| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Price Check Aisle3
155
   |
Posted - 2012.07.17 16:31:00 -
[1] - Quote
Reading through this thread, you have to wonder if the punishment fits the crime. Gank somebody and CONCORD blows up your ship. Steal someone's **** and now everybody in EVE can shoot you. Right now it is up to the victim of theft to decide whether to punish the perp, after CW 2.0 it is up to EVE.
Seems ganking will be a far safer form of crime...
- Karl Hobb IATS |
Price Check Aisle3
155
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 16:55:00 -
[2] - Quote
Tippia wrote:So a 100% chance of being blown up automatically by the game itself and the complete inability to do anything to prevent or delay it is Gǣfar saferGǥ than having a less-than-100% chance of players chasing you (and a less-than-100% chance of them killing you on top of that) and having every and all means available at your disposal to prevent and delay this chance of destructionGǪ
Most certainly. I can control the risk during ganking since I know exactly when i will blow up. I can't control other players and when they'll blow me up under the new CW rules if I'm stealing ****. Furthermore, if I'm stealing **** I've likely got a cargohold full of stuff that I'll eventually want to sell and I'm not particularly looking forward to "surprisesecks". Under the old rules the victim was responsible for meting out the punishment; under the new rules anyone can.
This definitely makes "ninja-looting" a much more dangerous profession.
Under the new CW rules, will a suspect be poddable in HS without CONCORD interference? How about a felon?
Tippia wrote:I don't think I particularly share your view on relative safety.
You don't have to. That's why we have discussions like this.
- Karl Hobb IATS |
Price Check Aisle3
155
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 17:19:00 -
[3] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Sure you can. You pick your time and place and ