This proposal excludes criminal behaviour because it reduces aggression to two types: suicide and wardecs. Neither is a good platform for proper criminality. While it opens up for bounty hunting, it will not enable it because it immediately becomes pointless. I think that's a key issue with younger players, they can't accept that EVE from the get-go always forced you to accept the consequences to your actions. A big vocal part of the playerbase don't want that today. You can always discuss/argue why they play this game since it's always been an integral part of the EVE identity (i.e. sandbox), but they tend to scream "but we don't want it and we're more than you, stfu bittervet" or "but the game should be for everyone, part of space should have XYZ because I want it". Whatever they say, you're right, it is gamebreaking. Not sure it mean EVE will die tho, but it definately kills the very identity and core of this game. Where's the consequences. And how will you learn the game if new/young players don't learn there is always consequences. We all went through that process at some point.
Absolutley not game breaking. None of the proposals will prevent options to criminal activity, it is not exclusive or preventative to the sandbox abilities. That argument simply wont hold.
Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
rootimus maximus
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
48
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 15:07:00 -
[417] - Quote
I often "canflip"... my other toons. There are plenty of times when it's move convenient to jetcan stuff for a different toon to pickup. Given that my toons are mostly in different corps, that'll mean I'm going to be flagged for criminal behaviour that actually isn't.
The rest of this stuff is pretty interesting. Looking forward to firm details when they figure them out. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
409
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 15:10:00 -
[418] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:I adjust my debate strategy to not go too far above the heads of the people I'm arguing with. What's the point of using high-end logic when most of the responses you get are "htfu gankbear"? Might as well hit closer to home and stick to things they understand. Luckily, mission NPCs are one of these things.
Players do understand that rats are not people, likely even the least intelligent amongst them.
Now to your better argument, about current mechanics and being flagged to a corp. Mainly it is to get rid of spaghetti, mud-ball as Greyscale called it, even if he did have a pic of a dung beetle. Inefficient legacy code either has to be refractored or redone. Redoing it is often the more cost effective tact. If they want to add things, to expand game play for we paying customers, they have to break 10 things to make one.
Also, being flagged to an entire corp for 15 minutes is hardly a price to pay or a deterrent. The average high sec corp is spread out over a constellation or a region, this is not a defense or a threat, and I know you know that. Your argument is attempting to exploit this very weakness in most high sec corps. They are loosely defined, they don't wander in packs, they are not organized and most of them don't want to be organized beyond hanging out with some internet friends and relaxing for an hour or two before they have to go to bed.
Everyone versus Everyone. Go suspect and Everyone can shoot you. That sounds more like Eve than appeals to the Empire of the Dung Beetle. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
231
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 15:16:00 -
[419] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Also, being flagged to an entire corp for 15 minutes is hardly a price to pay or a deterrent. The average high sec corp is spread out over a constellation or a region, this is not a defense or a threat, and I know you know that. Your argument is attempting to exploit this very weakness in most high sec corps. They are loosely defined, they don't wander in packs, they are not organized and most of them don't want to be organized beyond hanging out with some internet friends and relaxing for an hour or two before they have to go to bed. Well that's kind of their fault, isn't it? They have the tools, but don't utilize them. You can hardly blame the people taking advantage of that fact. Also, the MMO player and the "relax for an hour with some friends" demographics never really had any significant overlap.
Why should CCP make changes that cater to this specific player subset, instead of making changes that will bring in more pvper/griefer/sociopath subscriptions? |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
409
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 15:21:00 -
[420] - Quote
Tippia wrote: This proposal excludes criminal behaviour because it reduces aggression to two types: suicide and wardecs. Neither is a good platform for proper criminality. While it opens up for bounty hunting, it will not enable it because it immediately becomes pointless.
You are forgetting, or have not read Grayscale's comment in this thread about the limited engagement option, and now he's on Eve TV, let's listen ... |
|
Grumpy Owly
373
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 15:23:00 -
[421] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: Why should CCP make changes that cater to this specific player subset, instead of making changes that will bring in more pvper/griefer/sociopath subscriptions?
Short memory:
New high alpha tier 3 BC's anyone? Improvements to dessies?
Seems there are significant tools balancing out other various features. So it seems there is a mixed element of support with features as a result. So no you can't say nothing goes in the favour of this mindset or playstyle. Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Kazacy
BACKFIRE Squad S O L A R I S
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 15:27:00 -
[422] - Quote
Funny thing is not long time ago alot of carebears cried: remove insurance for suicide gankers, in this way we don't have anymore suicide kills and voila, after the removal of insurance my impression is we have more suicide kills than ever. What i mean to say is for every action a reaction will follow and crimewatch imo force alot of players to sucide gank more than ever because in the end this will be the last form of pvp in hisec. After this i bet carebears will cry one more time and finally they will have something like no pvp in hisec and maybe eve will became something like the X series, a single player game and and everyone will say: hey why should i pay the sub for this MMO when i can buy a single player game and play without any monthly fee [:=d When i signed for eve i was poded in my first or second day of eve in lowsec, oh boy i was angry on all pirates so i joined an antipirate corporation in lowsec (we was a bunch of carebears with some balls that's all). One day i read in a pirate bio something like this Antipirates are pirates with messiah complex It was eye opening for me and soon after this i became myself a pirate/griefer whatever you wanna call. So in the end pls CCP MAKE HISEC A PERFECTLY SAFE ZONE AND ALSO PLEASE MOVE IT ON ANOTHER SERVER (a fluffy furry and pinky one if it's possible). No need anymore for stupid crimewatch and so on
Thx for reading my rant
P.S. i wanna thank you here for the guy who poded me first time in eve because in this way i was forced to learn alot about the game. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
409
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 15:38:00 -
[423] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: Well that's kind of their fault, isn't it? They have the tools, but don't utilize them. You can hardly blame the people taking advantage of that fact. Also, the MMO player and the "relax for an hour with some friends" demographics never really had any significant overlap.
The old "if you don't play it the way I do, you're wrong." gambit. They are taking advantage of things that you are not, so you're wrong too.
Destiny Corrupted wrote: Why should CCP make changes that cater to this specific player subset, instead of making changes that will bring in more pvper/griefer/sociopath subscriptions?
How do you know it won't? You are concluding it won't - if random players can pop a suspect, they will, and this will deter pvpers, griefers and the odd sociopath.
Now those who will pop a suspect are engaging in PVP, so they are pvpers. One down. According to the loose use of the word grief on these forums, they are interrupting someone else's game play, so they are greifing the griefers. Two down. We already know that anyone playing this game is a little crazy to play internet space ships, though perhaps not a sociopath. Ok, so you get sociopath. You can have them. (I seriously doubt real sociopath will waste their time with internet spaceships when real people are closer at hand.)
|
Ximen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 15:39:00 -
[424] - Quote
"back when i was playing"
Of all the awkward **** i just listened to in the gap fillers tonight.. you let slip that little gem.
Every dev I've seen on eve-tv ever was precisely the type of person I expected based on their posts. Instantly i was on their side, and understood their POV. They were people I unquestionably gave my approval to.
Greyscale, now I have personal experience in why noone thinks you have a clue what you're on about. You instilled absolutely zero confidence in what you are doing with this game.. and yet you're looking after a core component of the game mechanics.
Then you drop this little gem.. "i dont drink". Very respectable. Also nice way to distance yourself from the majority of the core players (and the other devs). It sure explains the inexusable awkwardness that was yourself in front of the camera.
Congrats, you've just managed to undo any confidence i built up from crucible. |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1125
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 15:48:00 -
[425] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Liang Nuren wrote: 2. Why do you feel that there needs to be a penalty involved with being flagged as a suspect? Why is ships blowing up a bad thing? You implemented your "safety off" - they know what the consequences are. This is notably how other games handle PVP flagging. Its why its called "PVP flagging".
If you're doing something mildly "illegal" (as defined by the very loose and approximate code of morality that the mechanics are trying to suggest), my default position is that there should be some mild negative consequences for that action. If aggressing someone with a suspect flag is always a statistically dumb move, we may as well just make all those actions legal and be done with it.
The mild negative consequence is that ANYONE can shoot you (at the risk of becoming PVP flagged themselves). Do that on the Jita undock and get volleyed by 200 people. The escalation over the old mechanics would be both good and bad, and there should be no problem with high sec belts turning into mass graves over a flipped can.
I also find it amusing that you're willing to justify that being unable to defend yourself when PVP flagged is a "mild negative consequence".
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Tauren Tom
Order of the Silver Dragons Eternal Evocations
45
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 16:13:00 -
[426] - Quote
VIGILANTISM!
Anywhere else this would get you arrested and thrown in jail... Naga stole my bike!
Talos, the official Pizza Wedge of the Gallente Federation. |
cadermerin
d o o m
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 16:31:00 -
[427] - Quote
prolix travail wrote: Can you tell me, us (those who think this way) what you are doing with the sandbox of new eden, will the ability to pvp wherever and whenever be protected? or are you going to eventually dictate where it's allowed to happen?
+1
carebears have got the wrong idea about EvE, you should not be able to do anything peacfully. When you log in you're accepting that other people will try to kill you and take your stuff. If that isnt the game you want to play then find another.
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
409
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 16:31:00 -
[428] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote: The mild negative consequence is that ANYONE can shoot you (at the risk of becoming PVP flagged themselves). Do that on the Jita undock and get volleyed by 200 people. The escalation over the old mechanics would be both good and bad, and there should be no problem with high sec belts turning into mass graves over a flipped can.
I also find it amusing that you're willing to justify that being unable to defend yourself when PVP flagged is a "mild negative consequence".
-Liang
Grayscale wrote: What we're actually considering right now, based on player suggestions, is to formalize the concept of a "limited engagement", which is effectively needed for both wardecs and some kind of duelling system, and carry that across to here too. To whit, anyone who engages a suspect becomes part of a "limited engagement" with the suspect on one side and all their aggressors on the other side, and any further interference by anyone else in that engagement gets a suspect flag.
Ref. Post #328 |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3365
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 16:33:00 -
[429] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Terminal Insanity wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: Can-flipping as-is will be impossible once the safeties are added. People should be able to choose to do dumb things, but they should also have the information they need to figure out that the thing they're doing is dumb.
Duelling we're planning to support with an explicit mechanic rather than the current hacky workaround.
They do have that right to do stupid things. And in space, when you do something stupid, it gets you killed. That is how you learn. How about you protect me when i approach a cyno dominix with my webbing loki and cant get away in time? i mean, if i was smart i'd have stayed out of point range, but hey i'm dumb and i need you to hold my hand through it. Seriously though, carebear gets canflipped and gets a POPUP WARNING EXPLAINING EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN when he steals it back. If he chooses to ignore it the first time, that's his own fault and he receives his lesson. If he refuses to listen to it time and time again, that's his own stupidity getting him killed. You are talking about carebears and consequences while crying that it will be more difficult for you to to pursue the risk and consequence free high sec griefing you currently enjoy.
let me explain it for you since you're slow:
this creates risk-free PvP "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Grumpy Owly
373
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 16:42:00 -
[430] - Quote
Tauren Tom wrote:VIGILANTISM!
Anywhere else this would get you arrested and thrown in jail...
Are you advocating that criminals should be thrown in jail then?
Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1125
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 17:00:00 -
[431] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Liang Nuren wrote: The mild negative consequence is that ANYONE can shoot you (at the risk of becoming PVP flagged themselves). Do that on the Jita undock and get volleyed by 200 people. The escalation over the old mechanics would be both good and bad, and there should be no problem with high sec belts turning into mass graves over a flipped can.
I also find it amusing that you're willing to justify that being unable to defend yourself when PVP flagged is a "mild negative consequence".
-Liang
Grayscale wrote: What we're actually considering right now, based on player suggestions, is to formalize the concept of a "limited engagement", which is effectively needed for both wardecs and some kind of duelling system, and carry that across to here too. To whit, anyone who engages a suspect becomes part of a "limited engagement" with the suspect on one side and all their aggressors on the other side, and any further interference by anyone else in that engagement gets a suspect flag.
Ref. Post #328
I'm well aware of what they are considering now. I'm responding to his assertion that PVP flagging should carry a mild negative consequence and that one example of a mild negative consequence is being unable to defend yourself on the pain of being Concorded.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Harotak
Malicious Destruction War Against the Manifest
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 17:58:00 -
[432] - Quote
As someone who enjoys fighting can baiters and gaining aggression through remote repairing people, I'm not at all upset with this change if it cures the instant dock neutral remote repair plague and a robust dueling mechanic is implemented.
My thoughts on the dueling mechanic:
1. The duel partipants should be in the same fleet 2. Anyone who remote assists a duel participant should go straight to criminal flag instead of just getting flagged a suspect. Even this might not be strong enough since in a duel between high-value faction fit ships for instance, its nothing to lose something like a tech-1 basic support cruiser to quickly rep up your friend. It might be necessary to simply make it impossible to remote assist someone in a duel. 3. When in a duel you should "no-clip" through all ships that are not participating in the duel in order to avoid neutral bumping from machariels and such. 4. To avoid mid-fight re-supply, picking up any floating cargo, even something you or your corp mates dropped, should flag you as a suspect. |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
471
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 18:29:00 -
[433] - Quote
Kazacy wrote: P.S. i wanna thank you here for the guy who poded me first time in eve because in this way i was forced to learn alot about the game.
Even those of us that joined to be bad guys (I joined EVE to be a pirate, scammer and corpthief) learned these hard lessons early on. I learned for example that it's bad to steal from just about everyone, if I don't have means to defend myself. Stealing from 200 angry russians might have you permacamped in a station.. oops.
That kind of consequences was what I mentioned above. There should always be means for younger players to learn there is consequences, and that EVE is dangerous. Taking that away, will take away from the learning experience, and in fact in the long run those players might end up being very frustrated after X time that "all this time I played this game, and it turned out it's dangerous! How would I know?" etc. shiptoastin' liek a baws |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
409
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 18:42:00 -
[434] - Quote
Misanth wrote:That kind of consequences was what I mentioned above. There should always be means for younger players to learn there is consequences, and that EVE is dangerous. Taking that away, will take away from the learning experience, and in fact in the long run those players might end up being very frustrated after X time that "all this time I played this game, and it turned out it's dangerous! How would I know?" etc.
They'll know because sooner or later they're going to try and do something and get the saftey warning and wonder what the heck it is. They're going to ask someone in corp, on forums, in help, and they're going to get a lesson. The brave ones will try it, the bear like ones will shrug and go back to whatever they were doing. |
Liam Mirren
348
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 19:19:00 -
[435] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Misanth wrote:That kind of consequences was what I mentioned above. There should always be means for younger players to learn there is consequences, and that EVE is dangerous. Taking that away, will take away from the learning experience, and in fact in the long run those players might end up being very frustrated after X time that "all this time I played this game, and it turned out it's dangerous! How would I know?" etc. They'll know because sooner or later they're going to try and do something and get the saftey warning and wonder what the heck it is. They're going to ask someone in corp, on forums, in help, and they're going to get a lesson. The brave ones will try it, the bear like ones will shrug and go back to whatever they were doing.
They already get a warning message if they do something that gets you flagged, so what you're advocating is already in place.
Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
409
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 19:26:00 -
[436] - Quote
Liam Mirren wrote: They already get a warning message if they do something that gets you flagged, so what you're advocating is already in place.
Not really, since they can click ignore/cancel and uncheck the box right then and there as things are now. Noobie presented with a dialog box they may not understand.
This new system means they can't do the action at all until they enable it deliberately. There is no "do it anyway" button on the message. |
baltec1
854
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 19:30:00 -
[437] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Liam Mirren wrote: They already get a warning message if they do something that gets you flagged, so what you're advocating is already in place.
Not really, since they can click ignore/cancel and uncheck the box right then and there as things are now. Noobie presented with a dialog box they may not understand. This new system means they can't do the action at all until they enable it deliberately. There is no "do it anyway" button on the message.
What not to understand about the current message that pops up? |
equincu ocha
The Tuskers
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 19:49:00 -
[438] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Velicia Tuoro wrote:Liang Nuren wrote: Any news on the return of Flashy Flashy
This was asked in the questions section. CCP Greyscale admitted it was his request to remove that. It was down to them not being a threat in high sec. (unless they are going to gank...) It didn't seem like they were going to add it back. The exact reasoning was that flashy people are people who can legally kill you, and a -10 is probably a threat (and thus red background) but is not free to agress (therefore not flashy).
If flashy people are people that can kill me, then why isn't my overview permaflashy Why can't you just reword it to 'flashy people are people who you can legally kill' and give us outlaws our flashy red status again
Flashy Red had been synonymous with pirate/outlaw for such long that it has been ingrained in the EVE vernacular, so much so that even players that weren't around before the great pirate nerf refer to us as flashy red In lowsec gangs/fleets it's common to hear scouts and FC's calling targets flashy or nonflashy, not because of war target status but to inform us if we will be taking sentry fire or not
It may not seem like it's a big deal that us lowly pirates get back to our former glory, and you know what... it's not, it's just a little thing that a few of us would like back (some of us became a pirates so we could be flashy red) Baby seal walked into a club |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
409
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 19:52:00 -
[439] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: What not to understand about the current message that pops up?
Ask someone new. |
Liam Mirren
348
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 20:19:00 -
[440] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Liam Mirren wrote: They already get a warning message if they do something that gets you flagged, so what you're advocating is already in place.
Not really, since they can click ignore/cancel and uncheck the box right then and there as things are now. Noobie presented with a dialog box they may not understand. This new system means they can't do the action at all until they enable it deliberately. There is no "do it anyway" button on the message.
"WARNING, IF YOU CLICK YES THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE YOU'LL BE ****** SIDEWAYS. DO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE? YES/NO"
How fcking difficult is it? Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
|
Revajin
15 Minute Outliers Novus Dominatum
38
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 20:36:00 -
[441] - Quote
Wait wait wait. Let me get this straight. If you steal from a can now you are considered a criminal and anyone can attack you rather than just the can owner?
Why are can flippers mad about this? |
Taihbea
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 20:38:00 -
[442] - Quote
Mutnin wrote:Velicia Tuoro wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote: 1. Player A takes Player B's can 2. Players C-Z are now able to aggress Player A, who can only retaliate
That is how I interpreted it. That's a pretty stupid move by CCP if this is the case. While I agree with the logistics need to be given aggression and "should" show up on KMs, but can flipping giving aggro to all is certainly not needed. However would be funny to see all the loot stealing ***** @ jita 4-4 getting popped by the dozen. Assuming it carried over to wrecks as well. Overall sounds like CCP dumbing down the game once again. Yes yes. Flipping some defenseless noob can is so pro and hardcore. Wtf are you on? This is AWESOME news. |
Diva Ex Machina
Son's of The Hammer The Methodical Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 20:43:00 -
[443] - Quote
Revajin wrote:Wait wait wait. Let me get this straight. If you steal from a can now you are considered a criminal and anyone can attack you rather than just the can owner?
Why are can flippers mad about this?
From what I understand the rage is against the idea that the can flippers won't be able to fight back against anyone who attacks them and that shooting someone who attacks you after you flip them will result in a sec status hit. |
Harrigan VonStudly
The Generic Pirate Corporation Fusion.
13
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 20:46:00 -
[444] - Quote
Taihbea wrote:Mutnin wrote:Velicia Tuoro wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote: 1. Player A takes Player B's can 2. Players C-Z are now able to aggress Player A, who can only retaliate
That is how I interpreted it. That's a pretty stupid move by CCP if this is the case. While I agree with the logistics need to be given aggression and "should" show up on KMs, but can flipping giving aggro to all is certainly not needed. However would be funny to see all the loot stealing ***** @ jita 4-4 getting popped by the dozen. Assuming it carried over to wrecks as well. Overall sounds like CCP dumbing down the game once again. Yes yes. Flipping some defenseless noob can is so pro and hardcore. Wtf are you on? This is AWESOME news.
IF player A gets ganked on the Jita 4-4 undock and his freighter drops billions in loot and I steal some why should I be shootable by every player on the undock? Furthermore, it was hinted at that I would not be allowed to shoot back if shot at.
You should read the thread more. It goes way deeper than flipping noobs. |
Garmon
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
187
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 21:05:00 -
[445] - Quote
Harrigan VonStudly wrote:
IF player A gets ganked on the Jita 4-4 undock and his freighter drops billions in loot and I steal some why should I be shootable by every player on the undock?
Probably because of this thing called risk vs reward, maybe Check out GARMONATION 9 right now! Check out our site for PVP videos, guides and audio commentaries: www.EVEisEASY.com
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1129
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 21:08:00 -
[446] - Quote
Revajin wrote:Wait wait wait. Let me get this straight. If you steal from a can now you are considered a criminal and anyone can attack you rather than just the can owner?
Why are can flippers mad about this?
Because Greyscale's initial position was people shoot the can flipper, he can't shoot back or he'll be concorded. :)
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
E man Industries
SeaChell Productions
249
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 21:10:00 -
[447] - Quote
EvE is not safe nor should it be.
Wardecks on no consenting corps are good! Sucha wardeck got me out of missioning and into pvp because we formed up to defend ourselves...I said i want more of that and moved out to 0.0
I might still be running missions if i had nto been wardecked.
Also can flipping....other than doing it in noob systems what is the problem?
Need more-ádecent content a casual player can access in a 1-2h play period that is actually fun and contributes to long term personal and corp goals. This applies to PvE and PvP. |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1129
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 21:10:00 -
[448] - Quote
Garmon wrote:Harrigan VonStudly wrote:
IF player A gets ganked on the Jita 4-4 undock and his freighter drops billions in loot and I steal some why should I be shootable by every player on the undock?
Probably because of this thing called risk vs reward, maybe
I'm fine with being shot at by anyone that wants to shoot at me (I'm -10 after all...) but I would appreciate being able to shoot back without being Concorded. As for my personal preference, I'd say that the right solution is to have high sec PVP flags. You are either flagged for PVP or you are not. Taking any PVP action (from can baiting to shooting someone that's PVP flagged) flags you for PVP.
Yes, that might mean that high sec belts become blood baths as corps, alliances, and friends escalate over a can flip... but why is this a bad thing?
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Brom MkLeith
Epsilon Inc STORM.
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 21:22:00 -
[449] - Quote
Karl Planck wrote:Pak Narhoo wrote:Just know it's still on paper. Nothing hard, nothing coded. Can go anyway from here.
Like a good point: friendly can flipping to have a 1 on 1 fight is out the window with these presumed changes.
nope, just fleet up and meet at a safe
Thanks for pointing this one out. I was worried about "friendly" duels disappearing.
|
Harrigan VonStudly
The Generic Pirate Corporation Fusion.
13
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 21:26:00 -
[450] - Quote
Garmon wrote:Harrigan VonStudly wrote:
IF player A gets ganked on the Jita 4-4 undock and his freighter drops billions in loot and I steal some why should I be shootable by every player on the undock?
Probably because of this thing called risk vs reward, maybe
I completely agree Garmon. The "mention" by CCP that as a 'suspect' you can not return fire if fired upon is sort of a bad idea imo. I probably should have added that earlier. |
|
Grumpy Owly
381
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 21:27:00 -
[451] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Revajin wrote:Wait wait wait. Let me get this straight. If you steal from a can now you are considered a criminal and anyone can attack you rather than just the can owner?
Why are can flippers mad about this? Because Greyscale's initial position was people shoot the can flipper, he can't shoot back or he'll be concorded. :) -Liang
That wasn't the case at all. And he has clarified the list of options that were posed due to roundtable discussions..
This was merely one of those options that was posed as part of the debating for which when clarified he also thoguht wasnt sensible.
Other options being the cascading "suspect" method, and another being a more limited engagement where individual flagging is maintained to some extent.
to requote the confirmation of what was discussed:
CCP Greyscale wrote:Ok, so firstly, see the first bit of my previous post. This isn't something we flagged up as an issue early on, but which looks like it should be solvable so we've not dedicated a whole lot of work to it yet.
Here's the awkwardness with all three obvious solutions to this problem:
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.
What we're actually considering right now, based on player suggestions, is to formalize the concept of a "limited engagement", which is effectively needed for both wardecs and some kind of duelling system, and carry that across to here too. To whit, anyone who engages a suspect becomes part of a "limited engagement" with the suspect on one side and all their aggressors on the other side, and any further interference by anyone else in that engagement gets a suspect flag.
And yes, I know "I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU EVEN CONSIDERED THAT OPTION"; we consider all the options, and yesterday I threw one out to gauge the player reaction to it, which generated some useful feedback.
It is you who is being persistant in wanting to present an innacurate picture of what was initially discussed by doing this.
CCP Greyscale wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Its both, actually. Its CCP saying something which could potentially be interpreted in a good way (but really shouldn't be) and a player relating what the CCP Dev explained to him in person. That's the current plan. It is the intended behavior of the new Crimewatch that players will not PVP flag for killing PVP flagged players.
-Liang You literally just quoted me saying "we've not made our mind up what the intended behavior is".
So by your recognition of both it obviously implies more than one option, yet interestingly there are in fact more than 2. And hey presto look, CCP Greyscale confirming how they were in fact options merely discussed as a part of a brainstorming process at a roundtable for which no conclusions were drawn.
But of course you need to revert to your innacurate portrayed sensationalist journalism in preumably the hope to discredit CCP in the process as it might help your stance on an issue, yet of course we all now know the truth on the matter. Great way to show your integrity and credibility in reporting things especially after it was a contentious point for which clarity was sought.
The obvious conclusion is that now they are considering a limited engagement option due to those player discussions. Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
N3oXr2ii
the united Negative Ten.
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 21:34:00 -
[452] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:
So... it will soon be impossible to deagress with logistics on the field. That's... interesting.
Yeah, that's a dumb I made on the slide. Assistance will cause you to inherit the assistee's timer, with the current amount of time they have left on it. If you're only assisting and not shooting, it'll always be the case that you'll deagress on the same second as the person you're giving assistance to. [/quote]
Can the dev or someone clear this up for me
so i'm camping a gate with a logi repping me and something jumps through i kill it while i'm shooting it my logi reps me
after it dies i keep the logi repping me becuase i'm camping
i can jump through the gate after 1 min so this means after the changes the logi can also jump through after 1 min or becuase his reps are still on me he can't until 1 min after he stops repping
which is it the logi can jump when i do or the logi can't jump untill 1 min after he stops repping (btw thats terrible if the case )
i will also take it that remote sebo's tracking etc will still be the same as logis -áplease don't take out your real life issues out on me not my fault if your fat ugly bullied divorced broke or-á have a pimple thats big and red maybe your mom wants you out her basement or a jock has gave you a wedgie your flames only make me laff at your sadness your hidden tears are as juicy as the whiners i blob or the blobs i hide-áfrom |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1131
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 21:36:00 -
[453] - Quote
Why oh why did I think it was a good idea to click "view post"?
Grumpy Owly wrote:That wasn't the case at all. And he has clarified the list of options that were posed due to roundtable discussions.. This was merely one of those options that was posed as part of the debating for which when clarified he also thoguht wasnt sensible. Other options being the cascading "suspect" method, and another being a more limited engagement where individual flagging is maintained to some extent. to requote the confirmation of what was discussed: CCP Greyscale wrote: And yes, I know "I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU EVEN CONSIDERED THAT OPTION"; we consider all the options, and yesterday I threw one out to gauge the player reaction to it, which generated some useful feedback.
It is you who is being persistant in wanting to present an innacurate picture of what was initially discussed by doing this. ... But of course you need to revert to your innacurate portrayed sensationalist journalism in preumably the hope to discredit CCP in the process as it might help your stance on an issue, yet of course we all now know the truth on the matter. Great way to show your integrity and credibility in reporting things especially after it was a contentious point for which clarity was sought.
You see the part I bolded and underlined? He threw option #1 out at Fanfest to see how the players responded. He did exactly what I said he did, and he did it on purpose. And he admits he did it.
Quote:The obvious conclusion is that now they are considering a limited engagement option due to those player discussions.
I see you missed the word "initially". WTS Reading Comprehension. :)
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Brom MkLeith
Epsilon Inc STORM.
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 21:39:00 -
[454] - Quote
Velicia Tuoro wrote:Did I miss anything important?
New "suspect" flag - Minor crimes. Anyone can shoot you without penalty. - Flipping a can for example - Shooting someone makes you a suspect (I think) - Anyone assisting a suspect becomes a suspect - Not sure if gate guns will attack a suspect. Undecided yet.
No no no. Can flipping should not open you up to complete system retaliation.
|
Grumpy Owly
381
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 21:42:00 -
[455] - Quote
Liam Mirren wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:Liam Mirren wrote: They already get a warning message if they do something that gets you flagged, so what you're advocating is already in place.
Not really, since they can click ignore/cancel and uncheck the box right then and there as things are now. Noobie presented with a dialog box they may not understand. This new system means they can't do the action at all until they enable it deliberately. There is no "do it anyway" button on the message. "WARNING, IF YOU CLICK YES THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE YOU'LL BE ****** SIDEWAYS. DO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE? YES/NO" How fcking difficult is it?
So you want to maintian the cumbersome numerous checkboxes that occur when a player tries to do a criminal act?
The idea behind safeties is that it allows players to turn off these checks where they understand the consequences of actions and allows them the freedom to act on those decisions without having to use a chckbox at all. In this sense it is a pre-determined decision or stance about criminal actions.
This if anything removes any annoyances of having to confirm. And in other recent threads about the topic would seem to be a welcome change as a result.
Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
312
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 21:45:00 -
[456] - Quote
Taihbea wrote:Yes yes. Flipping some defenseless noob can is so pro and hardcore. Wtf are you on? This is AWESOME news. Because only n00bs mine in hulks....
This thread makes me want to move back to hi-sec and blow up people who think the game isn't about blowing **** up.
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
Garmon
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
187
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 21:45:00 -
[457] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote: I would appreciate being able to shoot back without being Concorded.
At this point I'd say that's just something that has been overlooked, I'm very sure that when this will actually be implemented, that wont be the case, but I thought you just lost sec status, not get concorded
Liang Nuren wrote: As for my personal preference, I'd say that the right solution is to have high sec PVP flags. You are either flagged for PVP or you are not. Taking any PVP action (from can baiting to shooting someone that's PVP flagged) flags you for PVP.
I cant decide if this would be good or not, I'd think not
The main reason I say this is because if that is the case, there will be a bunch of roaming gangs of "veterans" that goes around with the sole intention of ganking, get 10 people in 15 au ss to station, get 1 dude in a mobile/tanky ship to warp in and wait to get aggro'd, rest of gang warps in straight away when something aggros, rinse and repeat, if that's going to be the main face of the mechanic is highsec, that would be ****!
And considering how hard it is to scout in highsec, it would be a big problem I think and it would deter a LOT of people from partaking with the new mechanic unless they are overly prepared, which would be terrible for the current highsec pvpers that has grown balls enough to adapt to the new mechanic, who are mainly soloers
So what I am trying to say is, turning highsec into amamake would be bad Check out GARMONATION 9 right now! Check out our site for PVP videos, guides and audio commentaries: www.EVEisEASY.com
|
Brom MkLeith
Epsilon Inc STORM.
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 21:46:00 -
[458] - Quote
Velicia Tuoro wrote:Did I miss anything important?
Sec Status - Kill someone while a suspect will only take you to -5 - Pod killing will take you below -5 to -10 - Killing someone with positive +5 gives you hit - Killing someone with a negative sec gives you bonus - Hand in tags for sec boost up to +5. Less effect if you are -5. - Fixing rat spawns after downtime. - -5 can be killed without penalty in low sec. - Something about -5 in high sec being pursued.
Nice. Now we can be pro-active vigilantes instead of just sitting around waiting for someone to get killed. I've never been an advocate of 100% safe High Sec, but someone should have to have some serious beef with me before they come after me. Like Chris Rock's theory of making bullets cost $5,000 each. You've got to really want someone dead to spend $5,000 on one bullet.
|
Grumpy Owly
381
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 21:50:00 -
[459] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Why oh why did I think it was a good idea to click "view post"? Grumpy Owly wrote:That wasn't the case at all. And he has clarified the list of options that were posed due to roundtable discussions.. This was merely one of those options that was posed as part of the debating for which when clarified he also thoguht wasnt sensible. Other options being the cascading "suspect" method, and another being a more limited engagement where individual flagging is maintained to some extent. to requote the confirmation of what was discussed: CCP Greyscale wrote: And yes, I know "I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU EVEN CONSIDERED THAT OPTION"; we consider all the options, and yesterday I threw one out to gauge the player reaction to it, which generated some useful feedback.
It is you who is being persistant in wanting to present an innacurate picture of what was initially discussed by doing this. ... But of course you need to revert to your innacurate portrayed sensationalist journalism in preumably the hope to discredit CCP in the process as it might help your stance on an issue, yet of course we all now know the truth on the matter. Great way to show your integrity and credibility in reporting things especially after it was a contentious point for which clarity was sought. You see the part I bolded and underlined? He threw option #1 out at Fanfest to see how the players responded. He did exactly what I said he did, and he did it on purpose. And he admits he did it. Quote:The obvious conclusion is that now they are considering a limited engagement option due to those player discussions. I see you missed the word "initially". WTS Reading Comprehension. :) -Liang
How do you know that all three of these options werent discussed? Presumably by the player involvement and the fact they adopted a view to persue the limited engagement choice suggest some player discussions as it was quoted as based on player discussions?
CCP Greyscale wrote:What we're actually considering right now, based on player suggestions, is to formalize the concept of a "limited engagement", which is effectively needed for both wardecs and some kind of duelling system, and carry that across to here too. To whit, anyone who engages a suspect becomes part of a "limited engagement" with the suspect on one side and all their aggressors on the other side, and any further interference by anyone else in that engagement gets a suspect flag.
Either way, because it was clarified doesn't allow you to propogate an incorrect and untruthfull awareness or understanding about the scope or direction of the development. Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Liam Mirren
349
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 21:50:00 -
[460] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote:So by your recognition of both it obviously implies more than one option, yet interestingly there are in fact more than 2. And hey presto look, CCP Greyscale confirming how they were in fact options merely discussed as a part of a brainstorming process at a roundtable for which no conclusions were drawn.
But of course you need to revert to your innacurate portrayed sensationalist journalism in preumably the hope to discredit CCP in the process as it might help your stance on an issue, yet of course we all now know the truth on the matter. Great way to show your integrity and credibility in reporting things especially after it was a contentious point for which clarity was sought.
The obvious conclusion is that now they are considering a limited engagement option due to those player discussions.
Remember a while ago a DEV stated that NEX store would not have game altering options in it (and actually a few months earlier another DEV stated would never even HAVE a NEX store), and then they changed their minds about it trying to sneak it in, right up till the point we the players started yelling and revolting? Yeah, that's happening right now, again.
Back then all the problems would have been avoided if CCP would have stated outright that they would NOT introduce "gold ammo", but they didn't for the simple reason that they were thinking about it. Same thing applies here, until greyscale states that "no, not being allowed to shoot back without issues if you're being shot at would be a stupid idea, whatever we're trying to come up with, trust us it won't be THAT" we must assume that, at the very least, they have it on the table.
And that in and of itself shows us that they lack an understanding of what EVE is and should be, which is pretty much worrying for a DEV. Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1132
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 21:51:00 -
[461] - Quote
Garmon wrote:Liang Nuren wrote: I would appreciate being able to shoot back without being Concorded.
At this point I'd say that's just something that has been overlooked, I'm very sure that when this will actually be implemented, that wont be the case, but I thought you just lost sec status, not get concorded
Well, considering CCP Greyscale said he very specifically threw that option out to the player base to gauge the response, I have to say its less of an oversight and more of a trollface. But yes, it seems impossible that wouldn't be allowed.
Quote: I cant decide if this would be good or not, I'd think not ... So what I am trying to say is, turning highsec into amamake would be bad
The problem is that unless they work with directed graphs of personal aggression, there's really not a lot of room inbetween. Go read Greyscale's response for exactly why that's a hard problem.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Grumpy Owly
381
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 21:55:00 -
[462] - Quote
Liam Mirren wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote:So by your recognition of both it obviously implies more than one option, yet interestingly there are in fact more than 2. And hey presto look, CCP Greyscale confirming how they were in fact options merely discussed as a part of a brainstorming process at a roundtable for which no conclusions were drawn.
But of course you need to revert to your innacurate portrayed sensationalist journalism in preumably the hope to discredit CCP in the process as it might help your stance on an issue, yet of course we all now know the truth on the matter. Great way to show your integrity and credibility in reporting things especially after it was a contentious point for which clarity was sought.
The obvious conclusion is that now they are considering a limited engagement option due to those player discussions. Remember a while ago a DEV stated that NEX store would not have game altering options in it (and actually a few months earlier another DEV stated we would never even HAVE a NEX store), and then they changed their minds about it trying to sneak it in, right up till the point we the players started yelling and revolting? Yeah, that's happening right now, again. Back then all the problems would have been avoided if CCP would have stated outright that they would NOT introduce "gold ammo", but they didn't for the simple reason that they were thinking about it. Same thing applies here, until greyscale states that "no, not being allowed to shoot back without issues if you're being shot at would be a stupid idea, whatever we're trying to come up with, trust us it won't be THAT" we must assume that, at the very least, they have it on the table. And that in and of itself shows us that they lack an understanding of what EVE is and should be, which is pretty much worrying for a DEV. Greyscale has replied several times to this thread, I'm sure he noticed our rage is about the "not being able to shoot back" bit, so I'm sure that he's smart enough to simply reply to it with a basic statement that they aren't thinking about that. But he hasn't.
More scaremongering and suposition.
Nothing wrong with brainstroming an idea an gauging reaction to many options, especially when interpretation of player choices is not always black and white or for complete confirmation of their understanding they have to pose devil advocates questions to ensure they are on the correct wavelength. This was actually quoted by CCP as to why the question was posed. Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1132
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 21:56:00 -
[463] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote: How do you know that all three of these options werent discussed? Presumably by the player involvement and the fact they changed their view to the limited engagement choice suggest some player discussions as it was quoted as based on player discussions?
Given the fact that nobody got back to us with any of those details (including the genuine CCP lovers like me), I have to say its wishful thinking to believe that he discussed any of those options with the community. Furthermore, he specifically said that he threw that option out there to gauge the player reaction.
Which has been exceedingly poor.
Quote:CCP Greyscale wrote:What we're actually considering right now, based on player suggestions, is to formalize the concept of a "limited engagement", which is effectively needed for both wardecs and some kind of duelling system, and carry that across to here too. To whit, anyone who engages a suspect becomes part of a "limited engagement" with the suspect on one side and all their aggressors on the other side, and any further interference by anyone else in that engagement gets a suspect flag. Either way, because it was clarified doesn't allow you to propogate an incorrect and untruthfull awareness or understanding about the scope or direction of the development.
So what I'm propagating isn't untruthful or incorrect. It was the way CCP Greyscale presented it at Fanfest, and that's what all the ~rage~ was about. Which was what the person asked. Which is why I said what CCP's initial course of action was. Why is this hard to you?
Seriously - all of my posts surrounding the mechanic were positive until it became apparent that his intended course of action was to not allow me to shoot back when I am PVP flagged. Fortunately, he seems to have backed down from that a bit.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Harrigan VonStudly
The Generic Pirate Corporation Fusion.
13
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 22:04:00 -
[464] - Quote
Gentlemen and ladies. What we want to be careful of is if CCP is "saying" it then we should be discussing it. And I'm sure they would want us to discuss. Please keep in mind that they have a habit of slipping things in unmentioned. Final blow on a rat only gets the sec increase, one of other unmentioned "features/changes".
Discussion is good. Carry on
o7 |
Grumpy Owly
381
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 22:06:00 -
[465] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote: How do you know that all three of these options werent discussed? Presumably by the player involvement and the fact they changed their view to the limited engagement choice suggest some player discussions as it was quoted as based on player discussions?
Given the fact that nobody got back to us with any of those details (including the genuine CCP lovers like me), I have to say its wishful thinking to believe that he discussed any of those options with the community. Furthermore, he specifically said that he threw that option out there to gauge the player reaction. Which has been exceedingly poor. Quote:CCP Greyscale wrote:What we're actually considering right now, based on player suggestions, is to formalize the concept of a "limited engagement", which is effectively needed for both wardecs and some kind of duelling system, and carry that across to here too. To whit, anyone who engages a suspect becomes part of a "limited engagement" with the suspect on one side and all their aggressors on the other side, and any further interference by anyone else in that engagement gets a suspect flag. Either way, because it was clarified doesn't allow you to propogate an incorrect and untruthfull awareness or understanding about the scope or direction of the development. So what I'm propagating isn't untruthful or incorrect. It was the way CCP Greyscale presented it at Fanfest, and that's what all the ~rage~ was about. Which was what the person asked. Which is why I said what CCP's initial course of action was. Why is this hard to you? Seriously - all of my posts surrounding the mechanic were positive until it became apparent that his intended course of action was to not allow me to shoot back when I am PVP flagged. Fortunately, he seems to have backed down from that a bit. -Liang
It clearly says that there intended direction is "based on player suggestions" as such that has to imply some discussion. You only need a modicum of intelligence to connect the dots on that one.
Fine be mad about the questioning if you like. I simply see it as a complete investigation of player reaction and understanding and if anything suggests a more professional investigative process as they want to see the complete picture as was quoted.
I'll leave it to kneejerk sensationalists like yourself who want to see bad in everything to make a poor decision about such a intergral process in brainstorming exercises.
For me I'm happy about the the actual adopted direction regarding this mechanic. Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Liam Mirren
349
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 22:06:00 -
[466] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote:Nothing wrong with brainstroming an idea an gauging reaction to many options, especially when interpretation of player choices is not always black and white or for complete confirmation of their understanding they have to pose devil advocates questions to ensure they are on the correct wavelength. This was actually quoted by CCP as to why the question was posed.
You don't brainstorm ideas that are moronic, unless you think they aren't.
Also, fanfest happens once every year, so they have VERY limited time to interact with their customers like that, one would think that the info you're trying to get from players would be about stuff you're actually interested in. They don't have the time to waste it on dumb questions.
Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
Grumpy Owly
381
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 22:11:00 -
[467] - Quote
Liam Mirren wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote:Nothing wrong with brainstroming an idea an gauging reaction to many options, especially when interpretation of player choices is not always black and white or for complete confirmation of their understanding they have to pose devil advocates questions to ensure they are on the correct wavelength. This was actually quoted by CCP as to why the question was posed. You don't brainstorm ideas that are moronic, unless you think they aren't. Also, fanfest happens once every year, so they have VERY limited time to interact with their customers like that, one would think that the info you're trying to get from players would be about stuff you're actually interested in. They don't have the time to waste it on dumb questions.
Actually in brainstorming there are no dumb questions or dumb ideas. As its possible for other thoughts processes to be clarified and a more awareness about a position sought. Its a poor missconception that you need to have a pre-conceived idea for a brainstorming exercise and if anything that attitude defeats the purpose of it.
Considering that the future blogs and these forums extend that model I suppose helps. So happy for the topic to be discussed even if recognised as silly. But not have it portrayed as the direction in that kind of context. A distinction has to be made in context for a complete picture to be understood as a result. And as such I feel justified in challenging and keeping people "honest" as a result of that. Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Liam Mirren
349
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 22:13:00 -
[468] - Quote
You're being dumb again, I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. Seems I was too optimistic. Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1133
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 22:14:00 -
[469] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote: It clearly says that there intended direction is "based on player suggestions" as such that has to imply some discussion. You only need a modicum of intelligence to connect the dots on that one.
Fine be mad about the questioning if you like. I simply see it as a complete investigation of player reaction and understanding and if anything suggests a more professional investigative process as they want to see the complete picture as was quoted.
I'll leave it to kneejerk sensationalists like yourself who want to see bad in everything to make a poor decision about such a intergral process in brainstorming exercises.
For me I'm happy about the the actual adopted direction regarding this mechanic.
You seem to think I'm some sort of anti-CCP sensationalist. The record doesn't really support that and I've been an extremely active pro-CCP blogger since my return in November. I'm about as close to a massive CCP Fanboy as you can get as a 6 year Eve-O vet.
No, what happened was Greyscale threw out a really ******* stupid idea that was so stupid it was one step shy of /trollface to see what the player reaction was. It is not "knee jerk sensationalism" to help provide that reaction.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Liam Mirren
349
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 22:16:00 -
[470] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:You seem to think I'm some sort of anti-CCP sensationalist. The record doesn't really support that and I've been an extremely active pro-CCP blogger since my return in November. I'm about as close to a massive CCP Fanboy as you can get as a 6 year Eve-O vet.
No, what happened was Greyscale threw out a really ******* stupid idea that was so stupid it was one step shy of /trollface to see what the player reaction was. It is not "knee jerk sensationalism" to help provide that reaction.
-Liang
I could have written that
+1
Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
971
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 22:23:00 -
[471] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: What we're actually considering right now, based on player suggestions, is to formalize the concept of a "limited engagement", which is effectively needed for both wardecs and some kind of duelling system, and carry that across to here too. To whit, anyone who engages a suspect becomes part of a "limited engagement" with the suspect on one side and all their aggressors on the other side, and any further interference by anyone else in that engagement gets a suspect flag.
Not so sure about consensual war decs, but the limited engagement / duel and flagging interference from others as a global suspect is the way to go, ship it.
Doesn't need to be consensual, just needs to be limited
Blind Navigator wrote:The system roughly sketched in the presentation will either be insanely complicated or will have massive loopholes.
Example "Suspect Baiting" A can flips and becomes suspect. B-D shoot the suspect as he is flagged "anyone can shoot him" A1-A20 "neutral" logis warpin and keep A safe while he kills unsuspecting B-D.
Example "Inherited Flipping" A1 flips a can of a mining fleet. B-G miners pop A1's Ibis. H orca loots the can after can flipper is popped. But can has been flipped so H becomes suspect. A2 warps cane on other account and has an easy go at the orca while B-G can only watch.
"suspect-baiting" "inherited flipping" will cause more tears than current system
Fixing such holes in the system will make it even harder for new playe and in the end easier for pirates.
Not a bad thing imo but I dont think its what CCP is trying to accomplish.
Suspect-baiting is the reason we're trying to avoid having to go down the road of giving people suspect flags for aggressing suspects. Inherited flipping is prevented by the safety system.
Steve Ronuken wrote:Might have missed this suggestion (I read the dev comments, and about the first 10 pages)
Suggestion:
Four stage flagging.
a: Innocent. The regular state for people. Can attack anything, but they will lose this status. b: White Hats: People that can attack anything below, without changing status. And can be attacked without consequence by those below. But not innocents. No sec status hits for kills. c: Grey hat: Suspects. Can attack white hats without changing status, or sec status. d: Black hats: GCC
Avoids 1-1 tagging, and allows people to fight back, without everyone just becoming suspects.
Given that it's trivially easy to get a suspect flag, the white hat "protection" of not being attackable by innocents is pretty easily voided, unfortunately.
|
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
971
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 22:24:00 -
[472] - Quote
Alua Oresson wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Psychotic Monk wrote:I see some exploitable flaws in killing low sec-status dudes for status. Not that that makes me against it. Just don't be suprised when I abuse it. But I also see it generating fights as white knights chase dudes like me around. I am all for this. Current plan is that the bonus you get for killing someone is halved for every time you've previously killed that person in the last 28 days, with the "halved" subject to further balancing. That should prevent at least the most obvious exploit cases. Might I suggest that the bonus is "halved" per account that you get a kill on? Not that ANYONE would grind themselves to -10 on a new char quickly, then pod, recycle character, repeat.
Point taken, but at the same time it's very problematic to give people any clue as to which characters share the same account. This is something that will need further thought.
Liam Mirren wrote: You don't brainstorm ideas that are moronic, unless you think they aren't.
That's an inefficient way to run a brainstorming session. Sometimes a dumb idea leads you to a smart idea. In this case we have right here, the discussion around the dumb idea lead to a much better solution that we wouldn't have found if we'd spent all our effort trying to make the almost-smart idea actually work.
Liang Nuren wrote:No, what happened was Greyscale threw out a really ******* stupid idea that was so stupid it was one step shy of /trollface to see what the player reaction was. It is not "knee jerk sensationalism" to help provide that reaction.
-Liang
That was twenty pages ago and we've already solved the problem, can we move on? |
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
971
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 22:25:00 -
[473] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Greyscale, have you considered the possibility that the current can-flagging mechanics are already adequate? I know you want to add on to the game, but sometimes new additions do more harm than good. Having a system where a can-flipper gets aggro toward the can owner's corporation is quite fair and balanced. Extending that aggro to the whole alliance might also be tolerable. But extending it to every single player in high-sec is ridiculous.
Also, note how we're not criticizing the RR and security status proposals. It's this specific change that we have an issue with, and quite frankly, it should be dropped without further discussion. I feel like my words are falling upon deaf ears, however. I shudder to think what kind of surprises Sunday will bring. Can you lay out for me the specific things you guys are currently trying to achieve involving can-flagging mechanics, so I can properly see the problem from your perspective? That's the thing, we're not trying to achieve anything. We simply feel that the current system, in which the can-flipper becomes flagged to the can owner's corporation, is already fair. Think about it; a single person is exposing himself to hostility from the can's owner, as well as any number of that owner's corp members. This is, essentially, an already unfair fight, if you only consider numbers and not pilot skill.
I agree it's completely fair, and in an ideal world we wouldn't have to change it. Unfortunately, in the real world it leads to broken design patterns that there's really no good way to fix, which is why we're planning on changing it. It's not any one indvidual simple case that's at fault, it's what happens when you try to deal with the abusable edge cases (in particular anything involving logistics) that everything breaks down.
|
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3373
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 22:25:00 -
[474] - Quote
hi greyscale how do you feel about this idea:
if you get shot at, you should be able to shoot back "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
baltec1
855
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 22:26:00 -
[475] - Quote
Diva Ex Machina wrote:Revajin wrote:Wait wait wait. Let me get this straight. If you steal from a can now you are considered a criminal and anyone can attack you rather than just the can owner?
Why are can flippers mad about this? From what I understand the rage is against the idea that the can flippers won't be able to fight back against anyone who attacks them and that shooting someone who attacks you after you flip them will result in a sec status hit.
This. |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1134
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 22:33:00 -
[476] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: Point taken, but at the same time it's very problematic to give people any clue as to which characters share the same account. This is something that will need further thought.
Its probably not worth the ~effort~ it would take to worry about accounts. It wouldn't matter either - even my small corp could reasonably come up with 20-30 -10 characters to repeatedly kill to keep our sec status up. Now imagine if Goonswarm wanted to do it.
Quote:Liam Mirren wrote: You don't brainstorm ideas that are moronic, unless you think they aren't.
That's an inefficient way to run a brainstorming session. Sometimes a dumb idea leads you to a smart idea. In this case we have right here, the discussion around the dumb idea lead to a much better solution that we wouldn't have found if we'd spent all our effort trying to make the almost-smart idea actually work.
It seems you could have gotten the same kind of suggestions without suggesting the primary solution was that people wouldn't be able to defend themselves. ;-)
Quote:Liang Nuren wrote:No, what happened was Greyscale threw out a really ******* stupid idea that was so stupid it was one step shy of /trollface to see what the player reaction was. It is not "knee jerk sensationalism" to help provide that reaction.
-Liang That was twenty pages ago and we've already solved the problem, can we move on?
Yes, as long as you promise to behave! I plan to get a blog post out with updates when I get home in a couple hours. Just say it one time for clarity:
"People who are flagged for PVP will be able to defend themselves without being Concorded. We will find a way to make this realistically happen."
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Garmon
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
190
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 22:35:00 -
[477] - Quote
Andski wrote:hi greyscale how do you feel about this idea:
if you get shot at, you should be able to shoot back
baltec1 wrote:Diva Ex Machina wrote:
From what I understand the rage is against the idea that the can flippers won't be able to fight back against anyone who attacks them and that shooting someone who attacks you after you flip them will result in a sec status hit.
This.
CCP Greyscale wrote:That was twenty pages ago and we've already solved the problem, can we move on?
How you must hate these forums Greyscale Check out GARMONATION 9 right now! Check out our site for PVP videos, guides and audio commentaries: www.EVEisEASY.com
|
Garmon
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
190
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 22:36:00 -
[478] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: Point taken, but at the same time it's very problematic to give people any clue as to which characters share the same account. This is something that will need further thought.
Its probably not worth the ~effort~ it would take to worry about accounts. It wouldn't matter either - even my small corp could reasonably come up with 20-30 -10 characters to repeatedly kill to keep our sec status up. Now imagine if Goonswarm wanted to do it.
Stupid question : Is it possible to get to -10 through suicide ganking with the new system?
I may have heard wrong, but I thought the only way possible is through killing capsules
Saying that, why would you bother going through so much effort to fix your security status? Check out GARMONATION 9 right now! Check out our site for PVP videos, guides and audio commentaries: www.EVEisEASY.com
|
Liam Mirren
349
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 22:39:00 -
[479] - Quote
Garmon wrote:Stupid question : Is it possible to get to -10 through suicide ganking with the new system?
I may have heard wrong, but I thought the only way possible is through killing capsules
Saying that, why would you bother going through so much effort to fix your security status?
Yes as it's not classed as a "minor offense" you can go all the way down to -10 (at least that's what I've gotten from the fragmented "info" we have). Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
Diva Ex Machina
Son's of The Hammer The Methodical Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 22:40:00 -
[480] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:No, what happened was Greyscale threw out a really ******* stupid idea that was so stupid it was one step shy of /trollface to see what the player reaction was. It is not "knee jerk sensationalism" to help provide that reaction.
-Liang That was twenty pages ago and we've already solved the problem, can we move on?
Yes let's.
Thanks for clarifying CCP's position on the issue. |
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1135
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 22:40:00 -
[481] - Quote
Garmon wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:That was twenty pages ago and we've already solved the problem, can we move on? How you must hate these forums Greyscale
Heh, his opinion of them is pretty low. I remember he wrote a long essay on how hard it is to maintain focus when under the massed attack of entire regions of the player base (such as *ALL* null sec residents). I want to say that was in one of the "Nerf 0.0" dev blog comments. Its worth a read, really.
Anyway, I'm more than happy to move on. I was just answering why people's feathers were ruffled and we have a 20 page thread this morning. :P
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1135
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 22:42:00 -
[482] - Quote
Garmon wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: Point taken, but at the same time it's very problematic to give people any clue as to which characters share the same account. This is something that will need further thought.
Its probably not worth the ~effort~ it would take to worry about accounts. It wouldn't matter either - even my small corp could reasonably come up with 20-30 -10 characters to repeatedly kill to keep our sec status up. Now imagine if Goonswarm wanted to do it. Stupid question : Is it possible to get to -10 through suicide ganking with the new system? I may have heard wrong, but I thought the only way possible is through killing capsules Saying that, why would you bother going through so much effort to fix your security status?
Last time I ratted my sec status up from -10 it took me 3 weeks of ratting in 0.0 and I almost quit the game. That's why.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Garmon
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
190
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 22:44:00 -
[483] - Quote
#uote=Liam Mirren]Garmon wrote:Stupid question : Is it possible to get to -10 through suicide ganking with the new system?
I may have heard wrong, but I thought the only way possible is through killing capsules
Saying that, why would you bother going through so much effort to fix your security status?
Yes as it's not classed as a "minor offense" you can go all the way down to -10 (at least that's what I've gotten from the fragmented "info" we have).[/quote]
Thank you, personally, I think what Liang highlighted is the only issue regarding Crimewatch, but saying that, it is a crap load of effort, but it's something an alliance like goons could potentially do, perhaps it's worth considering having a correlation between ship hull cost + security status gain, I apologize if this has already been covered, didn't sleep and some things are not sitting in my mind Check out GARMONATION 9 right now! Check out our site for PVP videos, guides and audio commentaries: www.EVEisEASY.com
|
Grumpy Owly
382
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 22:44:00 -
[484] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Garmon wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: Point taken, but at the same time it's very problematic to give people any clue as to which characters share the same account. This is something that will need further thought.
Its probably not worth the ~effort~ it would take to worry about accounts. It wouldn't matter either - even my small corp could reasonably come up with 20-30 -10 characters to repeatedly kill to keep our sec status up. Now imagine if Goonswarm wanted to do it. Stupid question : Is it possible to get to -10 through suicide ganking with the new system? I may have heard wrong, but I thought the only way possible is through killing capsules Saying that, why would you bother going through so much effort to fix your security status? Last time I ratted my sec status up from -10 it took me 3 weeks of ratting in 0.0 and I almost quit the game. That's why. -Liang
Option to shoot criminals and/or buy/aquire certain officer tags to help with that process under the new proposals.
Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
978
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 22:45:00 -
[485] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:
Yes, as long as you promise to behave! I plan to get a blog post out with updates when I get home in a couple hours. Just say it one time for clarity:
"People who are flagged for PVP will be able to defend themselves without being Concorded. We will find a way to make this realistically happen."
-Liang
We're extremely keen to pin down a design where you'll always be able to defend yourself from aggression without getting CONCORDed. I'm not going to promise anything because I can't actually predict the future.
Garmon wrote: Stupid question : Is it possible to get to -10 through suicide ganking with the new system?
I may have heard wrong, but I thought the only way possible is through killing capsules
Saying that, why would you bother going through so much effort to fix your security status?
Yup, things which get you a criminal flag can take you down to -10, which includes suicide ganking. |
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1135
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 22:46:00 -
[486] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote: Option to shoot criminals and/or buy/aquire certain officer tags to help with that process under the new proposals.
Yes - I know. We are discussing ways to exploit it with alts (for example) ;-)
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Garmon
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
191
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 22:48:00 -
[487] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:
Last time I ratted my sec status up from -10 it took me 3 weeks of ratting in 0.0 and I almost quit the game. That's why.
-Liang
Disregard what I said, the only reason I mentioned it was because at the time I was under the impression you'd only be -10 if you kill capsules, and you can enter all highsec systems fine if above -5, so yea, didn't think sec status would matter much unless you're a pirate, I was wrong
PS. With the introduction of anomalies, I've actually found fixing my security status to be quite fun, don't have to warp to every single belt in a brain dead manner like before, always something to do, and the fights you get can be great because the locals would show up and try to camp you in, every mach fight in g9 was a result of me trying to fix my sec status
Edit : what the hell why am I failing at quoting so much god damn Check out GARMONATION 9 right now! Check out our site for PVP videos, guides and audio commentaries: www.EVEisEASY.com
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1135
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 22:48:00 -
[488] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:
Yes, as long as you promise to behave! I plan to get a blog post out with updates when I get home in a couple hours. Just say it one time for clarity:
"People who are flagged for PVP will be able to defend themselves without being Concorded. We will find a way to make this realistically happen."
-Liang
We're extremely keen to pin down a design where you'll always be able to defend yourself from aggression without getting CONCORDed. I'm not going to promise anything because I can't actually predict the future. Garmon wrote: Stupid question : Is it possible to get to -10 through suicide ganking with the new system?
I may have heard wrong, but I thought the only way possible is through killing capsules
Saying that, why would you bother going through so much effort to fix your security status?
Yup, things which get you a criminal flag can take you down to -10, which includes suicide ganking.
That's explicit enough for me. I still encourage you to adopt the "PVP flag or no PVP flag" approach, but I think we both agree that I'd be one of those vets roaming high sec trying to pick fights with entire systems at a time. People like me are probably the entire reason you aren't doing it. Heh. :)
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Liam Mirren
349
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 22:49:00 -
[489] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:
Yes, as long as you promise to behave! I plan to get a blog post out with updates when I get home in a couple hours. Just say it one time for clarity:
"People who are flagged for PVP will be able to defend themselves without being Concorded. We will find a way to make this realistically happen."
-Liang
We're extremely keen to pin down a design where you'll always be able to defend yourself from aggression without getting CONCORDed. I'm not going to promise anything because I can't actually predict the future.
OH NO YOU DIDN'T! Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
618
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 22:53:00 -
[490] - Quote
Stupid question:
My main source of entertainment in EVE is sitting outside popular stations (Jita 4:4, Amarr EFA, etc) and watching fights. After the fight, I take the loot of the loser, if there is one. Usually I don't dock unless its a great take (and after unloading in the station, I undock again even with the aggro timer), though that tends to end with me in a pod.
Of course, I also tend market orders, scam a little in local (trying to scam scammers is hard... maybe I'm too obvious), and generally chat.
My question, with the proposed changes, if I continued to do this, once I took from the wreck, would everyone on station be able to shoot me?
If this is the case... well... :( |
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1135
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 22:54:00 -
[491] - Quote
Liam Mirren wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:
Yes, as long as you promise to behave! I plan to get a blog post out with updates when I get home in a couple hours. Just say it one time for clarity:
"People who are flagged for PVP will be able to defend themselves without being Concorded. We will find a way to make this realistically happen."
-Liang
We're extremely keen to pin down a design where you'll always be able to defend yourself from aggression without getting CONCORDed. I'm not going to promise anything because I can't actually predict the future. OH NO YOU DIDN'T!
Heh, all he said was that he couldn't promise to behave.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Liam Mirren
349
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 22:55:00 -
[492] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Stupid question:
My main source of entertainment in EVE is sitting outside popular stations (Jita 4:4, Amarr EFA, etc) and watching fights. After the fight, I take the loot of the loser, if there is one. Usually I don't dock unless its a great take (and after unloading in the station, I undock again even with the aggro timer), though that tends to end with me in a pod.
Of course, I also tend market orders, scam a little in local (trying to scam scammers is hard... maybe I'm too obvious), and generally chat.
My question, with the proposed changes, if I continued to do this, once I took from the wreck, would everyone on station be able to shoot me?
If this is the case... well... :(
Yup, and anyone shooting you would then also be flagged to everyone else.
Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE those changes, it'll make for hilarious slaughter fests but per usual (kinda like Malcanis' law) it won't be the defenders benefiting from this, it'll be the aggressor's game all that way, just on a much much larger scale, spreading like a virus. JUST because I thinkt it would be awesome doesn't mean I'm automatically for it, that would be hypocritical, you'd have mass whining on the forums about whole corporations having lost just about everything, just because some idiot in a rifter flipped a can. Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
Garmon
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
192
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 22:56:00 -
[493] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Stupid question: My question, with the proposed changes, if I continued to do this, once I took from the wreck, would everyone on station be able to shoot me?
If this is the case... well... :(
Yes it does, looking at it from the perspective of the killer makes this perfectly fair though Check out GARMONATION 9 right now! Check out our site for PVP videos, guides and audio commentaries: www.EVEisEASY.com
|
Grumpy Owly
383
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 22:59:00 -
[494] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote: Option to shoot criminals and/or buy/aquire certain officer tags to help with that process under the new proposals.
Yes - I know. We are discussing ways to exploit it with alts (for example) ;-) -Liang
Fair enough, with those proposals then your alts could buy/aquire officer tags for your pirate toon(s), perhaps that should be considered as an exploitable aspect.
I understand the issues, question I suppose it like other professions how much the power of 1, 2, 3, 4 ...... is deemed beneficial to the criminal profession also. Market forces will help with the above of course, might even provide a pseudo index to criminal behaviour to some extent.
I think the proposal of reducing gains with direct associated links that don't reveal personal player links in a timeframe is a step in the right direction to remove some alt abuse when shooting criminals.
I do however like the idea above made by Garmon about gradiating security gains for shooting alts or other players to be linked with assest destruction as a result. It kind of removes some of the elements of exploitability similar to how BH system currently is exploitable. Interestingly those algorythmns could then be applied to other potential future features of course (hint, hint) so would be nice to see them developed. Such then at least if large alliances want to fund security restoration they can't do it on the cheap and will be attributable to real tangeable losses to benefit from. Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
618
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 23:01:00 -
[495] - Quote
Ok then. I'm sure I'll adapt. Not afraid of dying... much. |
Harotak
Malicious Destruction War Against the Manifest
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 23:38:00 -
[496] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Might have missed this suggestion (I read the dev comments, and about the first 10 pages)
Suggestion:
Four stage flagging.
a: Innocent. The regular state for people. Can attack anything, but they will lose this status. b: White Hats: People that can attack anything below, without changing status. And can be attacked without consequence by those below. But not innocents. No sec status hits for kills. c: Grey hat: Suspects. Can attack white hats without changing status, or sec status. d: Black hats: GCC
Avoids 1-1 tagging, and allows people to fight back, without everyone just becoming suspects. Given that it's trivially easy to get a suspect flag, the white hat "protection" of not being attackable by innocents is pretty easily voided, unfortunately.
Yes, but only if the people flagging themselves as suspects to kill white hats are willing to risk making themselves legal targets for all of eve. I think Steve has a great idea here. |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
305
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 23:44:00 -
[497] - Quote
Greyscale:
You need to listen to this. Listen and understand, not just troll badly in other threads about this.
http://soundcloud.com/the_skunkworks/wardec-roundtable-clean In irae, veritas. |
Ludi Burek
The Player Haters Corp
38
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 23:45:00 -
[498] - Quote
Most of these proposed changes appear good. Proper evaluation can't be made until we see what the war dec changes are going to be.
Couple of points where CCP needs to be careful:
The magical death ray. It better not have shorter response times than concord or be instant unless you want to make artillery the only viable suicide gank weapon. Yes, I did notice your post that there is "no plans" but I'd rather see a definite answer. "No plans" is open to, oops we have plans now
And really, if you get shot you should be able to freely defend yourself. It boggles my mind that this is even up for discussion.
Finally, since you're trying to fix high sec pvp, how about you remove those NPC corps. Those a-holes live in a immunity bubble. And don't give me that "new players" spiel. Most of NPC corp are alts and career carebears. If you don't want to remove it, limit the character age so high skilled mission runners, miners, transport characters can't hide there. I was going to say RR alts, but you seem to be addressing that issue already
When it comes to war decs, please consider that many botters and farmers hide in sub 10 man corps. These guys are impossible to nail down as they remake corps as soon as decced. Address this real issue.
Or at least severely tone down high sec pve rewards so I can stop raging at seeing these exploiters wander around in complete safety. |
Cailais
Rekall Incorporated Sinewave Alliance
240
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 23:51:00 -
[499] - Quote
Id like to throw an idea into the mix - its something like a reverse LP system but it might be interesting
The whole idea revolves around a specific type of dropped tag (probably should have a cool name like "Incriminating Data Core" or something but Im tired, so lets just refer to it as an IDC and be done with the name for now. Here is my proposed suggestion
[b]1. A positive sec player* destroys a neg (-5 or worse) criminal target. The criminal drops an IDC 2. A player destroys a Aggressor War Target (a member of the war declaring corp). The Aggressor drops and IDC.[/b
A number of IDCs can be traded (+ ISK) to an NPC to recover negative standin A number of IDCs can be traded (+ ISK) to an NPC to negate/annul a War Dec IDCs can be traded (market or by contract?) to other players Yes this means you can buy off your negative standing Yes this means you can buy off a war dec. (or even fight your way to a point where you can do so
Can this be gamed with alts? Yes certainly (pretty much anything can in EVE) - although applying a drop limit of IDCs per character (1 per 24hrs?) would reduce this somewhat
Why allow them to be traded??!! The simple reason is rather than try and fight the predilection of players to 'game' their way out of war decs you simple place it under market forces
Most importantly note that IDCs are only generated as a result of pvp > if a corp buys its way out of a war someone, somewhere has in fact gone pop
In addition IDCs could be dropped from players cargo holds as challenges to initiate pvp (with the IDC being destroyed on pick up) > a dueling marker if you will in much the same fashion as cans are used now. This would free up cans to be initiators of genuine criminal theft
Those are some pretty basic ideas at the moment, and I appreciate there are flaws in there that could be 'haxploited' but I think something like this might be workable
C
*average sec rating of the gang engaging the neg sec rated target |
Blind Navigator
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 00:21:00 -
[500] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Blind Navigator wrote:The system roughly sketched in the presentation will either be insanely complicated or will have massive loopholes.
Example "Suspect Baiting" A can flips and becomes suspect. B-D shoot the suspect as he is flagged "anyone can shoot him" A1-A20 "neutral" logis warpin and keep A safe while he kills unsuspecting B-D.
Example "Inherited Flipping" A1 flips a can of a mining fleet. B-G miners pop A1's Ibis. H orca loots the can after can flipper is popped. But can has been flipped so H becomes suspect. A2 warps cane on other account and has an easy go at the orca while B-G can only watch.
"suspect-baiting" "inherited flipping" will cause more tears than current system
Fixing such holes in the system will make it even harder for new playe and in the end easier for pirates.
Not a bad thing imo but I dont think its what CCP is trying to accomplish.
Suspect-baiting is the reason we're trying to avoid having to go down the road of giving people suspect flags for aggressing suspects. Inherited flipping is prevented by the safety system.
Well not giving suspect flag to ppl shooting suspect doesnt solve problem with suspect baiting. Suspect starts shooting white knights and gets reps from logis. Logis might get suspect too but if you just bring enough of them the original suspect (A) can easily dispatch white knights. Unless you wont let suspect defend himself in which case the mechanic would be just plain bad. White knights (or whoever in game) cannot be alowed to pvp with 0 risk at all.
|
|
Vila eNorvic
University of Caille Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 01:37:00 -
[501] - Quote
Lady Spank wrote:1. Uninterrupted 1v1 fights just discourage people from actually roaming about trying to find a fight. The more people just doing safe-mode 1v1 in high sec, the less people out there enriching the PVP game.
I don't see how it would do that any more than the current mutual can-taking method does.
baltec1 wrote:Because the victims corp cant come and blow the can flipper away Of course they can - EVERYONE can!
Destiny Corrupted wrote:So you're saying for the sake of a bit of realism, criminal actions in EVE should have residual consequences, much like in real life? Yes! You've got it at last.
baltec1 wrote:The victim can avoid can flipping easily by not ejecting their cargo into space. In the same way that I can avoid being mugged by not going out, or avoid being burgled by not having a home?
rootimus maximus wrote:I often "canflip"... my other toons. There are plenty of times when it's move convenient to jetcan stuff for a different toon to pickup. Given that my toons are mostly in different corps, that'll mean I'm going to be flagged for criminal behaviour that actually isn't. Well, actually it is. The game laws apply to in-game conditions. The fact that two characters happen to be controlled by the same player doesn't alter their in-game legal situation. If you want to use those tactics put the characters in the same corp - no problem.
|
Vila eNorvic
University of Caille Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 01:37:00 -
[502] - Quote
Liam Mirren wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:My question, with the proposed changes, if I continued to do this, once I took from the wreck, would everyone on station be able to shoot me?
Yup, and anyone shooting you would then also be flagged to everyone else. I think Greyscale has already said that they are specifically trying to avoid that situation.
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
514
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 02:06:00 -
[503] - Quote
Ludi Burek wrote:Finally, since you're trying to fix high sec pvp, how about you remove those NPC corps. Those a-holes live in a immunity bubble. And don't give me that "new players" spiel. Most of NPC corp are alts and career carebears. If you don't want to remove it, limit the character age so high skilled mission runners, miners, transport characters can't hide there. I was going to say RR alts, but you seem to be addressing that issue already When it comes to war decs, please consider that many botters and farmers hide in sub 10 man corps. These guys are impossible to nail down as they remake corps as soon as decced. Address this real issue. Or at least severely tone down high sec pve rewards so I can stop raging at seeing these exploiters wander around in complete safety. ccp listen to this guy |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
47
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 02:21:00 -
[504] - Quote
CCP Greyscale
Can-flipping as-is will be impossible once the safeties are added. People should be able to choose to do dumb things, but they should also have the information they need to figure out that the thing they're doing is dumb.
Duelling we're planning to support with an explicit mechanic rather than the current hacky workaround.
[quote=FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote: Wait...so I can shoot someone without being concorded now? But can flipping carries the same penalty as actually firing on someone? I don't know whether to laugh maniacally or cry.
If I understand correctly I can steal a can, get a 'suspect' flag and everyone can shoot me. Not much different then it used to be and perfectly fine, as long as the sentries don't join in on the fun.
I'd love it if players could use their hacking skill to de-anchor secure cans. It could tie in nicely with the new suspect flag. The scavengers get to clean up all the spammed secure cans a bit, empty broken down posses, and go after secure can miners, but at quite a big risk of havng to hang around for quite a while when hacking a can.. http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Tobiaz/sig_complaints.gif
How about fixing image-linking on the forums, CCP? I want to see signatures! |
Cyras DeValera
Midnight Ballistics
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 02:50:00 -
[505] - Quote
Quote:Can-flipping as-is will be impossible once the safeties are added.
Good bye, EVE, hello WoW in Space. |
Ris Dnalor
Black Rebel Rifter Club
258
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 03:58:00 -
[506] - Quote
as long as we don't have 'guard-whacking' ala Trammel... Save the Miners! |
None ofthe Above
127
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 04:04:00 -
[507] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Ludi Burek wrote:Finally, since you're trying to fix high sec pvp, how about you remove those NPC corps. Those a-holes live in a immunity bubble. And don't give me that "new players" spiel. Most of NPC corp are alts and career carebears. If you don't want to remove it, limit the character age so high skilled mission runners, miners, transport characters can't hide there. I was going to say RR alts, but you seem to be addressing that issue already When it comes to war decs, please consider that many botters and farmers hide in sub 10 man corps. These guys are impossible to nail down as they remake corps as soon as decced. Address this real issue. Or at least severely tone down high sec pve rewards so I can stop raging at seeing these exploiters wander around in complete safety. ccp listen to this guy
LOL, obsessed much?
Post with your alt! Ban PC corps!
Even None ofthe Above supports Hans Jagerblitzen for CSM7! |
Nephilius
Grey Legionaires
328
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 04:32:00 -
[508] - Quote
KMs for self-destructing ships? Grats, Eve Community, the whiners score another victory. To stand before a man at an inquisition, knowing that he will rejoice when we die, knowing that he will commit us to the stake and its horrors without a moment's hesitation or remorse if we do not satisfy him, is not an experience much less cruel because our inquisitor does not whip us or rack us or shout at us. |
OT Smithers
Cult of Baal
122
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 05:28:00 -
[509] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:OT Smithers wrote:Terminal Insanity wrote:They do have that right to do stupid things. And in space, when you do something stupid, it gets you killed. That is how you learn. How about you protect me when i approach a cyno dominix with my webbing loki and cant get away in time? i mean, if i was smart i'd have stayed out of point range, but hey i'm dumb and i need you to hold my hand through it.
Seriously though, carebear gets canflipped and gets a POPUP WARNING EXPLAINING EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN when he steals it back. If he chooses to ignore it the first time, that's his own fault and he receives his lesson. If he refuses to listen to it time and time again, that's his own stupidity getting him killed.
You are talking about carebears and consequences while crying that it will be more difficult for you to to pursue the risk and consequence free high sec griefing you currently enjoy. The risks and consequences of "high sec griefing" are defined purely by the attitudes of the players being "griefed." Learn how to defend yourself, or learn how to not be such an overt target. Otherwise, you only have yourself to blame. I can't name a single time that I was griefed, though I can name plenty of times when I lost assets that I would rather have kept. I see no reason why carebears should receive special treatment. People who prefer to not be victims in this game pay for their subs too.
You think that I am the victim of high sec griefing? I am a pirate. I live in Tama. I cannot go to high sec. As there is apparently some confusion I will attempt to be a bit clearer:
It is ridiculous for high sec griefers to lament changes that help protect new players, and the very definition of hypocrisy when they do so with the claim that such changes ruin the risks and challenges of Eve PvP. I will be blunt. If you want PvP, real PvP with actual risks against players that know what they are doing, move to low sec. If you want to continue your risk free noob ganking stay in high sec, I don't really care all that much, but don't try to make it out to be something it is not.
As for these changes, as I have said, the idea that someone won't be able to shoot back is LAME. |
OT Smithers
Cult of Baal
122
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 05:43:00 -
[510] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Garmon wrote:Harrigan VonStudly wrote:
IF player A gets ganked on the Jita 4-4 undock and his freighter drops billions in loot and I steal some why should I be shootable by every player on the undock?
Probably because of this thing called risk vs reward, maybe I'm fine with being shot at by anyone that wants to shoot at me (I'm -10 after all...) but I would appreciate being able to shoot back without being Concorded. As for my personal preference, I'd say that the right solution is to have high sec PVP flags. You are either flagged for PVP or you are not. Taking any PVP action (from can baiting to shooting someone that's PVP flagged) flags you for PVP. Yes, that might mean that high sec belts become blood baths as corps, alliances, and friends escalate over a can flip... but why is this a bad thing?-Liang
Sounds fine to me. |
|
T'Pawhl
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 06:33:00 -
[511] - Quote
People on EVE talk about WoW a lot. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
318
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 11:28:00 -
[512] - Quote
Cyras DeValera wrote:Quote:Can-flipping as-is will be impossible once the safeties are added. Good bye, EVE, hello WoW in Space.
Can flipping as it stands:
Player A finds clueless noob (B), jet can mining. Player A steals everything from the can and puts it in their own can. (Giving B rights to attack them) Player B doesn't attack them (Generally a mining fit with no guns). They do however, take what was theirs back, clicking through the warning message like the idiot that most people are when they get one*. Player A proceeds to blow them away with no real risk to themselves.
Player A finds clueless noob (B), jet can mining. Player A steals everything from the can and puts it in their own can. (Giving Everyone rights to attack them) Player B doesn't attack them (Generally a mining fit with no guns). They do try to take their stuff back. They get stopped, with a message telling them that it's illegal, and they'll have to turn their safety off. If they are stupid enough to do /this/, then they can steal it back.
Then, 1 of three things happens: Player B turns the safety off, steals back, and is blown away. Player A gets bored and wanders off Player C comes along and tries to blow player A away
As long as the problem with player A not being able to fight back is resolved, then it's pretty much all good. All this will do is protect clueless newbies from their own stupidity. If they're actually willing to fight, then they'll be able to. If they're not, then it's pretty much just taking away a risk free kill.
* I've done tech support. I can't count the number of times people have told me they got a warning message, but they didn't read it and hit ok. A person might be smart. People are idiots. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
411
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 12:05:00 -
[513] - Quote
Liam Mirren wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:Liam Mirren wrote: They already get a warning message if they do something that gets you flagged, so what you're advocating is already in place.
Not really, since they can click ignore/cancel and uncheck the box right then and there as things are now. Noobie presented with a dialog box they may not understand. This new system means they can't do the action at all until they enable it deliberately. There is no "do it anyway" button on the message. "WARNING, IF YOU CLICK YES THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE YOU'LL BE ****** SIDEWAYS. DO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE? YES/NO" How fcking difficult is it?
Ask a can baited noob, they'll have more perspective I am sure. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
411
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 12:06:00 -
[514] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Revajin wrote:Wait wait wait. Let me get this straight. If you steal from a can now you are considered a criminal and anyone can attack you rather than just the can owner?
Why are can flippers mad about this? Because Greyscale's initial position was people shoot the can flipper, he can't shoot back or he'll be concorded. :) -Liang
But that is not the position any more by all accounts, so drop it :) |
Mr LaForge
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
263
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 12:06:00 -
[515] - Quote
Can we get a blog about this? Stuff Goes here |
Unforgiven Tu
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 12:45:00 -
[516] - Quote
Sometimes CCP should just listen to the small guy for a change -----> https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=85394 |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
411
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 13:00:00 -
[517] - Quote
Vila eNorvic wrote:rootimus maximus wrote:I often "canflip"... my other toons. There are plenty of times when it's move convenient to jetcan stuff for a different toon to pickup. Given that my toons are mostly in different corps, that'll mean I'm going to be flagged for criminal behaviour that actually isn't. Well, actually it is. The game laws apply to in-game conditions. The fact that two characters happen to be controlled by the same player doesn't alter their in-game legal situation. If you want to use those tactics put the characters in the same corp - no problem.
Set individual standings to +10 between characters, problem solved, can even tractor +10 cans afaik |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
411
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 13:10:00 -
[518] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote: Not so sure about consensual war decs, but the limited engagement / duel and flagging interference from others as a global suspect is the way to go, ship it.
Doesn't need to be consensual, just needs to be limited
Agreed! The war dec talk addressed some of the concerns, including my self, had in that regard.
One thing that came up in the war dec presentation question was, Neut RR in war. Will that be flagged as "suspect" too? Please tell me it will be flagged as suspect! From what I can surmise, it will be. Neut RR distorts the whole war in high sec game play in favor of the meta and mechanics abuse. |
knowsitall
Science and Finance
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 14:17:00 -
[519] - Quote
First a disclaimer. i did not see the video and have only read page 1 of this thread so sorry if it is s repeat or misintrepation.
I read the suspect flag thing i like this idea but with a tweek. make the victim have to send a distress signal to flag the suspect. this was 1v1 pvp can still happen with can flipping and afk characters get no advantage .
Knowsiitall
|
Zircon Dasher
87
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:50:00 -
[520] - Quote
So can flip = flagged to everyone?
How the hell am I supposed to web my freighter alt into warp without being shot at by every Tom,****,and Harry? |
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
414
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:54:00 -
[521] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:So can flip = flagged to everyone?
How the hell am I supposed to web my freighter alt into warp without being shot at by every Tom,****,and Harry?
Same as today, your alt is in the same corp, right? |
Zircon Dasher
87
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 16:23:00 -
[522] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Zircon Dasher wrote:So can flip = flagged to everyone?
How the hell am I supposed to web my freighter alt into warp without being shot at by every Tom,****,and Harry? Same as today, your alt is in the same corp, right?
eww. Why would I do that?
|
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
903
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 17:38:00 -
[523] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Zircon Dasher wrote:So can flip = flagged to everyone?
How the hell am I supposed to web my freighter alt into warp without being shot at by every Tom,****,and Harry? Same as today, your alt is in the same corp, right?
+ it's a game mechanic exploit.
Also: -little pubbies that are risk averse and crying like little girls from the beginning of this thread, your tears are delicious. -man up and, if you really like pvp as you all claim and no one believes, you just move to null/low. -forget about high sec it's noobs zone, what are you still doing around there? -avoid losses? |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
415
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 17:43:00 -
[524] - Quote
Tanya Powers wrote: + it's a game mechanic exploit.
It's the at the undocking and using it as the agressor that it is an exploit. |
Zircon Dasher
87
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 17:43:00 -
[525] - Quote
lol@ pubbies who think blowing up stuff in highsec is about the pvp. It is just too profitable to pass up. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
271
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 17:46:00 -
[526] - Quote
Tanya Powers wrote:forget about high sec it's noobs zone, what are you still doing around there? -avoid losses? It's not a "noobs zone" while people can make many tens of millions of ISK per hour (once again, not even going to mention 200m/hour incursions). |
Prince Kobol
278
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 17:48:00 -
[527] - Quote
Tanya Powers wrote: -little pubbies that are risk averse and crying like little girls from the beginning of this thread, your tears are delicious. -man up and, if you really like pvp as you all claim and no one believes, you just move to null/low. -forget about high sec it's noobs zone, what are you still doing around there? -avoid losses?
Curious about something, am I to take it that you believe there should be no PvP in High Sec?
|
prolix travail
Blue Mountain Trails
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 18:29:00 -
[528] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:
Curious about something, am I to take it that you believe there should be no PvP in High Sec?
Exactly this. EvE is about pvp anywhere, anytime, consenual or not. If that isn't a game you want to play then go elsewhere.
|
MissyDark
Caldari Over Amarr
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 18:48:00 -
[529] - Quote
What the hell? No, no, nooooo! Leave aggro mechanics alone! |
Mimiru Minahiro
Republic University Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 20:44:00 -
[530] - Quote
Hisec exploration will be 100000% more fun if theft flags you to everyone! DO IT! |
|
Brinxter
The Golden Guns Waterboard
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 23:15:00 -
[531] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote: Not so sure about consensual war decs, but the limited engagement / duel and flagging interference from others as a global suspect is the way to go, ship it.
Doesn't need to be consensual, just needs to be limited Agreed! The war dec talk addressed some of the concerns, including my self, had in that regard. One thing that came up in the war dec presentation question was, Neut RR in war. Will that be flagged as "suspect" too? Please tell me it will be flagged as suspect! From what I can surmise, it will be. Neut RR distorts the whole war in high sec game play in favor of the meta and mechanics abuse.
I just happen to have Greyscale cornered at FF and asked this exact question...
If two corps/alliances are at war and engaging eachother, some neutral douche warps in and reps one of the parties, he will inherit their agression timers and will also get the suspect flag |
Ban Bindy
Bindy Brothers Pottery Association
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 02:27:00 -
[532] - Quote
Okay, now I am sold. I responded to the war dec changes thread earlier, very discouraged, but after reading about the rest of the changes to high sec, including the new can flipping rules, the aggression changes for logo ships, and the incentives to kill pirates wherever you see them, I am convinced that my previous reaction was wrong.
The proposed changes are a real step forward for new players. They will not be faced with overly complicated aggression rules in high sec. Pirates will have to be a bit more fearful coming into the safer part of space. Ganking will be harder but will still be possible, but players will be less likely to choose it as a career and if they do they will face more consequence in terms of sec status.
Seen in this light, the changes to the war dec system appear more livable entirely.
The new changes will give newbies a fighting chance in the game, and will make the job of teaching the aggression rules much simpler.
If this is true and new players do come to the game and get a chance to train up in a safer environment, it will make them more likely to stay in the game, will increase the numbers of players, and will help everybody in the long run.
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
995
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 02:43:00 -
[533] - Quote
Brinxter wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote: Not so sure about consensual war decs, but the limited engagement / duel and flagging interference from others as a global suspect is the way to go, ship it.
Doesn't need to be consensual, just needs to be limited Agreed! The war dec talk addressed some of the concerns, including my self, had in that regard. One thing that came up in the war dec presentation question was, Neut RR in war. Will that be flagged as "suspect" too? Please tell me it will be flagged as suspect! From what I can surmise, it will be. Neut RR distorts the whole war in high sec game play in favor of the meta and mechanics abuse. I just happen to have Greyscale cornered at FF and asked this exact question... If two corps/alliances are at war and engaging eachother, some neutral douche warps in and reps one of the parties, he will inherit their agression timers and will also get the suspect flag
"Probably" |
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
425
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 03:23:00 -
[534] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:"Probably"
Tease! |
Alice Katsuko
Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing
84
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 04:20:00 -
[535] - Quote
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. |
Unforgiven Tu
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 05:59:00 -
[536] - Quote
The old code of "dont fly what u cant afford to lose" would not apply to eve anymore. u have made 1 grave mistake with a previous update. have fun doing it again. |
Msgerbs
Aliastra Gallente Federation
19
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 06:06:00 -
[537] - Quote
Kessiaan wrote:I think it'll have just the opposite effect. Seems more like a disguised consensual pvp flag than anything else. I know everyone hates on the idea but I think may lead to a resurgence of solo pvp (and all the asshattery that goes along with it, ofc) in highsec. I'm curious how you see making you globally aggressed in a system filled with people with big guns waiting to shoot you encourages solo pvp? You flip your alt's can, that wolf engages you. All's good. Then 2 other guys warp in, you can't preemptively shoot or jam them. You don't even know if they're there to shoot you or just there because it's highsec and there are people. They both shoot you. You die. They're both still completely safe from anybody else.
It's just like low/null, except the blobbers are literally untouchable instead of figuratively.
Oh, and non-resetting fixed timers are a VERY bad idea. There's a reason the mechanics work that way, don't change it please. |
Darius III
Interstellar eXodus BricK sQuAD.
1052
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 06:20:00 -
[538] - Quote
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
CCP and even the CSM have a lot of hardworking men and women who are very intelligent, working on making New Eden a better place-it is CCP management that I fear the most. D3 for CSM7 Direct link-á http://community.eveonline.com/council/voting/Vote.asp?c=480 |
Xinshon Xai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 08:01:00 -
[539] - Quote
Hopefully Devs will take a close look before they do this suspect thing. |
Sol Tertia
EVE University Ivy League
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 09:09:00 -
[540] - Quote
Darius III wrote: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.
That would result in no change to the current status quo, 1 million is a drop in the ocean and everyone would just pay. The illusion of choice is not the same as real choice. |
|
Grumpy Owly
390
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 09:19:00 -
[541] - Quote
Darius III wrote: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.
CCP Greyscale wrote:Duelling we're planning to support with an explicit mechanic rather than the current hacky workaround.
Page 3.
Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Captain Sunnymuffins
Jita Customs and Excise
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 10:55:00 -
[542] - Quote
Darius III wrote: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
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.
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
998
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 10:57:00 -
[543] - Quote
Alice Katsuko wrote: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.
- My gut reaction is "probably not" but I've not really thought about it that hard. Will consider it more as we get the design more nailed down. - Intent is that the flags are attached to the logoff timer countdown, so yeah, anything that refreshes the logoff aggro timer will refresh the flags too in the current design - Everyone's subject to those logoff mechanics anyway, and as per the previous point, you'll get an aggro timer when you do anything illegal - We need to do something about Orcas but not 100% sure what yet
Darius III wrote:Not sure if this is covered yet, and 27 pages is a long read too long to find out, but:
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? |
|
Grumpy Owly
392
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 12:34:00 -
[544] - Quote
Captain Sunnymuffins wrote:Darius III wrote: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 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.
Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Captain Sunnymuffins
Jita Customs and Excise
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 14:05:00 -
[545] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote:Captain Sunnymuffins wrote:Darius III wrote: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 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.
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. |
Grumpy Owly
393
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 14:09:00 -
[546] - Quote
Captain Sunnymuffins wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote:Captain Sunnymuffins wrote:Darius III wrote: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 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.
Or I guess they will have to associate themselves under the recogonition of official corporations etc? Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
622
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 14:12:00 -
[547] - Quote
Captain Sunnymuffins wrote:[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. Many of the people who loot off of stations are not related to the person who did the attack. They are just vultures. Same with popular gank gates (like the Niajara gates)
And yes, we will adapt to still get yummy drops. |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
778
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 14:24:00 -
[548] - Quote
Alice Katsuko wrote: 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.
This is too prone to abuse. Yes, the orca pilot has to go into Configure Ship and turn on the little checkbox to allow it, but it also would make it very easy to do a spai-thing where you aggress someone while fleeted with an orca pilot, use the orca and contaminate it with the suspect flag. Your buddies warp in, blow up orca, and don't have to deal with CONCORD.
And the Orca pilot didn't actively perform an activity that caused them to lose the ship other then checking that one little checkbox.
If you have CONCORD chasing you, you should not be able to:
- Exit your ship or board another one (this has already been fixed by CCP) - Dock, except in a pod after CONCORD or someone else blows up your ship. - Refit your ship. (Currently abused by offloading your expensive modules into an Orca alt.) - Move cargo out of your hold (either via drag-drop or jetcans).
(Plus there's the current issue where CONCORD reportedly gives up chasing after 15 minutes.)
|
Nalha Saldana
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
182
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 16:12:00 -
[549] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: 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.
The better solution is definitively 2, to make this balanced to punish the criminal more then the defender just give different timers for different crimes. Something like this: Shooting someone with positive sec status in lowsec - 30min suspect flag Stealing from can/wreck - 15min suspect flag Shooting a suspect in highsec - 1min suspect flag Repping a suspect - Inherit the suspects current timer
This allows a system were trying to kill the thief is possible but he gets to protect himself. You dont get a long ass timer that limits you for doing this but there should always be a risk involved. |
Laechyd Eldgorn
Molden Heath Angels
37
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 17:30:00 -
[550] - Quote
Quote: 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.
|
|
Harotak
Malicious Destruction War Against the Manifest
19
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 18:02:00 -
[551] - Quote
Laechyd Eldgorn wrote:Quote: 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.
Just make it impossible to interact with a ship maintenance bay if you have a weapons timer active. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
428
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 18:31:00 -
[552] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:- We need to do something about Orcas but not 100% sure what yet
Suspect flag, but no aggro timer.
They did assist, but they did not commit an agressive act or activate any modules. Seems simplest to code and most consistent with the framework.
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
318
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 20:06:00 -
[553] - Quote
Laechyd Eldgorn wrote:Quote: 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.
That messes with the point of orcas, as mining support ships.
Direct ore transfer (rather than cans) and transport of mining vessels. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 02:01:00 -
[554] - Quote
Having been both a pirate, and now having repented and joined Faction Warfare and living in low-sec I have a question. How are these changes with crimewatch going to effect lowsec?
Gate guns and Station guns?
And what about this proposal?
I like the idea of people who have negative standings being able to shoot each other at will in lowsec without gate gun intervention or standings hit..
I think pod kills should give a standings hit everywhere but 0.0
Just some thoughts/questions. Thanks for answering them Greyscale. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
288
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 02:15:00 -
[555] - Quote
Captain Sunnymuffins wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote:Suicide-ganking etc 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. So you're saying that the people who have been setting trends since the game came out, and whose success is the result of making the most optimal use of game mechanics, as opposed to the bears whose only response to unwanted external stimuli is to whine to the developers, won't be able to adapt? I like that. You're pretty funny. |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
523
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 04:55:00 -
[556] - Quote
Can I ask one thing that really rubs me wrong.
If you log off while cloaked, mid-warp, without aggression - and you are shot, you still disappear in one minute. Can we please stop this and cause an aggression timer to stop logging off from working at all?
This seems totally unhinged. We lost a huge ambush we were preparing for days. It was going to be totally epic.
6 freighters and 2 orcas moving through low sec. We meta-gamed, got the intel, I paid ISK to get the information, we did all this. We planned for the log off timers, set up a cloaky smartbomb battleship on the exit point of the gate to hit them.
They saw the ambush coming within 30 seconds of arriving on the gate. They log off MID WARP, smartbomb battleship hits them.
They disappear in 30 seconds.
We all go. What. The. F#@!$K.
Like seriously? That's gotta change.
You get shot, your get an aggression timer, logoffski no worky no matter when you disconnected.
Sorry, it's EVE, worse **** happens - anything that revolves around a logoffski should not work.
Thanks for your attention to this matter. Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Vila eNorvic
University of Caille Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 05:37:00 -
[557] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:Zircon Dasher wrote:So can flip = flagged to everyone?
How the hell am I supposed to web my freighter alt into warp without being shot at by every Tom,****,and Harry? Same as today, your alt is in the same corp, right? eww. Why would I do that? Why wouldn't you? |
Vila eNorvic
University of Caille Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 05:44:00 -
[558] - Quote
Diva Ex Machina wrote:Vila eNorvic wrote: None of which makes CCP's proposal unreasonable.
'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. Of course it is.
If it isn't unreasonable it must, by default, be reasonable. |
Stormtemplar Andven
The Hatchery Team Liquid
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 06:08:00 -
[559] - Quote
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. |
Grumpy Owly
405
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 06:18:00 -
[560] - Quote
Stormtemplar Andven wrote: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?
Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
|
Stormtemplar Andven
The Hatchery Team Liquid
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 07:27:00 -
[561] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote:Stormtemplar Andven wrote: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. |
Grumpy Owly
405
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 07:38:00 -
[562] - Quote
Stormtemplar Andven wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote:Stormtemplar Andven wrote: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.
Join the fleet as neutral (in your own squad if need be) use warp to either to gate as applicable or when aggro is no longer an issue or they have completed a room etc. Doing this as a co-ordinated effort with communications to your services solves the problem imho.
The obvious alternatives is to simply join the Corp and not worry about these issues at all of course and take advantage of the "Corporation benefits". Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Arienne Deveraux
Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 07:49:00 -
[563] - Quote
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 GÇ£theftGÇ¥ was strictly an affair between the thief and his victim - game mechanics did not condemn the act as inherently GÇ£badGÇ¥ or GÇ£immoralGÇ¥. Both parties were merely given tools to deal with the crime among themselves.
The change turns the concept of GÇ£I have wronged you, therefore you may take revengeGÇ¥ into GÇ£I have wronged you, therefore I have wronged everyoneGÇ¥ 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 GÇ£badGÇ¥ 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. |
Grumpy Owly
405
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 08:03:00 -
[564] - Quote
Arienne Deveraux wrote: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 GÇ£theftGÇ¥ was strictly an affair between the thief and his victim - game mechanics did not condemn the act as inherently GÇ£badGÇ¥ or GÇ£immoralGÇ¥. Both parties were merely given tools to deal with the crime among themselves.
The change turns the concept of GÇ£I have wronged you, therefore you may take revengeGÇ¥ into GÇ£I have wronged you, therefore I have wronged everyoneGÇ¥ 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 GÇ£badGÇ¥ 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.
Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Darius III
Interstellar eXodus BricK sQuAD.
1054
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 08:11:00 -
[565] - Quote
Arienne Deveraux wrote: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 GÇ£theftGÇ¥ was strictly an affair between the thief and his victim - game mechanics did not condemn the act as inherently GÇ£badGÇ¥ or GÇ£immoralGÇ¥. Both parties were merely given tools to deal with the crime among themselves.
The change turns the concept of GÇ£I have wronged you, therefore you may take revengeGÇ¥ into GÇ£I have wronged you, therefore I have wronged everyoneGÇ¥ 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 GÇ£badGÇ¥ 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.
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.
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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?
No sir. I would never ask you to listen to 70 minutes of anything. Your time > my time etc. It had nothing to do with "important enough to read" it had to do with time enough to read yesterday. I just came off a nightmare grind of 16 hour days trying to get reelected
I was considering making an edited version and posting that in the CSM forum, that link is for the players. After listening to it again though, most of what was discussed in the meeting has been mentioned here or in the wardec forum, and almost every other suggestion is already on the table.
These purposed changes and the coming war changes have made the mercenary community very VERY pleased and there is a lot of optimism coming out of that portion of the playerbase. I know I speak for them when I say THANK YOU CCP FOR GIVING THESE MECHANICS AN OVERHAUL. With the end of legitimized dec shielding and alliance hopping to strip the wars, you will have won the hearts and minds of the mercenary community. Now if you will excuse me, I need to go drop a few dozen likes on this thread-D3 CCP and even the CSM have a lot of hardworking men and women who are very intelligent, working on making New Eden a better place-it is CCP management that I fear the most. D3 for CSM7 Direct link-á http://community.eveonline.com/council/voting/Vote.asp?c=480 |
Darius III
Interstellar eXodus BricK sQuAD.
1054
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 08:14:00 -
[566] - Quote
Stormtemplar Andven wrote:
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.
Handing off bookmarks: Eject BM, abandon can, profit
CCP and even the CSM have a lot of hardworking men and women who are very intelligent, working on making New Eden a better place-it is CCP management that I fear the most. D3 for CSM7 Direct link-á http://community.eveonline.com/council/voting/Vote.asp?c=480 |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
436
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 08:37:00 -
[567] - Quote
Arienne Deveraux wrote:The change turns the concept of GÇ£I have wronged you, therefore you may take revengeGÇ¥ into GÇ£I have wronged you, therefore I have wronged everyoneGÇ¥ 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 GÇ£badGÇ¥ action.
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.
Arienne Deveraux wrote: 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.
Agree with ya there. |
Arienne Deveraux
Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 08:55:00 -
[568] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote:
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.
Very valid point within the paradigm of our real-world society. However in terms of EVE, the overall lawlessness and moral ambiguity of its society is a part of the secret sauce that makes the universe feel unique and special. Losing it by imposing real world law and order would lose a large component of its richness.
Grumpy Owly wrote: 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.
I do agree with you on this point. The initiative in this case is solely in the hands of the thief, and I do feel that balance needs to be struck. However, swinging to the polar opposite of the spectrum and allowing everyone to intervene in a matter that does not concern them in any way does not seem to be the right solution.
Darius III wrote: 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.
Thanks, D3. I agree with this and this extends again to one of the core principles of EVE that everyone should be solely responsible for their own safety and the safety of their assets. Game mechanics should not be used to provide a safety net for anyone who neglects this aspect.
The CrimeWatch initiative seems to be a rather heavy handed fix for issues that are actually a problem - highly convoluted and obscure aggression mechanics. Aggression extension, aggression propagation, visible and invisible aggression timers - for pilots who don't specifically use these, there's no way of knowing of their existence, let alone of ways these can be used against them. Admittedly, Ninjas have used and abused those countless times - however in interest of general player base, I would like to see those particular issues resolved, rather than fundamentally changing aggression rules.
Thanks for being the voice of miscreants and sociopaths of EVE. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
295
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 08:55:00 -
[569] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Arienne Deveraux wrote:The change turns the concept of GÇ£I have wronged you, therefore you may take revengeGÇ¥ into GÇ£I have wronged you, therefore I have wronged everyoneGÇ¥ 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 GÇ£badGÇ¥ action. 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. Fair enough, I think you've won this deba...
...Wait, hang on. Will everyone be able to shoot scammers as well? |
Arienne Deveraux
Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 09:13:00 -
[570] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Arienne Deveraux wrote:The change turns the concept of GÇ£I have wronged you, therefore you may take revengeGÇ¥ into GÇ£I have wronged you, therefore I have wronged everyoneGÇ¥ 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 GÇ£badGÇ¥ action. 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.
Very valid observation - however this would necessitate for a certain group identity to give the proverbial "towns folk" legitimacy of executing the horse thief. Horse theft, in this analogy, directly or indirectly impacts the town therefore they have a valid reason to band together and stop the thief.
This mechanic is currently in place through gaining corporate wide aggression. Does it need polish - definitely. As mentioned in my previous post, situations where obscure game mechanics lead to unexpected aggression situations (my corp mate can shoot him but I can't ...) should definitely be looked at and remedied.
The issue is where you allow completely disinterested third party to get involved into something that should be an "internal affair", so to speak, between the thief and their victim. I find your saying rather appropriate - you can't code morality. This is exactly what the CrimeWatch changes are attempting to do by classifying an act of theft as "immoral" or "illegitimate" by allowing intervention by parties originally not affected by the theft.
|
|
Kazacy
BACKFIRE Squad S O L A R I S
13
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 09:32:00 -
[571] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
...Wait, hang on. Will everyone be able to shoot scammers as well?
only if they bother to undock; errrrrr wait i think every scam in eve need the victim consent aka clicky here to agree so so they are legit after all.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
295
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 09:37:00 -
[572] - Quote
Kazacy wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
...Wait, hang on. Will everyone be able to shoot scammers as well?
only if they bother to undock; errrrrr wait i think every scam in eve need the victim consent aka clicky here to agree so so they are legit after all. False. Just because a trade is consented to doesn't make it any less of a crime if it's of the scam variety. In real life, people serve time for this kind of activity. And since we're making real-life parallels with the horse thing, my question stands: will everyone be able to shoot scammers as well? |
Kazacy
BACKFIRE Squad S O L A R I S
13
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 09:46:00 -
[573] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Kazacy wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
...Wait, hang on. Will everyone be able to shoot scammers as well?
only if they bother to undock; errrrrr wait i think every scam in eve need the victim consent aka clicky here to agree so so they are legit after all. False. Just because a trade is consented to doesn't make it any less of a crime if it's of the scam variety. In real life, people serve time for this kind of activity. And since we're making real-life parallels with the horse thing, my question stands: will everyone be able to shoot scammers as well?
Unfortunately even in real life ppl use banks and other elaborate scams and yes you must agree to use their "services". Anyway scammers won't undock in eve, so the right to shoot scammers after 15 min of suspect flag it's useless anyway. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
296
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 09:58:00 -
[574] - Quote
But in principle, they should be able to be shot. You would be in favor of such a system, yes? |
Kazacy
BACKFIRE Squad S O L A R I S
13
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 10:07:00 -
[575] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:But in principle, they should be able to be shot. You would be in favor of such a system, yes?
Not necessarily; scamming it's fun after all. But as a principle yes i agree with you.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
296
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 10:16:00 -
[576] - Quote
Okay well now that I have the support of others, I demand that CCP apply the suspect flag to all scammers. |
Kazacy
BACKFIRE Squad S O L A R I S
13
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 10:28:00 -
[577] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Okay well now that I have the support of others, I demand that CCP apply the suspect flag to all scammers.
great ideea. |
freebree
0ne Percent. Transmission Lost
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 12:59:00 -
[578] - Quote
- Minor crimes. Anyone can shoot you without penalty. - Flipping a can for example - Shooting someone makes you a suspect (I think)
So if you attack someone with a suspect flag, you become a suspect, so everyone can shoot you as well?
if so, this will result in either three cases
1. No fights at all, because people do not want to lose their ships to random fights they never intended to start. 2. Huge blobs at stations just waiting for people with suspect flags to show up, which may result in a uncontrolled mass murder 3. Lot of suspect baits, just to provoke 100% win fights. |
Grumpy Owly
409
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 13:11:00 -
[579] - Quote
freebree wrote:- Minor crimes. Anyone can shoot you without penalty. - Flipping a can for example - Shooting someone makes you a suspect (I think)
So if you attack someone with a suspect flag, you become a suspect, so everyone can shoot you as well?
if so, this will result in either three cases
1. No fights at all, because people do not want to lose their ships to random fights they never intended to start. 2. Huge blobs at stations just waiting for people with suspect flags to show up, which may result in a uncontrolled mass murder 3. Lot of suspect baits, just to provoke 100% win fights.
CCP Greyscale wrote: 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.
What we're actually considering right now, based on player suggestions, is to formalize the concept of a "limited engagement", which is effectively needed for both wardecs and some kind of duelling system, and carry that across to here too. To whit, anyone who engages a suspect becomes part of a "limited engagement" with the suspect on one side and all their aggressors on the other side, and any further interference by anyone else in that engagement gets a suspect flag.
Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
38
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 13:58:00 -
[580] - Quote
Best way to deal with the suicide ganking and then looting wrecks problem:
Simple:
Make ALL player-owned wrecks blue, as GCC-destroyed ships are now.
No reason that a suicide ganker should have to pick up aggro from everyone, simply because they want to loot their prize in a busy area. Its still a race to get the loot, but doesn't make looting a dead freighter with another freighter suicidal.
|
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
442
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 14:46:00 -
[581] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: Fair enough, I think you've won this deba...
...Wait, hang on. Will everyone be able to shoot scammers as well?
Sadly we haven't figured out how to do that one RL with reliability, we keep electing them into positions of power. |
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 15:17:00 -
[582] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:OK I have a starbase roundtable in half an hour, I have to run. I'll be back later tonight (or tomorrow, or Sunday, IDK) to answer more questions, and I thank you in advance for your patience in the interim
Hello. I have one concern about the suspect flagging that I can't seem to find out about. It's been a long know bug/feature that local does not update GCC on Macs as is. (SOME PCs apparently have this, but from what I have found ALL Macs do).
So with so much "new" gameplay that will be introduced with this idea of "suspect" flagging, am I to understand that this will be the first gameplay features that are introduced in EVE that will be PC only since Mac users will never know if someone gets suspect flagging in their system? |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
443
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 15:28:00 -
[583] - Quote
Arienne Deveraux wrote:The issue is where you allow completely disinterested third party to get involved into something that should be an "internal affair", so to speak, between the thief and their victim. I find your saying rather appropriate - you can't code morality. This is exactly what the CrimeWatch changes are attempting to do by classifying an act of theft as "immoral" or "illegitimate" by allowing intervention by parties originally not affected by the theft.
Crimewatch as it is now attempts to code morality, the scope of who can deliver the justice is limited to the corp. So not only is the current system attempting to define morality, it is attempting to define justice.
As to who is affected by the theft ... it is quite clear to me that everyone is impacted by the theft. If criminals are allowed to run free, then I might be next. If criminals are not allowed to run free, my chances of being next are greatly diminished. There is no such thing as a disinterested third party. If there were, the gankbears would not be as concerned by this, and in fact CCP would never have been required to attempt to code it in the first place. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
301
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 15:39:00 -
[584] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Arienne Deveraux wrote:The issue is where you allow completely disinterested third party to get involved into something that should be an "internal affair", so to speak, between the thief and their victim. I find your saying rather appropriate - you can't code morality. This is exactly what the CrimeWatch changes are attempting to do by classifying an act of theft as "immoral" or "illegitimate" by allowing intervention by parties originally not affected by the theft.
Crimewatch as it is now attempts to code morality, the scope of who can deliver the justice is limited to the corp. So not only is the current system attempting to define morality, it is attempting to define justice. As to who is affected by the theft ... it is quite clear to me that everyone is impacted by the theft. If criminals are allowed to run free, then I might be next. If criminals are not allowed to run free, my chances of being next are greatly diminished. There is no such thing as a disinterested third party. If there were, the gankbears would not be as concerned by this, and in fact CCP would never have been required to attempt to code it in the first place. We really like morality and all those real-life parallels, huh?
Well, okay, tell me this then: what would you do if you if you saw an armed robber pillaging your neighbor's house? |
Grumpy Owly
412
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 15:45:00 -
[585] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:Arienne Deveraux wrote:The issue is where you allow completely disinterested third party to get involved into something that should be an "internal affair", so to speak, between the thief and their victim. I find your saying rather appropriate - you can't code morality. This is exactly what the CrimeWatch changes are attempting to do by classifying an act of theft as "immoral" or "illegitimate" by allowing intervention by parties originally not affected by the theft.
Crimewatch as it is now attempts to code morality, the scope of who can deliver the justice is limited to the corp. So not only is the current system attempting to define morality, it is attempting to define justice. As to who is affected by the theft ... it is quite clear to me that everyone is impacted by the theft. If criminals are allowed to run free, then I might be next. If criminals are not allowed to run free, my chances of being next are greatly diminished. There is no such thing as a disinterested third party. If there were, the gankbears would not be as concerned by this, and in fact CCP would never have been required to attempt to code it in the first place. We really like morality and all those real-life parallels, huh? Well, okay, tell me this then: what would you do if you if you saw an armed robber pillaging your neighbor's house?
Phone the police. Should we introduce similar parallels as RL then? Maybe let Concord take care of it?
Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
301
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 16:00:00 -
[586] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:We really like morality and all those real-life parallels, huh?
Well, okay, tell me this then: what would you do if you if you saw an armed robber pillaging your neighbor's house? Phone the police. Should we introduce similar parallels as RL then? Maybe let Concord take care of it? I wanted him to answer it, but whatever.
Anyway, you're correct. We phone the police. No, we don't grab the ol' Peacekeeper and plug the baddie full of second assholes; we'd go to jail for that. Vigilantism is illegal.
So why is it suddenly "morally" justified to allow everyone to shoot a can thief? And don't tell me "because it's not RL, duh" because that's the exact argument I can make to say that this change shouldn't be effected.
So, we phone the police. The police the arrives and deals with the perpetrator.
In EVE, we have CONCORD, and faction navies. CONCORD exists only for the sole purpose of mitigating capsuleer-on-capsuleer violence in "protected space." Therefore, CONCORD wouldn't interfere in a case of petty theft. Faction navies guard faction assets, and don't give a crap about what pod pilots do to each other.
So, we're obviously lacking a vital component; a player-driven police force. This force would need to be highly-selective, and clearly visible to all. I'm not going to theorize on the selection process, and rights given, because this isn't really a features/ideas post. However, having a small, selective, clearly visible player-driven police force would be a better game mechanic than simply flagging a thief to the whole universe.
Oh, and if the victim of theft makes use of this police force's services, the victim and his corporation lose their own aggression against the thief, unless the thief doesn't want them to (safety toggle switch thing).
For balance, I'd recommend something like removing sec hits for shooting these player cops in high-sec (CONCORD still comes, maybe at a slightly delayed response).
Would be fun maybe. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
444
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 16:18:00 -
[587] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: We really like morality and all those real-life parallels, huh?
Is there another life I can use from which to cite examples? If there is, please let me know, I'd like to visit and just have a look around.
Destiny Corrupted wrote: Well, okay, tell me this then: what would you do if you if you saw an armed robber pillaging your neighbor's house?
Take a shot at him, just like I did last time I was in that situation RL. I could have removed the guy's head from his body, but the zipper whiz and plink of a bullet near him, followed by the crack of a shot was sufficient. My neighbors were not too concerned about the shattered brick in their wall, they were glad that a neighbor cared enough to take a risk on their behalf. I must say I do enjoy the yearly Christmas gift of fine German beer. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
444
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 16:28:00 -
[588] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: So, we're obviously lacking a vital component; a player-driven police force. This force would need to be highly-selective, and clearly visible to all. I'm not going to theorize on the selection process, and rights given, because this isn't really a features/ideas post. However, having a small, selective, clearly visible player-driven police force would be a better game mechanic than simply flagging a thief to the whole universe.
But that is what we will have, and that's exactly what has the the criminals worried. They will be selective, against those who have the suspect flag and negative standings. And they will be highly visible when some one flips some miner's can and a white knight with a security standing above +5 pops the offender and the miner says in local "Fck yeah! Thanks Dude! Here's a million ISK for your trouble."
They will be visible in low sec, when the territorial white knights living in there camp the gates to their systems, popping interloping pirates. Traders and others with neutral standings, those disinterested third parties, will be able to visit, seed their markets, buy their products and fill their ranks. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
320
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 17:12:00 -
[589] - Quote
Old system:
Break the law in a minor way, your victim gets to retaliate.
New system:
Break the law in a minor way, lose the law's protection. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Alice Katsuko
Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing
85
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 19:07:00 -
[590] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Alice Katsuko wrote: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. - My gut reaction is "probably not" but I've not really thought about it that hard. Will consider it more as we get the design more nailed down. - Intent is that the flags are attached to the logoff timer countdown, so yeah, anything that refreshes the logoff aggro timer will refresh the flags too in the current design - Everyone's subject to those logoff mechanics anyway, and as per the previous point, you'll get an aggro timer when you do anything illegal - We need to do something about Orcas but not 100% sure what yet
Thanks for the response, and for clarification, and in general for listening to us players. Suspect that isn't the easiest thing to do at times.
Can see both advantages and disadvantages to allowing corp and fleet members to freely support Suspects. My thought is that corp and fleet members should generally be able to choose to support one another without jumping through hoops. But they should not be protected by Concord if they support a corp/fleet member who is flagged as a Suspect.
For example, White Knight comes along and shoots Suspect. Suspect calls in a corp/fleet member. Under currently proposed rules as I understand them, Suspect's corp member would only be able to assist Suspect through remote support, which would also give him a global Suspect flag, but which would still not allow him to engage White Knight unless White Knight chooses to do so. This may tilt the balance too heavily against Suspects, since only White Knight has the option of expanding the field of engagement.
Alternativey. When White Knight shoots Suspect, Suspect's corp and fleet members get the option to shoot at White Knight. However, when they shoot at White Knight, they get their own Suspect flags, independent of Suspect's. This creates risks for White Knight, because he is not the only one who can expannd the field of engagement, but also carries risks for Susect's friends, because they risk being engaged at will by third parties, including White Knight's fleet/corp mates.
This proposal combines two basic rules of engagement: (1) a corporation or fleet member is always able to assist fellow corp/fleet members; (2) shooting at a non-Suspect triggers the Suspect flag unless the target (i) has aggro to you, (ii) is a valid ar target, (iii) is a -10 criminal, (iv) other exceptions.
But that may be tilting the risks too heavily in favor of Suspects. It will definitely require good notifcations for fleet/corp members who try and assist Suspect-flagged characters, so that folk do not get baited. It may also result in situations where our White Knight accidentally runs into and gets ganked by a Suspect's corp/fleet members ten minutes after killing the original Suspect, although that sort of interaction was one of the arguments for made for changing jump bridges some months back, so it may actually be a positive result.
Anyways, the proposed changes are quite good even as they are, so can't complain. Just maybe an idea to consider, though you've probably already thought of and maybe discarded it. |
|
Sisohiv
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
35
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:42:00 -
[591] - Quote
Varesk wrote:Velicia Tuoro wrote:Did I miss anything important?
Sec Status - Kill someone while a suspect will only take you to -5 - Pod killing will take you below -5 to -10 - Killing someone with positive +5 gives you hit - Killing someone with a negative sec gives you bonus - Hand in tags for sec boost up to +5. Less effect if you are -5. - Fixing rat spawns after downtime. - -5 can be killed without penalty in low sec. - Something about -5 in high sec being pursued.
If i am reading this correctly. One ship kill in high sec will take you to -5, one pod kill will take you to -5 to -10?
All tags need to have a bounty rate for this to work. Not to sound like I don't have an Agenda. I have been invsted in tags in the past and would do so again if I thought I had a motive but this is two fold. I will see to it even at loss, all my tags get sold to NPC or reproc if the option is to hand them out to pirates. I'd prefer to not do it for 2100 ISK worth of high sec minerals though. |
Neo Agricola
BLACK-MARK
207
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 07:21:00 -
[592] - Quote
perhaps it is better here.
as I asked there: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1043237#post1043237
Hi CCP,
did you think about a way for "limited" aggression between two persons.
e.g. arranged 1v1 PvP in Highsec (so nobody "can" interfere) (something like todays canflipping) or: i want to web my frighter alt, which is not in my corp. (interference from outsiders who kill my webbingalt because of a global Flag dosnt sound promising...)
thx for feedback
DISSONANCE is recruiting Members: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=706442#post706442 Black-Mark Alliance Recruitment: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6710 |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
331
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 09:25:00 -
[593] - Quote
Neo Agricola wrote:perhaps it is better here. as I asked there: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1043237#post1043237Hi CCP, did you think about a way for "limited" aggression between two persons. e.g. arranged 1v1 PvP in Highsec (so nobody "can" interfere) (something like todays canflipping) or: i want to web my frighter alt, which is not in my corp. (interference from outsiders who kill my webbingalt because of a global Flag dosnt sound promising...) thx for feedback
Something has been said about a duel option (It was brought up at the round table) FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Alain Kinsella
98
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 09:28:00 -
[594] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote:Stormtemplar Andven wrote: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?
Set mutual +10 standing. You can now share a can/container/wreck between each other. Did that with my assisting char and never had a problem in 2+ years.
Obviously this is a problem with various char<->corp standing setups, but that *can* be done now.
I may have come here from Myst Online, but that does not make me any less bloodthirsty than the average Eve player.
Just more subtle.
|
Avila Cracko
287
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 10:34:00 -
[595] - Quote
@ CCP Greyscale
Can you give me your opinion on this: (next 2 posts are quotes of the one same thing):
You made ganking miners so easy. With so little ISK you can make so great ISK damage to miners and many players quit because of that. And now ppl are using obvious exploits to kill more more more and more miners. Will you do anything to protect miners and indy players??? You just putting in new ganking ships for griefers and making their lifes easier every expansion, and indy people got nothing all this years, so I must ask you why are you ppl hate EVE industry???
Please CCP, read this and give us response; Will you do anything to protect miners and indy players from griefers???
Herr Wilkus wrote:Eh, whats the point of arguing.
CCP GMs want to coddle carebears - even if they have to rewrite their own rules to do it.
I developed the 'Tornado Boomerang' technique shortly after the 'nado was released and I knew it was good - but challenging to do properly and NOT broken. The technique, done right, effectively reversed the effects of the simultaneous 'insurance nerf' that I was seeking to overcome. Used it to my benefit for 3 solid months, killing 635 Exhumers and 1 Orca, solo. Only shared the technique with a few in the ganking community. But I wanted it to see wider use.....
(Disclaimer: Its quite possible that others figured it out independently, but I saw no evidence of that anywhere.)
So I eventually wrote my (immediately locked) primer as a 'test case'. After all, it was merely min-maxing the Tornado into effectiveness by maximizing gank and agility - at the expense of everything else. Wanted to see how CCP would respond to 'innovation' in ganking. They like innovation right? WRONG.
If you discover a good, efficient ganking tactic - you keep it to yourself and tell nobody. Even if it violates no rules, CCP will rewrite the rules based on the 'end result' - not the 'means'. IE: If innovation results in carebears crying, nerfs and rule changes will be incoming. Got it loud and clear, CCP. Thats the last trick I'll openly share with the GMs.
So, where does that leave me?
Tactical Situation:
Case 1. Warping away from a gank. - This is not an exploit now, and it never was. You are allowed to get your Tornado off-grid to die in a 'safe place'. The Tornado 'drive-by' shooting. This is important if you are dealing with 'white knights' - looking to pod you and/or loot your wreck.
Case 2. Warping repeatedly (with a very agile ship) for 15 minutes until the GCC expires. - This has always been an exploit, because your ship doesn't die, and I don't know why people are talking about it.
Case 3. Warping away from a gank, and shooting again, then getting caught and exploded. -This previously was NOT an exploit, but now it is. (because CCP was washed away in Carebear tears, esp. once freighters started going down) Goonswarm had posted videos of doing exactly this, years ago - using about 15 destroyers. Granted, it was not especially common, but it was possible and did happen. It was public knowledge and nobody was banned....because it wasn't considered an exploit because the Tornado did not yet exist.
Further, using the 'fitting service' on your Orca while GCC is STILL LEGAL. In my experience, this will allow you plenty of time to 'prep your guns' for unfitting. You can generally save 90-95% of all the mods on a Tornado this way, and it drives the cost of ganking down to the hull price. Second post will contain a detailed primer.
Strategic Goal:
1. Carebears whined and CCP listened. Why? Because they outnumber us. This needs to be rectified. 2. Ganking miners with Tornados is no a longer profitable endeavor, but can only be done at a loss. 3. Ganking at a loss, I can not match the limitless resources of large botting/RMT operations, so why even try?
Thus: I plan to do my utmost to 'encourage' young mining carebears to quit the game via selective, predatory ganking. Effective immediately, all operations, reports, and petitions against mining botters will cease. No more 'padding' the KB with my new 'artificial friends'. In my view, mining bots are actually beneficial: They flood the market with minerals/ice and significantly depress 'real miner' earnings.
Resources will now be focused exclusively on hunting 'real' miners. I've found that younger miners are more likely to become discouraged after multiple Exhumer losses and will simply cancel their subscription. This will help achieve the goal of reducing carebear influence over EVE - simply by reducing their numbers. truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. |
Avila Cracko
287
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 10:34:00 -
[596] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:I've posted instructions on how to do this somewhere else before, but it is now unambiguously LEGAL. The GMs have spoken. Mods AREN'T required to die, which makes sense - because they routinely survive Concord attacks and are looted. (Otherwise, Concord kills would be treated like self-destruction - where nothing survives)
Its is now even MORE important than for Tornado gankers to add this tactic to their repertoire....
Why? Ganking with T2 (or FACTION!) mods and T2 Howitzers gives you a significantly larger volley. Don't let those expensive mods die in an explosion, and still get your moneys worth from the hull. Here's how to do it right:
1. Position your Orca in a convenient safe spot. - Preferably several AU from the gank site (to give you more time to prep your guns for storage) - Make sure the Orca is CONFIGURED FOR FLEET USAGE. (Its a checkbox in the 'Configure Ship' menu: very easy to forget this.) - Make sure the Orca is cloaked. (Orcas are very easy to scan down, and your Tornado will naturally uncloak it.)
2. Attack your targets. -use appropriate turret groupings for maximum carnage. -With T2 guns, this means 4x for a Mack, 6-7x for a Hulk, 2x for a Retriever and 1x for a pod, depending on skills and tank. -allow your 'landing speed' to bleed off to nearly zero - and then hit your targets in quick succession. -Remember, when in doubt go RF PP for Exhumers.
3. Warp to the Orca and while in warp - prep your mods for quick removal. Do it exactly like this. -FIRST, turn off all of your active 'sensor mods'. (Tracking Computers and Sebos) -NEXT, unload your ammunition (if any exists) to your cargo bay. Unload your TC/SEBO Scripts as well. -THEN, use the 'group/ungroup' button to ungroup all of your T2 1400MM turrets. -When you arrive at the Orca, all of your offensive mods should be ungrouped, unloaded and inactive.
4. Upon arriving at the Orca, open the corporate cargo bay - and immediately start moving your mods. -Open Corporate Cargo Bay, -DO NOT use the fitting window! Its laggy, slow and fills your screen. -Simply DRAG the mods from your control panel/UI directly into the Orca hangar, one at a time. -If you get the 'ONE WAY MOVE' pop-up warning, immediately turn it off by selecting the check box. Saves mucho time. -Don't rush! Wait for each movement to register, then move the next. (Going too fast will just spin your camera view)
5. Ship disintegrating? Orca fitting service doesn't care! Orca doesn't give a ****! -You will have 8-9 seconds before Concord arrives. -Even Concord locks/ jams and shoots at you - don't panic or stop. You still have plenty of time. Just stay focused. -Follow these instructions and you should be able to reliably strip all, or nearly all of your fittings from your Tornado. -I generally go T2 Howitzers first, T2 Tracking Computers 2nd, T2 Gyrostabs 3rd, and SEBO's last.
Carebears often console themselves after being ganked: "Well, at least they lost their stuff too." Don't give them that satisfaction. Insurance is gone, but you CAN adapt. Play smart - don't lose your mods needlessly.
Now go out there, be proactive - and trash those carebears!
I am hoping to see the response from CCP on question given in the beginning of the last post regarding all this. Thank you in advance, CCP. truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. |
Severian Carnifex
143
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 12:04:00 -
[597] - Quote
Avila Cracko wrote:@ CCP Greyscale Can you give me your opinion on this: (in the next 2 posts are quotes of the one same thing posted by one griefer who clearly want to destroy EVE by pushing people to quit - and he is not alone who want to get ppl quit just because they don't play the game the way they want): You made ganking miners so easy. With so little ISK you can make so great ISK damage to miners and many players quit because of that. And now ppl are using obvious exploits to kill more more more and more miners with less and less loss. Will you do anything to protect miners and indy players??? You just putting in new ganking ships for griefers and making their lifes easier every expansion, and indy people got nothing all this years, so I must ask you why are you ppl hate EVE industry??? Please CCP, read this and give us response; Will you do anything to protect miners and indy players from griefers??? (Link to original topic from where this OP is quoted: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=89242&find=unread ) Herr Wilkus wrote: ... TEXT OF QUOTE 1...
Herr Wilkus wrote: ... TEXT OF QUOTE 2 ...
I am hoping to see the response from CCP on question given in the beginning of the last post regarding all this. Thank you in advance, CCP.
^^ I want to hear answer on this question too. |
Varr Dorn
Blue Flame Ore Excavations
3
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 12:42:00 -
[598] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:We really like morality and all those real-life parallels, huh?
Well, okay, tell me this then: what would you do if you if you saw an armed robber pillaging your neighbor's house? Phone the police. Should we introduce similar parallels as RL then? Maybe let Concord take care of it? I wanted him to answer it, but whatever. Anyway, you're correct. We phone the police. No, we don't grab the ol' Peacekeeper and plug the baddie full of second assholes; we'd go to jail for that. Vigilantism is illegal. So why is it suddenly "morally" justified to allow everyone to shoot a can thief? And don't tell me "because it's not RL, duh" because that's the exact argument I can make to say that this change shouldn't be effected. So, we phone the police. The police the arrives and deals with the perpetrator.
There is actually more than one correct answer. It is correct to call the police. However, my state has castle doctrine, as well as other statutes, that make it legal to defend with deadly force. I am not limited to defending myself and my property, but may also defend others if I believe there to be a threat of great bodily harm or death. So if I see an Armed robber at my neighbors house, I am legally allowed to 'grab the ol' peacemaker'. Whether a person phones the police or shoots to kill or wound is totally up to their conscience and abilities.
As far as Crimewatch goes...I like the ability for the thief to be seen by everyone. It makes it easier to get someone that is violating the 'law'. And I would think that someone that wants to take the risk (in stealing) should be taking a risk. It's not much of a risk in can flipping, for instance, because it's unlikely that a miner can switch ships before you're long gone.
To me it simply seems they are removing a grey area and re-leveling the playing field in this type of instance. (i.e. adding a bit of risk, which should be fun anyway)
|
Avila Cracko
287
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 17:35:00 -
[599] - Quote
Severian Carnifex wrote:Avila Cracko wrote:@ CCP GreyscaleCan you give me your opinion on this: (in the next 2 posts are quotes of the one same thing posted by one griefer who clearly want to destroy EVE by pushing people to quit - and he is not alone who want to get ppl quit just because they don't play the game the way they want): You made ganking miners so easy. With so little ISK you can make so great ISK damage to miners and many players quit because of that. And now ppl are using obvious exploits to kill more more more and more miners with less and less loss. Will you do anything to protect miners and indy players??? You just putting in new ganking ships for griefers and making their lifes easier every expansion, and indy people got nothing all this years, so I must ask you why are you ppl hate EVE industry??? Please CCP, read this and give us response; Will you do anything to protect miners and indy players from griefers??? (Link to original topic from where this OP is quoted: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=89242&find=unread ) Herr Wilkus wrote: ... WALL OF TEXT - QUOTE 1...
Herr Wilkus wrote: ... WALL OF TEXT - QUOTE 2 ...
I am hoping to see the response from CCP on question given in the beginning of the last post regarding all this. Thank you in advance, CCP. ^^ I want to hear answer on this question too.
Bump for my question. truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. |
stoicfaux
901
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 19:34:00 -
[600] - Quote
disclaimer: Apologies if this is redundant or is based on incorrect assumptions, I only skimmed through the previous 30 pages. =P
The current aggression/CONCORD mechanics create a "victim mentality" in high-sec carebears, so I'm glad that the whole system is being overhauled. This "victim mentality" is really bad because it actively pushes carebears away from PvP instead of making them more comfortable with the idea of PvP. Generally speaking, CONCORD is a joke from the victim's point of view because it provides revenge instead of actual justice, gives the initiative to the ganker, "punishes" the attacker with a very temporary probation, and provides no restitution for the victim. High-sec carebears thus have to adopt a meek risk avoidance attitude instead of aggressively working to secure their homes.
As others have hinted at, there's a big difference between security and "law enforcement." CONCORD's (weak) security just encourages increased passivity in high-sec carebears whereas we should have "law enforcement" which relies on community action to enforce the law in high-sec. (Plus, community increases sub stickiness and community PvP makes the transition to a PvP mentality a bit easier.) In other words, the current security mechanics result in "Waaaaaah! CCP save us!" instead of "Call out the local watch and round up a posse, we gots us some vermin to hang!"
As others have pointed out, the greater the high-sec carebear mentality grows, the more economic reasons that CCP has to make high-sec a 100% PvE.
Timer Length My initial criticism of the initial crimewatch system is how short the timers are. Realistically, if someone attacks someone in high-sec there should be serious repercussions, such as a month long "kill on sight" flag against the perp where the sentry guns, faction police and deputized "player police" can attack the perp whenever they trespass in the faction or corp space where the infraction(s) occurred. Short suspect/criminal timers favor the perps over the law abiding citizens and are insulting.
Now before people whine about how "unfair" that is, it should be possible for perps to avoid or kill the sentry guns and faction police in order to gank high-sec, however, it shouldn't be easy, especially if local citizens have paid to beef up security. And even then, the perps should have to deal with player based "police" units with badges (think deputized players) that allow them to kill perps on sight. The more "civilized" the system is, the more effort it will take to gank again in high-sec. Ideally, it should take a major raid by an organized group (*cough*Goons*cough*BurnJita*cough*) to effectively attack a system like Jita 4-4 and it should be easy for the citizens to join in the defense of "their" home.
More importantly, the local high-sec community members should be able to pay into their defenses to make their neighborhoods and trade routes safer, such as buying additional sentry guns, more faction police, having faction police patrol the mining belts, etc.. It wold be an isk sink and gives the non-combat oriented players a stronger voice in the security of their neighborhoods. They should also be able to vote on how and when the sentry guns and/or faction police attack someone. For example, the Jita 4-4 community could implement a "one strike and you're banned from the station grid" rule, or that anyone with a personal sec status of 2.5 or less on the station grid is kill on sight, and/or that perps have to provide X amount of restitution to the victim before being removed from the KoS list.
Regaining security status Tags to regain security status? Stupid, stupid, stupid. How about paying restitution instead? If CCP is going to track the amount of isk lost in a war dec, then it should be easy to track the isk loss of a gank victim. The perp can get "forgiveness" by paying off the victim via restitution.
From the RP perspective, high-sec is supposed to be "civilized" space, providing a stable environment in which to perform trade, manufacturing, etc.. It doesn't have to be completely locked down, but even in the Wild West, towns didn't allow a policy of "you can mug whoever you want, just as long as the sheriff kills your horse." Instead, the citizenry got together, hunted you down, and if they caught you, built a gallows in the town square and hung you by the neck until dead.
Crimewatch, even with its improvements, could still learn a lot about community, justice, and law enforcement from the US Wild West period. Dammit, if CCP hadn't nerfed the Comet's blinking light, I could now be flying around in Jita in my "Whaaaaaambulance!"
Goon Tears: -á25% Alcohol by Volume |
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
471
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 20:15:00 -
[601] - Quote
Well put |
Muestereate
Two Geezers in Space
40
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 20:22:00 -
[602] - Quote
I can see gatecamps escalating into freefor alls for interested parties while pirates shoot on another as they steal from one another.. I have this picture in my mind of the first concord intervention on incursions where it just turns into a legal furball of carnage over my ibis loot and the loot of the guy that ganked me and the loot of the guys that stole the loot form the people that stolle the loot from the person that ganked me.
You'd effectively have a legal pvp arena for as long as people keep stealing off of each other. |
Jonah Gravenstein
85
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 00:09:00 -
[603] - Quote
Excellent post by stoicfaux, it's a nice expansion on his thoughts here War hasn't been fought this badly since Olaf the Hairy, High Chief of all the Vikings, accidentally ordered 80,000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
220
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 00:57:00 -
[604] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote: From the RP perspective, high-sec is supposed to be "civilized" space, providing a stable environment in which to perform trade, manufacturing, etc.. It doesn't have to be completely locked down, but even in the Wild West, towns didn't allow a policy of "you can mug whoever you want, just as long as the sheriff kills your horse." Instead, the citizenry got together, hunted you down, and if they caught you, built a gallows in the town square and hung you by the neck until dead.
This is mostly correct, but in regard to advocating gameplay changes you're using it very selectively.
If Space is civilized and stable, why are there thousands of NPC Pirates in Missions, HS Exploration sites, and Incursions? Using your RP justification for greater safety and "justice" all these entities should be removed from High Sec.
Similarly why are there untapped and unclaimed resources such as minerals and ice in such abundance in High Sec? Surely these would all be depleted or claimed by major corporations and governments. So, again using the same RP justification for greater safety and "justice" all these resources should be removed from High Sec.
So then we come a full circle back to gameplay. Typically, at least in every Sandbox MMO I've ever played (EVE being the sole exception) the gold (isk) and loot (resources and mods) is all to be found in the dangerous parts of the game (risk and reward). The only safe or near safe spots being cities and towns with no resources to farm, but where manufacturing and trade could take place. If that's the suggested model for EVE to head back to I'd fully endorse it, but so long as High Sec has Isk and resources to be farmed, means of non consensual PvP should be increased not decreased. |
Jonah Gravenstein
88
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 01:15:00 -
[605] - Quote
I think what Stoicfaux is getting at is the whole "wild west frontier" idea. You could have pockets of civilisation, protected and policed by the people who live there, outside of those pockets it wouldn't necessarily be lawless but considerably more dangerous to live, work, trade, PVE etc. At least until someone decides that "hey this is a nice bit of space, we'll have some of that and we'll install some upgrades", call it a mini extension of sov mechanics for us carebears.
It wouldn't actually kill non-consensual PVP, in fact it would probably increase the amount of PVP going on in high sec. It would certainly add more risk for the gankers, but it would also encourage people to team up, spend ISK on upgrades and actively seek out and destroy said ganker.
Eventually carebear "empires" would clash with other carebear empires as they seek to expand their influence or resource caches. Somebody having something you want is always good for conflict and TBH conflict is good for everyone, CCP gain, carebears gain, PVP corps gain, the whole reputation of Eve as harsh, dark and unforgiving gains.
At present the null sec alliances are what drives the narrative and content of Eve, let us poor reviled carebears have a chance of creating our own conflict driven narrative and content, if you encourage people to team up to protect what they see as theirs some of us will find whole new ways of playing and eventually migrate down to nullsec where the big boys play. I think the best comparison would be calling it a junior school for null and low.
The basic mechanics are already there in null sec, it would be an expansion of these into high sec in a limited form, an expansion that is completely driven by war and deserving of the name EVE. War hasn't been fought this badly since Olaf the Hairy, High Chief of all the Vikings, accidentally ordered 80,000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
220
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 01:55:00 -
[606] - Quote
Yes, the wild west frontier idea isn't bad in itself, and Nullsec essentially already represents that. My issue with it is not in being able to make places more safe, but that safe areas provide PvE opportunities.
From an RP standpoint anywhere you can make lots of ISK shooting Pirate NPCs, player Pirates should be able to freely attack as well IMO.
From a gameplay standpoint any high value lets call them farms should always be vulnerable in the sense that they are not made automatically safe by game mechanics. If players are given the tools to make such places safe proactively, I'm not against that in theory. |
Jonah Gravenstein
89
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 02:07:00 -
[607] - Quote
What you say makes perfect sense, if you can shoot at NPCs then yep player pirates should be able to shoot at you, but the people shooting NPCs should also be able to run their security contingents to shoot back at player pirates.
It's not a major jump from the mechanics we already have, it just gives the people outside of null some of the options that null dwellers already have.
It could even fit in with current mission mechanics/lore, currently NPC agents hire you to take down various NPCs which is already a form of player run law enforcement, extending it so that players are primarily responsible for their system security instead of concord is by no means a major leap. War hasn't been fought this badly since Olaf the Hairy, High Chief of all the Vikings, accidentally ordered 80,000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside. |
Avila Cracko
287
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 07:50:00 -
[608] - Quote
Severian Carnifex wrote:Avila Cracko wrote:@ CCP GreyscaleCan you give me your opinion on this: (in the next 2 posts are quotes of the one same thing posted by one griefer who clearly want to destroy EVE by pushing people to quit - and he is not alone who want to get ppl quit just because they don't play the game the way they want): You made ganking miners so easy. With so little ISK you can make so great ISK damage to miners and many players quit because of that. And now ppl are using obvious exploits to kill more more more and more miners with less and less loss. Will you do anything to protect miners and indy players??? You just putting in new ganking ships for griefers and making their lifes easier every expansion, and indy people got nothing all this years, so I must ask you why are you ppl hate EVE industry??? Please CCP, read this and give us response; Will you do anything to protect miners and indy players from griefers??? (Link to original topic from where this OP is quoted: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=89242&find=unread ) I am hoping to see the response from CCP on question given in the beginning of the last post regarding all this. Thank you in advance, CCP. ^^ I want to hear answer on this question too.
Bump for my question from the last page. truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. |
Ziranda Hakuli
Relativity Holding Corp AAA Citizens
16
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 08:39:00 -
[609] - Quote
SO more whining about changes. so look at it this way, You go rob a bank kill a few folks on the way out and manage to blow up some poor gals car in new york city. well the cops will be chasing ya, crimestoppers will have a description of you for someone to turn you in. so in affect that is in a sense Empire space but Concord and local navy forces have now granted folks in empire space to mete out justice to said can flipper, gankers, and so on. I kinda see this as a move to help promote low sec combat seeing so many pirates have cried for some attention. well now you got it.
Remember that old saying "Be careful what ya wish for" and the other one "Careful you do not let the Djinni out of the bottle"
strange enough i can also foretell the weather........i see a storm on the horizon and it smells like ganker tears |
March rabbit
Ganse Legion of xXDEATHXx
150
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 10:45:00 -
[610] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Thabiso wrote: Also, shooting someone elses NPC should be a punisable offence, you might kill his trigger/trigger drop, which could end farming or prevent a turn-in of mission.
Mission drop/triggers are based purely on the death of the NPC - regardless of who shoots it. If someone came into my missions and shot all my rats, I'd tell them "thanks!". -Liang you can tell it. but those who can't tank whole room won't be happy be getting full-aggro and losing ship.
|
|
Jonah Gravenstein
93
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 10:51:00 -
[611] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Thabiso wrote: Also, shooting someone elses NPC should be a punisable offence, you might kill his trigger/trigger drop, which could end farming or prevent a turn-in of mission.
Mission drop/triggers are based purely on the death of the NPC - regardless of who shoots it. If someone came into my missions and shot all my rats, I'd tell them "thanks!". -Liang you can tell it. but those who can't tank whole room won't be happy be getting full-aggro and losing ship.
Which is why webbers and scrammers die first, if someone comes in and pops the trigger and you can't tank the damage it gives you an opportunity to GTFO. Alternatively if you can tank it no problems, leave the scrammers and then if you get a ninja come in there's a good chance they'll get scrammed and die in an NPC fire, you could of course be an evil bugger and ransom said ninja for his loot and salvage if they do get scrammed by offering to take out the offending NPC. Grief works both ways War hasn't been fought this badly since Olaf the Hairy, High Chief of all the Vikings, accidentally ordered 80,000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside. |
Merianna
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 13:14:00 -
[612] - Quote
Liam Mirren wrote:[quote=CCP Greyscale]Can you lay out for me the specific things you guys are currently trying to achieve involving can-flagging mechanics, so I can properly see the problem from your perspective?
=> 1) to initiate a "duel" or practise with out of corp pilots (this can easily be solved by using an "accept duel invite" option) ++ agree, a duel butan should be implemented
=> 2) to bait newbies (sad to do and not allowed in starter systems, just mentioning it as it's used for that) - ...
=> 3) when ninja salvaging to gain aggression towards the mission runner, in hopes of him getting mad and shooting you after which you warp off, switch ship, get back and try to kill or ransom him
--You sir are sad (goto lowsec), thats exactly the reason why I support option 1) ! Because then, I can just shoot / pod you in Highsec with my main, that may not be in the same corp or alliance as the character that runs missions, but is an active pvper in null sec
=> 4) to annoy miner bots by relieving them of their profits (also very useful to gauge if they are indeed bots, if they just keep dropping ore cans which you invariably nick then you can be fairly sure they're bots, so you can then report them)
--You do know that these people have no chance... Again, option one. You screw with one person = you become criminal, I can shoot you into bits with my pvp character, that has just been waiting for you to make a stupid move.
=> 5) can flipping, getting aggressed to a miner (and his corp if he is in one) to try and initiate a fight of sorts, hoping to get kills or ransom. Note that jetcan mining is used less and less, the Orca isn't only OP for pvp situations, it's also very OP for mining scenarios, you might want to nerf it a bit there as well. Jetcan mining is the lazy, non-effort way of doing things and as such there should be a penalty for it, in the form of risk. Can flipping is that risk.
--Bwaaaah, the Orca, bwaaah is too strong! Mommy I can't play with his toy! - try 10 Battlepotatoes with smartbombs and watch how quickly the Orca dies... L2p dude.
If Jetcan mining becomes as safe as any other form then there's no reason to use secure containers anymore, or actual teamwork or people having a brain. In other words, taking out lazy jetcan miners is in the spirit of EVE. Apart from that even with jetcans a smart and possibly prepared miner can still avoid trouble and even avoid loss of ore.
--I do agree with you here, but then again thats what the Orca is for...
Note that the different timers, to corp and specific members who might have attacked you in the mean time, is a VITAL part of this. If the problem you're describing in regards to coding issues is with how individual timers work then honestly, give it more thought before you implement something that can't handle several different timers at the same time.
Final note... Go fight in lowsec / nullsec. Oh wait you're scared you'll lose your stuff... It's sad to see griefers like yourself. I wouldnt mind being able to kill flagged suspects in Highsec, currently I have to suicide on you, which is all fine by me but shouldn't be the way I get the right to fight for my "helpless" (buddies that build me ships that I then in turn can blow up in hilarious fashion) friends.
There has to be consequences if you comit a crime. Being flagged and taking a sec hit, is exactly what needs to happen. Take it as in Security status = Your police record. If you steal in real life and are being caught then you get an entry in your record. Makes total sense, if you go over a certain level, this may impact on where you can travel or where you can engage in your activities.
You can choose to go to a "war zone" (0.0) without facing any consequences or have any entry added to your police record. This is what lowsec / null is for... But hey, Industrialists in their T1 Mining barges are just way to juicy and the tears you earn from them are just too sweet. It just goes to show me, that you have no balls when it comes to PvP and want the easy exploitive way that is currently present in Highsec.
As many have said - Deal wiz it! or Biomass yourself -
|
bornaa
GRiD.
168
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 15:21:00 -
[613] - Quote
Bump for Avila Crackos question from me too. |
March rabbit
Ganse Legion of xXDEATHXx
150
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 16:15:00 -
[614] - Quote
Cannibal Kane wrote: There should be no hit....
Your already getting shot at by potensially 100 people depending where you are or how many see you. Mob justice should be enough on it's own.
loosing trasher after you killed some hulk is such a good justice for sure...... |
Severian Carnifex
145
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 17:54:00 -
[615] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:Cannibal Kane wrote: There should be no hit....
Your already getting shot at by potensially 100 people depending where you are or how many see you. Mob justice should be enough on it's own.
loosing trasher after you killed some hulk is such a good justice for sure......
Or loosing a tornado after ganking couple of exumers. |
Avila Cracko
287
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 08:57:00 -
[616] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:loosing trasher after you killed some hulk is such a good justice for sure......
Severian Carnifex wrote:Or loosing a tornado after ganking couple of exumers, justice indeed.
Exactly my point!
That's just stupid and its giving free kills without any loss or danger. While attacked party loose a hundreds of millions and there can be from one attacker more then one attacked party, attacker loose nothing. PVP for wuss. truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. |
Mr Welsh
Black Nexus Proj3ct
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 17:19:00 -
[617] - Quote
CAN FLIPING GETING NERFED? i knew blizzard would buy out CCP and start ruining this game as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!! so if my friend drops a can of ammo for me and im not in his corp, i am red to everyone , thats just fing stupid!
*hovers finger on the uninstall Eve online button* |
bornaa
GRiD.
169
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 17:20:00 -
[618] - Quote
Avila Cracko wrote:March rabbit wrote:loosing trasher after you killed some hulk is such a good justice for sure...... Severian Carnifex wrote:Or loosing a tornado after ganking couple of exumers, justice indeed. Exactly my point! That's just stupid and its giving free kills without any loss or danger. While attacked party loose a hundreds of millions and there can be from one attacker more then one attacked party, attacker loose nothing. PVP for wuss.
well. i must agree.
if you PVP you must have grater odds to loose isk when you are attacking much more expensive ship then to gain isk. and suicide gankers have 100% gain ratio and That Ain't Right
That Ain't Right: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMTn4M2qfNI |
Merianna
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 09:30:00 -
[619] - Quote
Mr Welsh wrote:CAN FLIPING GETING NERFED? i knew blizzard would buy out CCP and start ruining this game as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!! so if my friend drops a can of ammo for me and im not in his corp, i am red to everyone , thats just fing stupid!
*hovers finger on the uninstall Eve online button*
inb4 ragequit, can i has ur stuffz plx? |
Jonah Gravenstein
106
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 09:57:00 -
[620] - Quote
Mr Welsh wrote:CAN FLIPING GETING NERFED? i knew blizzard would buy out CCP and start ruining this game as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!! so if my friend drops a can of ammo for me and im not in his corp, i am red to everyone , thats just fing stupid!
*hovers finger on the uninstall Eve online button*
Easy solution, your friend drops can with ammo, abandons the can with you sat next to it, you grab ammo. This will work fine, uses existing mechanics and you don't go red to everyone. Unless of course you want to take the ammo so you can have a 1 vs 1 with your friend, there will probably be an option to allow you to do this unless CCP derp in some fashion.
If you're just whining for whinings sake do what us bears are constantly getting told to do, adapt/die/HTFU.
War hasn't been fought this badly since Olaf the Hairy, High Chief of all the Vikings, accidentally ordered 80,000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside. |
|
Mata Hotaki
Fortis fortuna adiuvat
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 11:51:00 -
[621] - Quote
@ CCP Greyscale: Could you please let us know if you are still reading the thread?
I read most of the 30 epic pages. As expected, the thread is full of high sec dwellers gloating at the proposed changes. The standard one-liners like "adapt", "HTFU" and "go get real PvP" are abundant.
However, satisfying one group of players at the expense of the other group does not make a balanced, fair and engaging game. In this specific case, the "outlaws" get penalized not only by increased risk of engagement - the new rules aim to make the game BORING for them.
If I am a "suspect", everyone can attack me. Fair enough - I am a bad guy, after all.
However, I will lose sec status if I defend myself. Even if I prevail over "white knights", it is a Pyrrhic victory. I will soon lose the ability to enter the very high sec systems where I perpetrate my crimes. The only way I could undo the sec status damage is participating in PvE. Yes, that very activity that I find despicably boring. The reward I get for risking my expensive ship against a whole system of people is an obligation to shoot at red crosses, possibly for hours. Yes, I can buy myself out of this obligation; but how affordable will the tags be? Not very, as no outlaw likes to shoot at red crosses.
Now, some questions and answers:
** Will this drive me to "real" PvP in lowsec or 0.0? Never. I will adapt to the new rules. I will get me an L4 agent, or I will just buy enough tags to be able to enter 0.5-0.7. I will solve my logistics problems with freighter alts. I will also play less, and cancel a couple of my subs, as the game just became more boring.
**Do the proposed changes have a potential for abuse and griefing? You betcha. A miner "stealing" his ore back now risks losing their sec status, if baited and aggressed properly. Bad news for the miner. The good old "wreck-on-the-highsec-gate" scam becomes much, much more meaningful - and almost impossible to safeguard from (apart from not taking from the wreck... but when did the newbies learn to resist the shinies?). Yes, there is now a safety switch in the menu, bit a 1 mil ISK BPC, or a few T2 modules, or a full can of Plagio will do the job 8 times out of 10, like they do now.
**Is there a BETTER way, or are you just whining? You bet there is a better way! Instead of hitting us outlaws with sec status losses for ship kills while under suspect flag, give victims, or even entire victim corps kill rights. Also, make pilots with applicable kill rights visible in overview (the return of the red blinky?).
To elaborate: I am an outlaw, I flipped a can, and I now I am fighting two "white knight" Crapacals with my Punisher. The failfit Crapacals die under my lazors. But that's not the end of it: the Crapacal pilots (possibly their entire corps) mow have killrights on me! Next time I come to the system in a shiny T2 hauler, bringing T2 Punishers and faction ammo from Jita. The victims see me as red in their overview, and gank my Viator ruthlessly. Their plagioclase has been avenged.
As an outlaw, I have suffered the consequences. At the same time, the game experience for everybody (including my victims) is more fun.
Greyscale, could you please chime in on this idea? |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
315
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 13:54:00 -
[622] - Quote
thanks for the great summary
Velicia Tuoro wrote:Sec Status.... - Killing someone with a negative sec gives you bonus... -5 can be killed without penalty in low sec. ...
Ok if I shoot someone who is say -1.8 I gain sec status but I still go gcc and get sentery gun fire in low sec and concord in high sec?
Velicia Tuoro wrote: Killmails - Adding "battle reports", stats and details. Who has repped who etc - More data in the API....
Does the etc include fleet booster alts?
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
500
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 15:52:00 -
[623] - Quote
Mr Welsh wrote:CAN FLIPING GETING NERFED? i knew blizzard would buy out CCP and start ruining this game as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!! so if my friend drops a can of ammo for me and im not in his corp, i am red to everyone , thats just fing stupid!
*hovers finger on the uninstall Eve online button*
Have your friend set you +10, problem solved. If they're not willing to do that, they are not your friend anyway, so myabe you should drop ammo for him then shoot him. |
Severian Carnifex
146
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 17:42:00 -
[624] - Quote
we want answers bump!!! |
Avila Cracko
296
|
Posted - 2012.04.05 07:27:00 -
[625] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Mr Welsh wrote:CAN FLIPING GETING NERFED? i knew blizzard would buy out CCP and start ruining this game as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!! so if my friend drops a can of ammo for me and im not in his corp, i am red to everyone , thats just fing stupid!
*hovers finger on the uninstall Eve online button* Have your friend set you +10, problem solved. If they're not willing to do that, they are not your friend anyway, so myabe you should drop ammo for him then shoot him.
If person didn't know that +10 standing removes steal alarm then that person is not playing the game, just trolling. truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
509
|
Posted - 2012.04.05 09:29:00 -
[626] - Quote
Avila Cracko wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:Mr Welsh wrote:CAN FLIPING GETING NERFED? i knew blizzard would buy out CCP and start ruining this game as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!! so if my friend drops a can of ammo for me and im not in his corp, i am red to everyone , thats just fing stupid!
*hovers finger on the uninstall Eve online button* Have your friend set you +10, problem solved. If they're not willing to do that, they are not your friend anyway, so myabe you should drop ammo for him then shoot him. If person didn't know that +10 standing removes steal alarm then that person is not playing the game, just trolling.
So you're trolling then? Got it. |
Avila Cracko
297
|
Posted - 2012.04.05 11:36:00 -
[627] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Avila Cracko wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:Mr Welsh wrote:CAN FLIPING GETING NERFED? i knew blizzard would buy out CCP and start ruining this game as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!! so if my friend drops a can of ammo for me and im not in his corp, i am red to everyone , thats just fing stupid!
*hovers finger on the uninstall Eve online button* Have your friend set you +10, problem solved. If they're not willing to do that, they are not your friend anyway, so myabe you should drop ammo for him then shoot him. If person didn't know that +10 standing removes steal alarm then that person is not playing the game, just trolling. So you're trolling then? Got it.
wft??? you like to write things that don't have any meaning? truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. |
bornaa
GRiD.
174
|
Posted - 2012.04.05 14:45:00 -
[628] - Quote
Will any DEV give us answers here???
Please guys? That Ain't Right |
BROTHER Mullakai
GoD SwarM
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.05 16:17:00 -
[629] - Quote
Minor crimes. Anyone can shoot you without penalty
this is a great idea should make for exciting play for yourself if ya can flip /bait mission runners an people who rely on on that for kills will have to grow a pair
Mayst the LOrd bless you |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
525
|
Posted - 2012.04.05 23:19:00 -
[630] - Quote
CCP Soundwave said in that 10 ton hammer interview the wardec system is almost ready to deploy now. I wonder if crimewatch is that far along...
|
|
Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
129
|
Posted - 2012.04.05 23:25:00 -
[631] - Quote
Severian Carnifex wrote:we want answers bump!!!
Stop the killings of hundreds of millions worth ship with ten times cheaper ships!!! Stop giving this game to griefers only!!! Give some love to people that want to build and not destroy!!! Stop risk free 100% sure murders!!! Give some love to miners after all this years!!! Stop rewarding the murderers whose victims did not have any chance!!!
They won't. You are a doormat. You have been a doormat for 10 years. Is it wrong? Is it right? It is. |
Severian Carnifex
151
|
Posted - 2012.04.06 09:09:00 -
[632] - Quote
Ocih wrote:Severian Carnifex wrote:we want answers bump!!!
Stop the killings of hundreds of millions worth ship with ten times cheaper ships!!! Stop giving this game to griefers only!!! Give some love to people that want to build and not destroy!!! Stop risk free 100% sure murders!!! Give some love to miners after all this years!!! Stop rewarding the murderers whose victims did not have any chance!!! They won't. You are a doormat. You have been a doormat for 10 years. Is it wrong? Is it right? It is.
Thank you a lot
So, is that official CCP stance??? |
bornaa
GRiD.
185
|
Posted - 2012.04.06 16:56:00 -
[633] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Velicia Tuoro wrote: Killmails - Adding "battle reports", stats and details. Who has repped who etc - More data in the API....
Does the "etc." include fleet booster alts?
Yea... that is interesting question. That Ain't Right |
Avila Cracko
307
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 08:03:00 -
[634] - Quote
Dump for answers... truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. |
Revolution Rising
Gentlemen of Better Ilk
317
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 09:26:00 -
[635] - Quote
Whoever came up with the new crimewatch ideas needs their heads read.
Please seek counselling.
I'm not entirely what CCP are smoking with the "new change better than old non-change amirite?" approach but it's obviously the production of a crack smoking griefer.
I don't understand why it is that people cannot get it through their heads that if you change eve from a sandbox to a PVP game exclusively, it will kill it.
The advent of pay to win and other mechanics that have recently been added are obviously messed up as it is. Being able to just pay $15 for a bunch of ship losses is absurd.
The Titans online and grief online nicknames aren't there for no reason.
I'm all for PVP, but what is the point against people who aren't ready for it and/or don't wish to ?
It's a sandbox, not a PVPbox. CSM7 Skype Leak
|
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
61
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 00:54:00 -
[636] - Quote
I'm really starting to wonder if this is still planned for the next release at all? Has anyone seen anything from anyone at CCP on when this is going down? |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
600
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 02:02:00 -
[637] - Quote
Manssell wrote:I'm really starting to wonder if this is still planned for the next release at all? Has anyone seen anything from anyone at CCP on when this is going down?
Not 100% sure, but don't think it is part of the bit that comes on the 24th. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6023
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 02:07:00 -
[638] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Manssell wrote:I'm really starting to wonder if this is still planned for the next release at all? Has anyone seen anything from anyone at CCP on when this is going down? Not 100% sure, but don't think it is part of the bit that comes on the 24th. Looking at the features page, it seems like it'll be for Inferno (May) not Escalation (April), and I seem to recall seeing the same on the roll-out slides form the fanfest presentations.
Basically: Escalation GÇö iterations on incursions, drone regions, loot, titans, character creation; Infero GÇö massive changes to core systems, such as wardecs, crimewatch, ships.
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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Kietay Ayari
Caldari State
327
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 02:13:00 -
[639] - Quote
I used to think gankers who fought against making highsec safer were fighting to keep EVE good for the reasons it is good. But after this thread I am not soooo sure. All of these are great changes ;D It is wayyy too funny to see can flippers crying because they might actually fight someone they can lose to now. The truth comes out! You only want it dangerous for everyone else.
I left highsec when I was a month old and have lived in 0.0 since then. It is much safer than highsec and a lot more fun! The more dangerous highsec is, the better off we are since -hopefully- more people will realize they can join a 0.0 corp and anomaly all day with much more safety than highsec missioning. Any mechanic that gives more agro to more people (without getting concord involved) is a good mechanic. Ferox #1 |
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
61
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 16:20:00 -
[640] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:Manssell wrote:I'm really starting to wonder if this is still planned for the next release at all? Has anyone seen anything from anyone at CCP on when this is going down? Not 100% sure, but don't think it is part of the bit that comes on the 24th. Looking at the features page, it seems like it'll be for Inferno (May) not Escalation (April), and I seem to recall seeing the same on the roll-out slides form the fanfest presentations. Basically: Escalation GÇö iterations on incursions, drone regions, loot, titans, character creation; Infero GÇö massive changes to core systems, such as wardecs, crimewatch, ships.
Ahh Thank you. |
|
Wacktopia
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
236
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 16:48:00 -
[641] - Quote
Quote:*Bull**** canflip and aggression changes*
Ergh. This type of change annoys me. It's like The Death of HiSec By 1000 Cuts. If you're in a player corp then war-dec is just something you have to accept is coming with it, regardless of your play-style. ~CCP |
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
270
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 17:59:00 -
[642] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:Manssell wrote:I'm really starting to wonder if this is still planned for the next release at all? Has anyone seen anything from anyone at CCP on when this is going down? Not 100% sure, but don't think it is part of the bit that comes on the 24th. Looking at the features page, it seems like it'll be for Inferno (May) not Escalation (April), and I seem to recall seeing the same on the roll-out slides form the fanfest presentations. Basically: Escalation GÇö iterations on incursions, drone regions, loot, titans, character creation; Infero GÇö massive changes to core systems, such as wardecs, crimewatch, ships. Pretty close :)
In Escalation we've been working on some of the backend parts of crimewatch, with minimal impact on the resulting gameplay. However this is vital preparation work for the bigger features that we want to do. There's also the titan balancing, incursion tweaks, drone region adjustments and a few other nice things.
Inferno is full of wardec and FW goodness. The bulk of the new crimewatch feature will probably come a bit later. "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
603
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 18:43:00 -
[643] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: In Escalation we've been working on some of the backend parts of crimewatch, with minimal impact on the resulting gameplay. However this is vital preparation work for the bigger features that we want to do. There's also the titan balancing, incursion tweaks, drone region adjustments and a few other nice things.
Inferno is full of wardec and FW goodness. The bulk of the new crimewatch feature will probably come a bit later.
We wants the crimewatch, we wants precious.
We wants it now!
http://www.awn.com/files/imagepicker/1/gollum03_Gollum_goodRen.jpg Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
589
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 20:00:00 -
[644] - Quote
W A R D E C
Oh empire... why do you burn like that? I'm looking forward to the AFK empire POS takedown fleets.
Just go from system to system taking down POSs at work! Yay my productivity is going down the crapper!
|
Argus Sorn
Star Frontiers Ignore This.
28
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 03:25:00 -
[645] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:Tippia wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:Manssell wrote:I'm really starting to wonder if this is still planned for the next release at all? Has anyone seen anything from anyone at CCP on when this is going down? Not 100% sure, but don't think it is part of the bit that comes on the 24th. Looking at the features page, it seems like it'll be for Inferno (May) not Escalation (April), and I seem to recall seeing the same on the roll-out slides form the fanfest presentations. Basically: Escalation GÇö iterations on incursions, drone regions, loot, titans, character creation; Infero GÇö massive changes to core systems, such as wardecs, crimewatch, ships. Pretty close :) In Escalation we've been working on some of the backend parts of crimewatch, with minimal impact on the resulting gameplay. However this is vital preparation work for the bigger features that we want to do. There's also the titan balancing, incursion tweaks, drone region adjustments and a few other nice things. Inferno is full of wardec and FW goodness. The bulk of the new crimewatch feature will probably come a bit later.
Um. Really? What a let down. Crimewatch changes are the best stuff, was totally hyped at FF. I call total foul CCP, total foul.
Argus |
EVE Stig
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
133
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 03:27:00 -
[646] - Quote
Velicia Tuoro wrote:
New "suspect" flag - Minor crimes. Anyone can shoot you without penalty. - Flipping a can for example - Shooting someone makes you a suspect (I think) - Anyone assisting a suspect becomes a suspect - Not sure if gate guns will attack a suspect. Undecided yet.
Why isnt there more qq about that O.o
Gogela wrote:W A R D E COh empire... why do you burn like that? I'm looking forward to the AFK empire POS takedown fleets. Just go from system to system taking down POSs at work! Yay my productivity is going down the crapper!
Youd think theyd note this and go "huh we dont want that exploit"
unless griefing IS the point of the new system and if that case WTF crimewatch? These guys are bipolar as hell when it comes to making it easier or harder to gank/grief
Argus Sorn wrote:
Um. Really? What a let down. Crimewatch changes are the best stuff, was totally hyped at FF. I call total foul CCP, total foul.
Argus
Im thinking they were unprepared for the qq "Some say that he is actually dead, but the Grim Reaper is too afraid to tell him." "Some say he is the 3rd member of Daft Punk and he did the vocals of "Technologic" song. All we know is,he's called EVE Stig"! |
EVE Stig
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
133
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 03:37:00 -
[647] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Pak Narhoo wrote:Just know it's still on paper. Nothing hard, nothing coded. Can go anyway from here.
Like a good point: friendly can flipping to have a 1 on 1 fight is out the window with these presumed changes.
Oh, I'm by no means jumping to conclusions; I know these things aren't set in stone. However, if a change like this is even on the table, it has to be fought tooth and nail for the sake of this game's integrity. If can-flipping is just an "example," think of how many other "suspect" actions might result in this type of flag: - Scanning someone's ship/cargo - Trying to access someone's secure container - Shooting an NPC that's part of someone else's mission - Why not just go ahead and say it: locking someone without their permission
nom nom nom tears *sluuuurp*
gimme a link so i can hear this from ccp's mouth "Some say that he is actually dead, but the Grim Reaper is too afraid to tell him." "Some say he is the 3rd member of Daft Punk and he did the vocals of "Technologic" song. All we know is,he's called EVE Stig"! |
EVE Stig
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
133
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 03:45:00 -
[648] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: Being "hard" and being suicidal are not necessarily mutually inclusive. It will indeed require people who take the cans of others (for whatever reason) to become harder. However, when a game mechanic forces an extreme tactical disadvantage on players when they perform a specific action, they will stop performing said action. .
like wardecs not giving those decced any way to win? That mean theyre removing the incentive to corp up? "Some say that he is actually dead, but the Grim Reaper is too afraid to tell him." "Some say he is the 3rd member of Daft Punk and he did the vocals of "Technologic" song. All we know is,he's called EVE Stig"! |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
661
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 05:12:00 -
[649] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: Inferno is full of wardec and FW goodness. The bulk of the new crimewatch feature will probably come a bit later.
So ... new war dec with old agro mechanics?
At least it sounds temporary, though perhaps sounds too SoonGäó |
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
270
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 10:50:00 -
[650] - Quote
Argus Sorn wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote:Tippia wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:Manssell wrote:I'm really starting to wonder if this is still planned for the next release at all? Has anyone seen anything from anyone at CCP on when this is going down? Not 100% sure, but don't think it is part of the bit that comes on the 24th. Looking at the features page, it seems like it'll be for Inferno (May) not Escalation (April), and I seem to recall seeing the same on the roll-out slides form the fanfest presentations. Basically: Escalation GÇö iterations on incursions, drone regions, loot, titans, character creation; Infero GÇö massive changes to core systems, such as wardecs, crimewatch, ships. Pretty close :) In Escalation we've been working on some of the backend parts of crimewatch, with minimal impact on the resulting gameplay. However this is vital preparation work for the bigger features that we want to do. There's also the titan balancing, incursion tweaks, drone region adjustments and a few other nice things. Inferno is full of wardec and FW goodness. The bulk of the new crimewatch feature will probably come a bit later. Um. Really? What a let down. Crimewatch changes are the best stuff, was totally hyped at FF. I call total foul CCP, total foul. Argus This was always the plan. Team Five-0 is doing the prep work in this release to get the old crimewatch system into a better state. I'm pretty sure at FF we started off by saying that the new design was still at an early stage, and we wanted to get your input on it before anything was committed. Based on that (and other) feedback, we're now looking to start the actual development of the new crimewatch gameplay features once Escalation is out. "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
bornaa
GRiD.
217
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 11:01:00 -
[651] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:Argus Sorn wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote:Tippia wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:Not 100% sure, but don't think it is part of the bit that comes on the 24th. Looking at the features page, it seems like it'll be for Inferno (May) not Escalation (April), and I seem to recall seeing the same on the roll-out slides form the fanfest presentations. Basically: Escalation GÇö iterations on incursions, drone regions, loot, titans, character creation; Infero GÇö massive changes to core systems, such as wardecs, crimewatch, ships. Pretty close :) In Escalation we've been working on some of the backend parts of crimewatch, with minimal impact on the resulting gameplay. However this is vital preparation work for the bigger features that we want to do. There's also the titan balancing, incursion tweaks, drone region adjustments and a few other nice things. Inferno is full of wardec and FW goodness. The bulk of the new crimewatch feature will probably come a bit later. Um. Really? What a let down. Crimewatch changes are the best stuff, was totally hyped at FF. I call total foul CCP, total foul. Argus This was always the plan. Team Five-0 is doing the prep work in this release to get the old crimewatch system into a better state. I'm pretty sure at FF we started off by saying that the new design was still at an early stage, and we wanted to get your input on it before anything was committed. Based on that (and other) feedback, we're now looking to start the actual development of the new crimewatch gameplay features once Escalation is out.
So you guys have been reading this thread and other threads on this subject? I only want to know do you keep track of problems people are bringing up as you don't respond on them. That Ain't Right |
Liam Mirren
448
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 11:03:00 -
[652] - Quote
Excuse me for being ignorant and/or lazy, is there an updated list of "things that will happen in regards to wardecs and flagging as CCP is thinking of implementing"? I'm going to assume (and hope) that the initial ideas have changed somewhat with time. Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
178
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 11:14:00 -
[653] - Quote
So I has question.
Suspects act is shooting at someone but not killing, So in high sec if you shoot at someone but they live you are only a suspect? Or does High sec get the GCC at once deal?
If High sec is insta GCC, I can see people in duel rep megas popping into Low Sec near a mission hub becoming a suspect than hanging out in high sec to see how many idiots they can get to engage in their mission boats. As we should all know, there is always some dumbass who sees target shoot target before thinking target may be bait. Or better yet, just remembered stealing makes you a suspect, so you can have ya boosting legion pilot drop a can, steal it and just wait for the fish.
Mission ganking made easy, without having to spilt the loot between 20 guys. Nice.
|
Valheru Adun
CompleXion Industries CompleXion Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 11:59:00 -
[654] - Quote
I'm a casual player. I don't have enough time to invest at the moment. I just mine.
All I want is if some random psycho comes and tries to gank me, that he faces some consequences. Him losing a frigate somehow doesn't measure to a loss of 350 mil ship.
And I don't see how High Sec being actually HIGH SEC, is ruining the Sandbox. It's not called "HIGHSECBUTYOUCANDOEVERYTHINGANYWAYWITHOUTANYKINDOFPUNISHMENT". It's called High sec for a reason, you cannot come and grief people, because you enjoy making them sad, and go away with it. It's that simple. Well right now you can, that's the problem. We have the balls to mine and risk our ships to suicide ganks, but now when there will be real consequences to the people who do that, you don't have the balls to face them. And you call yourself "hardcore" and "pvp players"? What a bunch of losers. |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
214
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 12:23:00 -
[655] - Quote
Valheru Adun wrote:I'm a casual player. I don't have enough time to invest at the moment. I just mine.
All I want is if some random psycho comes and tries to gank me, that he faces some consequences. Him losing a frigate somehow doesn't measure to a loss of 350 mil ship.
And I don't see how High Sec being actually HIGH SEC, is ruining the Sandbox. It's not called "HIGHSECBUTYOUCANDOEVERYTHINGANYWAYWITHOUTANYKINDOFPUNISHMENT". It's called High sec for a reason, you cannot come and grief people, because you enjoy making them sad, and go away with it. It's that simple. Well right now you can, that's the problem. We have the balls to mine and risk our ships to suicide ganks, but now when there will be real consequences to the people who do that, you don't have the balls to face them. And you call yourself "hardcore" and "pvp players"? What a bunch of losers.
Perhaps if you can't keep your 350m ship safe you simply don't deserve to fly it and should stick to Coveters. CCP, fix the forum's image tags http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Tobiaz/sig_complaints.gif Cleaner warbills, anti-memberpadding, no price-shielding large corps: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1141323#post1141323 |
Valheru Adun
CompleXion Industries CompleXion Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 12:57:00 -
[656] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:Valheru Adun wrote:I'm a casual player. I don't have enough time to invest at the moment. I just mine.
All I want is if some random psycho comes and tries to gank me, that he faces some consequences. Him losing a frigate somehow doesn't measure to a loss of 350 mil ship.
And I don't see how High Sec being actually HIGH SEC, is ruining the Sandbox. It's not called "HIGHSECBUTYOUCANDOEVERYTHINGANYWAYWITHOUTANYKINDOFPUNISHMENT". It's called High sec for a reason, you cannot come and grief people, because you enjoy making them sad, and go away with it. It's that simple. Well right now you can, that's the problem. We have the balls to mine and risk our ships to suicide ganks, but now when there will be real consequences to the people who do that, you don't have the balls to face them. And you call yourself "hardcore" and "pvp players"? What a bunch of losers. Perhaps if you can't keep your 350m ship safe you simply don't deserve to fly it and should stick to Coveters.
Of course I can't keep my 350m ship safe. No one is safe in Eve. High sec shouldn't be a safe haven, but players in High sec, miners especially, should be better protected from griefing.
If you want to grief people, grief as much as you like, but be punished for it. If you're not punished, then High sec should be removed from the game and let it all be anarchy. See how long Eve will last then. |
Argus Sorn
Star Frontiers Ignore This.
29
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 13:30:00 -
[657] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: This was always the plan. Team Five-0 is doing the prep work in this release to get the old crimewatch system into a better state. I'm pretty sure at FF we started off by saying that the new design was still at an early stage, and we wanted to get your input on it before anything was committed. Based on that (and other) feedback, we're now looking to start the actual development of the new crimewatch gameplay features once Escalation is out.
Any time frame on when we might see Crimewatch changes then? They really were the best thing announced at FF. I think the faction warfare stuff is just hype and the wardec cost formula is so horrible that those changes only serve to give a big dec shield to large alliances. But the crimewatch changes had people excited and still do. So will we see them this summer? By the end of the year?
Argus |
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
272
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 14:01:00 -
[658] - Quote
bornaa wrote:So you guys have been reading this thread and other threads on this subject? I only want to know do you keep track of problems people are bringing up as you don't respond on them.
Yes, we're trying to keep up with the feedback, even if we're not posting here much. We have a release next week which is taking up all our time right now.
sYnc Vir wrote:So I has question.
Suspects act is shooting at someone but not killing, So in high sec if you shoot at someone but they live you are only a suspect? Or does High sec get the GCC at once deal?
If High sec is insta GCC, I can see people in duel rep megas popping into Low Sec near a mission hub becoming a suspect than hanging out in high sec to see how many idiots they can get to engage in their mission boats. As we should all know, there is always some dumbass who sees target shoot target before thinking target may be bait. Or better yet, just remembered stealing makes you a suspect, so you can have ya boosting legion pilot drop a can, steal it and just wait for the fish.
Mission ganking made easy, without having to spilt the loot between 20 guys. Nice.
I'm not sure why this keeps getting brought up. Something seems to be misunderstood and then requoted. The current plans is that illegally attacking someone in high-sec will get you a Criminal flag, which means CONCORD.
Argus Sorn wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: This was always the plan. Team Five-0 is doing the prep work in this release to get the old crimewatch system into a better state. I'm pretty sure at FF we started off by saying that the new design was still at an early stage, and we wanted to get your input on it before anything was committed. Based on that (and other) feedback, we're now looking to start the actual development of the new crimewatch gameplay features once Escalation is out.
Any time frame on when we might see Crimewatch changes then? They really were the best thing announced at FF. I think the faction warfare stuff is just hype and the wardec cost formula is so horrible that those changes only serve to give a big dec shield to large alliances. But the crimewatch changes had people excited and still do. So will we see them this summer? By the end of the year? Argus I'm glad that this crimewatch work was positively received. The timescale beyond summer isn't firmly fixed yet - we're still planning the release calendar for the next 12 months. It certainly won't be early summer, but I'd hope to be releasing something before the winter. EXPECTATIONS-MANAGEMENT DISCLAIMER: ALL PLANS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE! I DON'T SET THE SCHEDULE "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
cBOLTSON
Star Frontiers Ignore This.
35
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 14:26:00 -
[659] - Quote
So lets get this straight then. As usual CCP shows a lot of stuff at fan fest they have no real intention of ever creating.
This escalation patch is just one great nerf basically.
I have to be honest the wardeck / aggro mechanics changes were actually getting a lot of people intrested. Dont **** us around ccp Ignore This.-á "Were not elitists, were just tired of fail" - The Sorn |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
605
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 15:40:00 -
[660] - Quote
The major thing I have heard that I want clarification on :
If a Suspect is shot, can he defend himself and shoot back?
If not, this plan is very poor. A suspect should always be able to defend themselves.
I understand this invokes a challenge with the "keep it simple" crimewatch rules, but seriously, if someone goes suspect in high sec, they should be able to protect themselves from whomever is trying to kill them.
Thanks.
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
|
Sigurd Sig Hansen
Hedion University Amarr Empire
14
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 18:01:00 -
[661] - Quote
bornaa wrote: So you guys have been reading this thread and other threads on this subject? I only want to know do you keep track of problems people are bringing up as you don't respond on them.
Yeah like the afk grief all of high sec indy corps that other guy came up with a few pages back
Bloodpetal wrote:
The major thing I have heard that I want clarification on :
If a Suspect is shot, can he defend himself and shoot back?
If not, this plan is very poor. A suspect should always be able to defend themselves.
I understand this invokes a challenge with the "keep it simple" crimewatch rules, but seriously, if someone goes suspect in high sec, they should be able to protect themselves from whomever is trying to kill them.
Thanks.
cause Hulks have so many guns on them (if they even survive the attack)
Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
679
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 18:14:00 -
[662] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:
The major thing I have heard that I want clarification on :
If a Suspect is shot, can he defend himself and shoot back?
If not, this plan is very poor. A suspect should always be able to defend themselves.
I understand this invokes a challenge with the "keep it simple" crimewatch rules, but seriously, if someone goes suspect in high sec, they should be able to protect themselves from whomever is trying to kill them.
Thanks.
yep this would be needed. Even though it would require some kind of "agression graph" beside the suspect flags.
edit: A engages suspect S. B repairs A, C repairs B. Is S allowed to attack A,B,C? edit2: is somebody else allowed to help S to defend itself against A, B, C? 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 |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
361
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 20:34:00 -
[663] - Quote
Bienator II wrote: yep this would be needed. Even though it would require some kind of "agression graph" beside the suspect flags.
edit: A engages suspect S. B repairs A, C repairs B. Is S allowed to attack A,B,C? edit2: is somebody else allowed to help S to defend itself against A, B, C?
Just needs one more flag. Assisting a suspect makes you suspect. attacking a suspect makes you a vigilante, who is open to attacks from all suspects (not not other vigilantes or flagless people) FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities. |
Cap Tyrian
Guiding Hand Social Club Dystopia Alliance
20
|
Posted - 2012.04.19 04:20:00 -
[664] - Quote
http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/4221/grayscalefixedit.jpg http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Cat13/Grayscale_Fixed_It.jpg |
Orions Lord
Rapalje
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.19 05:35:00 -
[665] - Quote
The best pvp experience for a lot of peeps is in high sec while killing pirates. This will be gone with the sec hits that we will get. We should be able to shoot back. A lot of players started pvping this way.
I will adapt to all the what ever changes but the sec hit will be a no go for me.
CCP is making things worse the sec hit will be transfered to the carebear. The plans are already on the table. Now they really will stop playing losing a ship and getting sec hits.
New players should be protected but not this way.
No sec hit please it will be bad for everyone. |
Misunderstood Genius
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
31
|
Posted - 2012.04.20 14:46:00 -
[666] - Quote
The Orca needs to be fixed for elite cowardness at its finest. Annoying game mechanics abused by lame campers. Let's say: as long as you under GCC you can't store your ship. |
Josufas
Camp Stodderly
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 17:09:00 -
[667] - Quote
I must admit that i am still a bit confused about all this?
I mean what will actually happen - for instance with can flippers?? - when they flip a my cans, will that make them "suspect" and them making them a target for all in the system?
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
372
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 17:28:00 -
[668] - Quote
Josufas wrote:I must admit that i am still a bit confused about all this?
I mean what will actually happen - for instance with can flippers?? - when they flip a my cans, will that make them "suspect" and them making them a target for all in the system?
Yes. Suspects can be shot by everyone. Exactly what happens next is still a little up in the air. Indications are that they'll be able to return fire though. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities. |
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
56
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 17:32:00 -
[669] - Quote
Personally, I like the idea of 'suspect' status being sticky.
If you help OR attack a suspect, you become a suspect.
This would force people that attack 'suspects' to assume some risk for themselves (beyond simply the calculated risk of attacking 1 flagged target) and allow friends of the 'suspect' to set up ambushes in highsec.
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
372
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 17:36:00 -
[670] - Quote
Buck Futz wrote:Personally, I like the idea of 'suspect' status being sticky.
If you help OR attack a suspect, you become a suspect.
This would force people that attack 'suspects' to assume some risk for themselves (beyond simply the calculated risk of attacking 1 flagged target) and allow friends of the 'suspect' to set up ambushes in highsec.
I'd prefer an intermediate level of flagging, allowing all suspects to attack you, but not regular folks or other people at the intermediate level. Gained when you attack a suspect.
But that's purely personal taste.
Outlaws lose all Concord protection. Vigilantes can have their teeth kicked in by outlaws, but not by Joe Public. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities. |
|
Eternal Error
Exitus Acta Probant
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 18:24:00 -
[671] - Quote
Am I understanding it right that if you flip a can anyone would be able to shoot you for 15 minutes? That's beyond idiotic. |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
644
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 19:06:00 -
[672] - Quote
Eternal Error wrote:Am I understanding it right that if you flip a can anyone would be able to shoot you for 15 minutes? That's beyond idiotic. I dunno... I think it's an opportunity for more combat. Stop being such a p**** and fight. Modules on a ship are typically worth a lot more than whatever your jacking from some highsec tool's can. Go for the mods and the salvage. Sell them for more ammo. Repeat.
|
Syn Kurokaze
Rainbows in the Dark
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 23:06:00 -
[673] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Buck Futz wrote:Personally, I like the idea of 'suspect' status being sticky.
If you help OR attack a suspect, you become a suspect.
This would force people that attack 'suspects' to assume some risk for themselves (beyond simply the calculated risk of attacking 1 flagged target) and allow friends of the 'suspect' to set up ambushes in highsec.
I'd prefer an intermediate level of flagging, allowing all suspects to attack you, but not regular folks or other people at the intermediate level. Gained when you attack a suspect. But that's purely personal taste. Outlaws lose all Concord protection. Vigilantes can have their teeth kicked in by outlaws, but not by Joe Public.
If we assume CCP wants to keep the system simplified with no interpersonal flagging (which I think is a good idea), why not implement an intermediary 'vigilante' flag as others have suggested? I would suggest the vigilante flag is significantly shorter than the suspect flag (3-5 minutes) and remove jumping/docking penalties, so that the counter effects aren't as drastic, but it could create interesting risk vs reward scenarios while encouraging PvP from all types of players.
Innocents attacking a suspect will become a vigilante. Vigilantes can now be attacked by all suspects for a short period (timer is refreshed for every hostile action). Innocents assisting vigilantes gain the vigilante flag (refreshed for every repair cycle, etc).
I can see this being played in so many unexpected ways (including potential baiting by both sides) and I think that's a good thing. If someone wishes to become a vigilante then there is still risk involved but the law is still on their side (no status hits).
This could possibly be extended to cargo ownership so that stealing from a suspect's can will make you a vigilante. It could give the miner a chance to grab his can and warp back to a station for a brief cool-off period, or it could explode in his face as other suspects warp in and kill him.
Fun for everyone (maybe).
|
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
654
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 23:10:00 -
[674] - Quote
ROFL!
|
Cap Tyrian
Guiding Hand Social Club Dystopia Alliance
23
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 11:05:00 -
[675] - Quote
There is more to it.
WARNING: explicit language
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Cat13/Grayscale_Fixed_It_Again.jpg |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
658
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 15:11:00 -
[676] - Quote
hahaha!!! Even better!
(Just a note though... the crimewatch and wardec mechanics changes are totally awesome)
|
Rapala Armiron
DOUBLE IDENTITY BLACK-MARK
6
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 15:17:00 -
[677] - Quote
Syn Kurokaze wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Buck Futz wrote:Personally, I like the idea of 'suspect' status being sticky.
If you help OR attack a suspect, you become a suspect.
This would force people that attack 'suspects' to assume some risk for themselves (beyond simply the calculated risk of attacking 1 flagged target) and allow friends of the 'suspect' to set up ambushes in highsec.
I'd prefer an intermediate level of flagging, allowing all suspects to attack you, but not regular folks or other people at the intermediate level. Gained when you attack a suspect. But that's purely personal taste. Outlaws lose all Concord protection. Vigilantes can have their teeth kicked in by outlaws, but not by Joe Public. If we assume CCP wants to keep the system simplified with no interpersonal flagging (which I think is a good idea), why not implement an intermediary 'vigilante' flag as others have suggested? I would suggest the vigilante flag is significantly shorter than the suspect flag (3-5 minutes) and remove jumping/docking penalties, so that the counter effects aren't as drastic, but it could create interesting risk vs reward scenarios while encouraging PvP from all types of players. Innocents attacking a suspect will become a vigilante. Vigilantes can now be attacked by all suspects for a short period (timer is refreshed for every hostile action). Innocents assisting vigilantes gain the vigilante flag (refreshed for every repair cycle, etc). I can see this being played in so many unexpected ways (including potential baiting by both sides) and I think that's a good thing. If someone wishes to become a vigilante then there is still risk involved but the law is still on their side (no status hits). This could possibly be extended to cargo ownership so that stealing from a suspect's can will make you a vigilante. It could give the miner a chance to grab his can and warp back to a station for a brief cool-off period, or it could explode in his face as other suspects warp in and kill him. Fun for everyone (maybe).
If CCP wants to keep the system simplified with no interpersonal flagging then why not simply have a "i'm available for pvp" flag. Oh wait.....
|
Jonah Gravenstein
171
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 15:22:00 -
[678] - Quote
Tell it to all the whiners, which include those who are going to get more PVP out of it
War hasn't been fought this badly since Olaf the Hairy, High Chief of all the Vikings, accidentally ordered 80,000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside. |
Cap Tyrian
Guiding Hand Social Club Dystopia Alliance
26
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 15:26:00 -
[679] - Quote
Its all good fun, i don't have anything against Grayscale in particular, its just not the first time he was responsible for some questionable things :)
And the crimewatch and wardec changes are far from sophisticated ! |
DaOpa
Static Corp
3
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 17:00:00 -
[680] - Quote
Only Feature I would like to see added in addition to all the other changes is that the new CONCORD should POD anyone who GANKS for extra costs to people who due such things.
DaOpa's EVE Fansite ||Wormhole Database / Wormhole Systems Lookup Tool ||Live Streamer at twitch.tv/daopa |
|
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
659
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 17:50:00 -
[681] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Tell it to all the whiners, which include those who are going to get more PVP out of it I don't follow... people who want more PvP should be happy about the changes. Think of all the kinds of traps you can set! Instead of can baiting now you can noob ship bait! You can go after entire fleets! The possibilities are huge in my view. I've been doing semi-solo lowsec piracy (more cost effective) but now there's incentive to grow the corp and work more with others!
DaOpa wrote:Only Feature I would like to see added in addition to all the other changes is that the new CONCORD should POD anyone who GANKS for extra costs to people who due such things. CONCORD should also check the forums for people who talk about dueing stuff and give them a perma GCC. The problem with suicide ganking is the suicide part. The new crimewatch mechanic is going to open up a whole new world of killing possibilities. I don't see suicide ganking being affected much in practice, though. It's just enforcing rules that have always been there (evading CONCORD etc...) I really thought there would be a tsunami of carebear tears over it but there isn't! I love it when we all agree!
|
Jonah Gravenstein
180
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 18:21:00 -
[682] - Quote
Gogela wrote: I don't follow... people who want more PvP should be happy about the changes. Think of all the kinds of traps you can set! Instead of can baiting now you can noob ship bait! You can go after entire fleets! The possibilities are huge in my view. I've been doing semi-solo lowsec piracy (more cost effective) but now there's incentive to grow the corp and work more with others!
I suppose it depends on your definition of PVP, it's some of those that like to shoot at haulers and miners that are whining. Personally I think that they're no better than carebears like myself, but instead of farming NPCs or rocks they're farming players and calling it risky. War hasn't been fought this badly since Olaf the Hairy, High Chief of all the Vikings, accidentally ordered 80,000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside. |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
661
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 18:54:00 -
[683] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Gogela wrote: I don't follow... people who want more PvP should be happy about the changes. Think of all the kinds of traps you can set! Instead of can baiting now you can noob ship bait! You can go after entire fleets! The possibilities are huge in my view. I've been doing semi-solo lowsec piracy (more cost effective) but now there's incentive to grow the corp and work more with others!
I suppose it depends on your definition of PVP, it's some of those that like to shoot at haulers and miners that are whining. Personally I think that they're no better than carebears like myself, but instead of farming NPCs or rocks they're farming players and calling it risky. I really like how you put that. Player farming. Carebear farming! What a wonderful concept! Haulers are my prey of choice (bigger cargo holds :D )! I'm sure not complaining... but "risk" isn't really how I would describe it. It's an efficiency equation. Average monthly lootz take over average monthly losses = profit. "PvP" as most define it is about the challenge of looking for 'good fights.' Piracy in my view is more about looking for easy money... 'good fights' run contrary to that principal. A "PvPer" carefully fits a ship for combat. A pirate cheaply and asymmetrically fits a ship for a quick in and out easy kill. The risk in PvP is in the initial fight itself. The risk for a pirate is in the time over target.
|
Jonah Gravenstein
181
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 19:06:00 -
[684] - Quote
LOL I don't disagree, piracy is all about the iskies, what gets me is the hisec suicide guys saying that their ship loss is a risk, when in fact it's a business cost because it's a guaranteed outcome.
Carebear Farmers would be an epic corp name though War hasn't been fought this badly since Olaf the Hairy, High Chief of all the Vikings, accidentally ordered 80,000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside. |
Syn Kurokaze
Rainbows in the Dark
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 19:25:00 -
[685] - Quote
Rapala Armiron wrote:Syn Kurokaze wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Buck Futz wrote:Personally, I like the idea of 'suspect' status being sticky.
If you help OR attack a suspect, you become a suspect.
This would force people that attack 'suspects' to assume some risk for themselves (beyond simply the calculated risk of attacking 1 flagged target) and allow friends of the 'suspect' to set up ambushes in highsec.
I'd prefer an intermediate level of flagging, allowing all suspects to attack you, but not regular folks or other people at the intermediate level. Gained when you attack a suspect. But that's purely personal taste. Outlaws lose all Concord protection. Vigilantes can have their teeth kicked in by outlaws, but not by Joe Public. If we assume CCP wants to keep the system simplified with no interpersonal flagging (which I think is a good idea), why not implement an intermediary 'vigilante' flag as others have suggested? I would suggest the vigilante flag is significantly shorter than the suspect flag (3-5 minutes) and remove jumping/docking penalties, so that the counter effects aren't as drastic, but it could create interesting risk vs reward scenarios while encouraging PvP from all types of players. Innocents attacking a suspect will become a vigilante. Vigilantes can now be attacked by all suspects for a short period (timer is refreshed for every hostile action). Innocents assisting vigilantes gain the vigilante flag (refreshed for every repair cycle, etc). I can see this being played in so many unexpected ways (including potential baiting by both sides) and I think that's a good thing. If someone wishes to become a vigilante then there is still risk involved but the law is still on their side (no status hits). This could possibly be extended to cargo ownership so that stealing from a suspect's can will make you a vigilante. It could give the miner a chance to grab his can and warp back to a station for a brief cool-off period, or it could explode in his face as other suspects warp in and kill him. Fun for everyone (maybe). If CCP wants to keep the system simplified with no interpersonal flagging then why not simply have a "i'm available for pvp" flag. Oh wait.....
How does that relate to a pvp flag? A vigilante system would create more opportunities for gank on both sides while remaining fairly logical. In the current implementation, the people who exploit the convoluted aggro system are mostly miner farmers that rely on concord to keep them safe from most countermeasures.
Your argument is a vague association with WoW without any critical analysis. None of the people against this system have admitted that it's concord that allows them to play the way they do, yet criticize others whose play-style is shielded by it. |
Sigurd Sig Hansen
Hedion University Amarr Empire
142
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 16:42:00 -
[686] - Quote
Velicia Tuoro wrote:
New "suspect" flag - Minor crimes. Anyone can shoot you without penalty. - Flipping a can for example - Shooting someone makes you a suspect (I think) - Anyone assisting a suspect becomes a suspect - Not sure if gate guns will attack a suspect. Undecided yet.
Criminal Flag - Is like current GCC - Killing someone makes you a criminal - Some sort of buff/tweak for concord? Insta-death, rather than ships - Appear to have not considered high sec delays due to system security status. - Considering warp scram ray, then death ray in x secs afterwards.
Safety for Suspect/Criminal flags - Sound not as annoying as previous ones. i.e. ganker can easily flip it off before ganking.
Sec Status - Kill someone while a suspect will only take you to -5 - Pod killing will take you below -5 to -10 - Killing someone with positive +5 gives you hit - Killing someone with a negative sec gives you bonus - Hand in tags for sec boost up to +5. Less effect if you are -5. - Fixing rat spawns after downtime. - -5 can be killed without penalty in low sec. - Something about -5 in high sec being pursued.
Killmails - Adding "battle reports", stats and details. Who has repped who etc - More data in the API. - Killmails for self destructing - Killmails for reinforcing structures
Improve UI - All timers visible - All 100% accurate.
How is there not more howling QQ about this lol
Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game |
Sativana
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 20:58:00 -
[687] - Quote
This is probably what many people would consider to be slightly off-topic but I feel it kinda needs to be said here. There are many (in my opinion, too many) people in this thread making what, to me, come across as pretty self-righteous posts talking about how the proposed changes to can-flipping and the like are good as they protect we newbies in this crazy game we call EVE.
Has it occurred to ANYONE in this thread, devs included, that we newbies may have come to EVE from whatever game we played previously precisely because it IS a cruel, unforgiving universe that we are given the opportunity to run free in?
I will hold my hands up and say...
"Hi, my name is Sativana and I am an ex WoW player."
Note the "ex" part. I got sick of WoW getting easier and easier and Blizzard constantly telling me I must be a moron by perpetually "dumbing down" their game "for me." Yea, thanks for that Blizzard.
Maybe, just maybe, we newbies are here because we seek a change from all that, a challenge, if you like. I know I will make mistakes along the way but they will be MY mistakes and I'd kinda like the freedom to make them, if it's all the same to you. It is noble and kinda sweet that many of you are getting on your high horses to protect me from "the evil scumbags" but I can only respond honestly and so to you I say...
"F*** off, I'm an adult. Don't protect me, I don't need it." |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
394
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 21:00:00 -
[688] - Quote
Sativana wrote:"F*** off, I'm an adult. Don't protect me, I don't need it."
Then turn off all your safeties
Protection (other than concord retaliation) removed.
FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities. |
Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
304
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 22:58:00 -
[689] - Quote
This death ray sounds 1) stupid and 2) story line breaking..
Police have ships, they come to your rescue, death rays? Come from where? The sky?
I swear, CCP are ruining eve each patch with stupid things like this..
A death ray feels more like Unreal Tournament and less space ships.
Game gets less appealing every year it seems, golden goose is cooked, now to add fries. |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
722
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 23:34:00 -
[690] - Quote
Sativana wrote:This is probably what many people would consider to be slightly off-topic but I feel it kinda needs to be said here. There are many (in my opinion, too many) people in this thread making what, to me, come across as pretty self-righteous posts talking about how the proposed changes to can-flipping and the like are good as they protect we newbies in this crazy game we call EVE.
Has it occurred to ANYONE in this thread, devs included, that we newbies may have come to EVE from whatever game we played previously precisely because it IS a cruel, unforgiving universe that we are given the opportunity to run free in?
I will hold my hands up and say...
"Hi, my name is Sativana and I am an ex WoW player."
Note the "ex" part. I got sick of WoW getting easier and easier and Blizzard constantly telling me I must be a moron by perpetually "dumbing down" their game "for me." Yea, thanks for that Blizzard.
Maybe, just maybe, we newbies are here because we seek a change from all that, a challenge, if you like. I know I will make mistakes along the way but they will be MY mistakes and I'd kinda like the freedom to make them, if it's all the same to you. It is noble and kinda sweet that many of you are getting on your high horses to protect me from "the evil scumbags" but I can only respond honestly and so to you I say...
"F*** off, I'm an adult. Don't protect me, I don't need it." If any newbie is looking for a good a** kicking they needn't look far. I think some minimal protection is fine. Figuring out any part of the game for a nub is plenty challenging in and of itself. ...and really isn't the lack of game knowledge precisely what defines a noob? I've played for a while but if I started a new account I'd be making pretty fat sums almost immediately. It takes nothing to ninja loot. I mean, how long does it take to fit T1 stabs on a destroyer? If they are bopping around in an ibis in a noob system leave them the hell alone. They will be introduced to the meat grinder in short order anyway...
|
|
Jack Carrigan
Order of the Shadow The Revenant Order
628
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 07:33:00 -
[691] - Quote
Should I get the torches and pitchforks now, or later?
Because I predict a witch hunt/damned near riot situation approaching with these changes. "War is not measured in terms of who wins or loses, who is right or wrong.-á It is measured in terms of who survives." |
leich
Nocturnal Romance Fall From Heaven
27
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 10:09:00 -
[692] - Quote
These changes seem like waste of time to me.
Suspect flag -Not arsed either way with this one but dont see the point in it.
Criminal flag -Along as it stays as is ie GCC should be fine. Death ray is the stupidest idea i have ever heard. Concord should be slowed down not sped up.
Sec status changes are again retarded_ and tags for sec status is the reverse of what the game needs sec changes should be permanent to force people to live in low and null.
Killmails
battle reports are awesome. Kill mail for self destructing and reinforcing structures is again a daft idea. if your having problems with people self destructing take more fucking_ damage you newbs.
So for the extensive list of daft idea's
CCP should implement only the battle reports.
CCP should also revert the mechanics of agression to how they were pre incurssion. I want more Concordoken. |
knulla
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 10:13:00 -
[693] - Quote
implement most of these changes please. |
Adrenalinemax
Perkone Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 11:20:00 -
[694] - Quote
You do know there are places in the game that NONE of these rules apply....well, except the 1 minutes dock/jump timer.
That's right, 0.0
If you want to PvP go there, bring all the neutral RR alts you want, we will gladly shoot them all
Flags are meaningless in a system where everyone is a criminal.
One other benefit, NO sec status to worry about, you can pod anyone and everyone and stay at +5
get your lazy asses out of high sec and PvP where it is free (no wardec fees) and people have the welcome mat out (just because the welcome mat has skull/crossbones on it doesn't scare YOU does it??) |
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
798
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 23:01:00 -
[695] - Quote
Any updates on Crimewatch?
|
White Syns
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 03:03:00 -
[696] - Quote
Sorry if this has already been addressed, but I got bored of reading everything at page 10.
One way to avoid abusing the system of gaining sec by killing -5 and below could be to implement several -50% triggers.
All of the below apply to killed within 24 hrs, or whatever is deemed "balanced," and would be applied multiplicatively (is that a word?): -Same pilot (-50%) -Same account (-50%) -Same Corporation (-25%) -Same Alliance (-25%)
So killing the same pilot bears 3-4 burdens: -50% for the same pilot, -50% for same account, -25% for same corporation, and -25% for same alliance (if their corporation is in an alliance). That would leave:
Sec_Gain * 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.75 = 18.75% of Sec_Gain or Sec _Gain * 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.75 * 0.75 = 14.0625% of Sec_Gain
Killing one from the same account gives 37.5% or 28.125%, same corporation gives 75% or 56.25%, and same alliance gives 75%. Numbers are adjustable as needed, but if you can have a way to keep track of these numbers so that killing a third alliance member is Sec_Gain * 0.75 * 0.75, the numbers would fall off fast enough to make it not worth the effort I think, especially if the Sec_Gain is not that large a number to start. |
Yonis Kador
Transstellar Alchemy
113
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 07:53:00 -
[697] - Quote
Without a finalized plan, for the most part, these Crimewatch changes seem pretty sound. As long as high sec players have an option for consensual pvp ...maybe even a popup......Soandso has invited you to consensual pvp....do you accept y/n? .... the rest makes perfect sense. If I'm walking down the street and I see some dude kick an old lady in the face and steal her purse, I should be able to chase that guy down, make a citizen's arrest, and get her purse back without consequence. This won't end high-sec crime - and as criminals often do, I'm sure people are already working to circumvent the new rules - it's just providing realistic consequences for a place termed "high security."
It's noteworthy that for some pirates, who wear their -10 sec stat as a badge of honor, the only way to get a -10 now will be to mass pod non war targets. Great...
But I absolutely appreciate the extra hit dished out if the target has a +5 sec status. Plotting against the President rightfully carries a much stiffer penalty than plotting against a crackhead you find living in your garage. That makes sense. But really I think they can go even further with this concept. I'd like to see this idea balanced and expanded into a second layer making faction standings also relevant.
Currently faction standings are almost a pointless game mechanic. You need 8.0 with one npc corp for jump clones, 6.67 or so with one for tax-free refining, and that's about it. Following the recent changes involving agent consolidation, accessing lvl 4s is pretty easy now...since if you accomplish one of the two other tasks, you're already over the mark.
I'd like to see faction standing play a much more integral role in game. The first thing we do in EVE is choose a race but our choice plays almost no part in most people's adventure. Your relationship with your government should influence virtually everything imo. Got a 10.0 faction standing with Caldari? If you get ganked anywhere in Caldari space, Concord arrival time should be significantly decreased since they're rushing to help a VIP. I envision faction standing being a factor in calculating taxes, trades, police response time, sec status hits, and if you want to get crafty, maybe even warp speed and/or an ehp bonus when in favored space.
These bonuses/penalties could also be different in each faction's space. If different wormholes can create similar bonuses/penalties, I'm sure it could be explained as some racial technological advancement. I just think it would add another layer of complexity to the dynamism of high sec and maybe give players a real reason to run cosmos, epic arcs, etc. It would be great if this was done in concert with new mission content but maybe these things could be revamped together while changes are being made.
I'm not that upset to see CCP making jetcan theft more difficult since new players seem to be disproportionately affected. Miners call it an exploit, but as I've already pointed out, the cans themselves also seem like an exploit. It makes no sense to me that a frigate with a 100m3 cargo hold can create an object that can hold 25x that amount. The can created would be larger than the ship. Jetcan volume should be directly proportional to the cargobay size of the ship that created it imo. Maybe doing it this way would even make the value of losses commensurate with the ship type doing the canning.
It seems like the only two options CCP has to motivate players in New Eden is by using carrots or sticks. Once they're done giving pirates the high-sec stick, I'd like to see some emphasis put on a low-sec carrot. Players need some kind of encouragement to venture into low beyond increased financial gain. That's already there. More won't do the trick. A lot of the risk-takers in game are already there. So how do you get those less-inclined to take risks to venture out? Maybe an ehp bonus might be helpful. +15 percent in low and +25 in null? I dunno. The percentages aren't important. The ehp bonus keeps coming to mind because it would afford high seccers added security they think they need to venutre into low and conveniently, it would also make pvp more challenging for the guys already out there.
Anyway, I read through most of this topic, got a headache, and these were my initial reactions...
Yonis Kador |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
211
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 09:25:00 -
[698] - Quote
I for one wish the half arssed crime watch was implemented befor the half arsedUnified Inventory system was EVE residents: 5% WH; 8% Lowsec; 15% Nullsec; 72% Highsec.CSM 7: 1 highsec resident out of 14.CSM demographics vs EVE demographics, nothing to worry about... |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
640
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 09:37:00 -
[699] - Quote
Yonis Kador wrote:Without a finalized plan, for the most part, these Crimewatch changes seem pretty sound. As long as high sec players have an option for consensual pvp ...maybe even a popup......Soandso has invited you to consensual pvp....do you accept y/n? .... the rest makes perfect sense. If I'm walking down the street and I see some dude kick an old lady in the face and steal her purse, I should be able to chase that guy down, make a citizen's arrest, and get her purse back without consequence. This won't end high-sec crime - and as criminals often do, I'm sure people are already working to circumvent the new rules - it's just providing realistic consequences for a place termed "high security."
It's noteworthy that for some pirates, who wear their -10 sec stat as a badge of honor, the only way to get a -10 now will be to mass pod non war targets. Great...
But I absolutely appreciate the extra hit dished out if the target has a +5 sec status. Plotting against the President rightfully carries a much stiffer penalty than plotting against a crackhead you find living in your garage. That makes sense. But really I think they can go even further with this concept. I'd like to see this idea balanced and expanded into a second layer making faction standings also relevant.
Currently faction standings are almost a pointless game mechanic. You need 8.0 with one npc corp for jump clones, 6.67 or so with one for tax-free refining, and that's about it. Following the recent changes involving agent consolidation, accessing lvl 4s is pretty easy now...since if you accomplish one of the two other tasks, you're already over the mark.
I'd like to see faction standing play a much more integral role in game. The first thing we do in EVE is choose a race but our choice plays almost no part in most people's adventure. Your relationship with your government should influence virtually everything imo. Got a 10.0 faction standing with Caldari? If you get ganked anywhere in Caldari space, Concord arrival time should be significantly decreased since they're rushing to help a VIP. I envision faction standing being a factor in calculating taxes, trades, police response time, sec status hits, and if you want to get crafty, maybe even warp speed and/or an ehp bonus when in favored space.
These bonuses/penalties could also be different in each faction's space. If different wormholes can create similar bonuses/penalties, I'm sure it could be explained as some racial technological advancement. I just think it would add another layer of complexity to the dynamism of high sec and maybe give players a real reason to run cosmos, epic arcs, etc. It would be great if this was done in concert with new mission content but maybe these things could be revamped together while changes are being made.
I'm not that upset to see CCP making jetcan theft more difficult since new players seem to be disproportionately affected. Miners call it an exploit, but as I've already pointed out, the cans themselves also seem like an exploit. It makes no sense to me that a frigate with a 100m3 cargo hold can create an object that can hold 25x that amount. The can created would be larger than the ship. Jetcan volume should be directly proportional to the cargobay size of the ship that created it imo. Maybe doing it this way would even make the value of losses commensurate with the ship type doing the canning.
It seems like the only two options CCP has to motivate players in New Eden is by using carrots or sticks. Once they're done giving pirates the high-sec stick, I'd like to see some emphasis put on a low-sec carrot. Players need some kind of encouragement to venture into low beyond increased financial gain. That's already there. More won't do the trick. A lot of the risk-takers in game are already there. So how do you get those less-inclined to take risks to venture out? Maybe an ehp bonus might be helpful. +15 percent in low and +25 in null? I dunno. The percentages aren't important. The ehp bonus keeps coming to mind because it would afford high seccers added security they think they need to venutre into low and conveniently, it would also make pvp more challenging for the guys already out there.
Anyway, I read through most of this topic, got a headache, and these were my initial reactions...
Yonis Kador I started typing a serious response to this post, but no. I just can't do it. I'm speechless.
Not in a good way. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Yonis Kador
Transstellar Alchemy
113
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 10:10:00 -
[700] - Quote
Speechless? Why so?
Whether you agree or disagree, it's just an opinion.
I even stated it was my first impressions.
If your opinion is that we should abolish high sec and disband Concord so you are free to gank weaponless miners, canflip noobs, and pillage with impunity like barbarian raiders, then that's yours. Just point me in the direction of WoW and use the words Hello Kitty Online somewhere in there.
As with all things, enjoyment is a relative term.
YK |
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
640
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 10:24:00 -
[701] - Quote
Yonis Kador wrote:Speechless? Why so?
Whether you agree or disagree, it's just an opinion.
I even stated it was my first impressions.
If your opinion is that we should abolish high sec and disband Concord so you are free to gank weaponless miners, canflip noobs, and pillage with impunity like barbarian raiders, then that's yours. Just point me in the direction of WoW and use the words Hello Kitty Online somewhere in there.
As with all things, enjoyment is a relative term.
YK First of all, don't put words in my mouth. I never said any of those things, and you know it.
Now, as far as my disagreement, it has mostly to do with the fact that all of your ideas and suggestions so audaciously spit in the face of everything this game has been, and has stood for, for such a long amount of time. PvP flags? Unprecedented bonuses for uninvolved carebears, including significant ship stat bonuses? Calling can theft an actual exploit? EHP bonuses for high-sec dwellers who venture out into low/null to make pvp more "challenging" for the locals? All of this reads like the script to a terrible dream; a nightmare I want to wake up from.
If this was a troll, congratulations; my blood is literally boiling. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Yonis Kador
Transstellar Alchemy
113
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 11:05:00 -
[702] - Quote
I know you didn't. Those kinds of comments just seem to be par for the course. And hey, you should really aim for a slow simmer and save the boil for someone who means you ill.
I didn't spit in anyone's face audaciously or otherwise, and if you care to scroll, I wrote canflipping has been called an exploit. Not by me. If you care to visit the thread in Features, you'll see that I defended it and took the miner who said so to task. And I didn't say increased ehp to make pvp more challenging for low sec inhabitants. I suggested this magic feather might get Dumbo to fly. That more ehp in low sec would, in fact, make pvp more challenging was a secondary consideration.
I'd tend to agree that this is a departure from the way things have been, but I don't view these changes as some kind of heresy. My ideas weren't crafted to offend anyone. I just think its important to set up a system that's balanced and to incentivize low sec in a way other than financial considerations. That hasn't gotten the job done. It's time to try a different kind of carrot. The alternative is to increase the stick in high sec and as that's where new players get their feet wet, that's not going to boost player retention. It's also clear from the FF presentation that this isn't where CCP plans to take high sec either.
YK
EDIT: And just as a final point of consideration, the regional/faction bonuses I suggested wouldn't be carebear specific. They would apply to all players irrespective of profession or sec status. |
Zelda Wei
New Horizon Trade Exchange
152
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 19:31:00 -
[703] - Quote
The Russian forums are getting very quite recently |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1625
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 19:43:00 -
[704] - Quote
Yonis Kador wrote:Without a finalized plan, for the most part, these Crimewatch changes seem pretty sound. As long as high sec players have an option for consensual pvp ...maybe even a popup......Soandso has invited you to consensual pvp....do you accept y/n? .... the rest makes perfect sense. If I'm walking down the street and I see some dude kick an old lady in the face and steal her purse, I should be able to chase that guy down, make a citizen's arrest, and get her purse back without consequence. This won't end high-sec crime - and as criminals often do, I'm sure people are already working to circumvent the new rules - it's just providing realistic consequences for a place termed "high security." They're going to dumb down aggression mechanics to save people who won't bother to learn them. That's NOT a good thing. It will dilute what is presently a rich game universe because CCP prefers to reinvent the wheel rather than write good documentation on it.
Yonis Kador wrote: The first thing we do in EVE is choose a race but our choice plays almost no part in most people's adventure. And I'm glad of that. I'd hate to be affected two years in by MY VERY FIRST CHOICE IN THE GAME. "What, you chose the wrong race when you were completely new to the game? Too bad!"
Yonis Kador wrote: Your relationship with your government should influence virtually everything imo. Got a 10.0 faction standing with Caldari? If you get ganked anywhere in Caldari space, Concord arrival time should be significantly decreased since they're rushing to help a VIP. I envision faction standing being a factor in calculating taxes, trades, police response time, sec status hits, and if you want to get crafty, maybe even warp speed and/or an ehp bonus when in favored space.
Only if such a standing were to making you hated by the Gallente and unable to enter their space.
Yonis Kador wrote:Players need some kind of encouragement to venture into low beyond increased financial gain. That's already there.
It is? Lowsec is more profitable than high? Really? Maybe if I were running around empty lowsec without fear of pirates, sure. But having to sit cloaked in a safe spot waiting for a roam to give up on finding you and pass by sort of eats into the profit margin. Highsec has a much better isk/hour ratio.
Yonis Kador wrote: So how do you get those less-inclined to take risks to venture out? Maybe an ehp bonus might be helpful. +15 percent in low and +25 in null? Everyone would have it. What would be the point? It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
799
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 20:27:00 -
[705] - Quote
Does anyone know if they plan to remove the minerals you can refine commander tags for when the ability to use tags to up sec status is live?
|
Nikodem Oskold
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.08 20:11:00 -
[706] - Quote
I think that hi-sec should be unpleasant for criminals as much as possible - add all players possibility to warp in instantly to all outlaws and criminals in the system (like in fleet), so it will make criminal's life in hi-sec more interesting and allow PvP for many players with CONCORD's blessing (including pod-killing worst criminals) .
Also this "civilian militia" once attack criminal/outlaw shouldn't being aggred / have kill rights by the rest of the fleet / corporation / alliance until other individuals try help him - this is problem between law and criminals otherwise system lost his punishment aspect and will be used to lure anyone who want to help keep Hi-sec safe and make them easy prey.
Other thing, security status should have gain/loss rate modifier working by some period of time, when u commit a crime then next crime committed until modifiers ain't lifted security status penalty will be largest and gain/loss modifier increased (they stackable).
With increased punishment of outlaws/ criminal's should also exist some kind of redemption for criminals (this is a game anyway). For example - after a month of not doing anything wrong (not committing a crime or helping criminals) he could try use some kind of Parole, after using it u regain neutral security status under condition of not being flagged by period of 2-3 months. If guy break deal he regain his old status and he could try after end of term + one month. |
Wilma Shakespear
The Scope Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 05:26:00 -
[707] - Quote
Any ETA when its coming!?
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1088
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 05:52:00 -
[708] - Quote
Adrenalinemax wrote:get your lazy asses out of high sec and PvP where it is free (no wardec fees) and people have the welcome mat out (just because the welcome mat has skull/crossbones on it doesn't scare YOU does it??) The welcome mat also has a Warp Disruption Field around it... oh dear. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
841
|
Posted - 2012.07.04 03:27:00 -
[709] - Quote
Hay. I haven't heard thing one about this in a while. Is this going into the Winter expansion or not?
|__| Yes, Crimewatch will be overhauled for the winter expansion.
|__| No, Crimewatch has been put on indefinate hold for POS's and seemingly insurmountable technical hurdles. This thread is now about "pillow talk" and vaporware
Can anyone check one of those ^
|
Ripblade Falconpunch
State War Academy Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2012.07.04 03:53:00 -
[710] - Quote
Gogela wrote:Hay. I haven't heard thing one about this in a while. Is this going into the Winter expansion or not? |__| Yes, Crimewatch will be overhauled for the winter expansion.|__| No, Crimewatch has been put on indefinate hold for POS's and seemingly insurmountable technical hurdles. This thread is now about "pillow talk" and vaporwareCan anyone check one of those ^
You forgot this one:
[xx] Nobody cares. |
|
Thurken
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2012.07.04 04:47:00 -
[711] - Quote
"- Killing someone with a negative sec gives you bonus"
#This will never make it. It is very abusable. |
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
842
|
Posted - 2012.07.05 20:13:00 -
[712] - Quote
Ripblade Falconpunch wrote:Gogela wrote:Hay. I haven't heard thing one about this in a while. Is this going into the Winter expansion or not? |__| Yes, Crimewatch will be overhauled for the winter expansion.|__| No, Crimewatch has been put on indefinate hold for POS's and seemingly insurmountable technical hurdles. This thread is now about "pillow talk" and vaporwareCan anyone check one of those ^ You forgot this one: [xx] Nobody cares. People checking that box aren't making good use of their brain and I'm uninterested in their answer. Crimewatch is involved in everything I consider meaningful in high and low security space. It's pretty important. Maybe you don't notice it when you mine veldspar though...
|
Ice Pirateer
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2012.07.08 20:56:00 -
[713] - Quote
Updates? Pirateer Investments: Coming SoonGäó |
Grinder2210
Kaotic Intentions Cold Hand of Shadow
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 12:33:00 -
[714] - Quote
So the Goal here over all it to make it 100% harder to be nasty in high sec while makeing it even easyer to live produce mission etc without being unconcentualy engaged |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: [one page] |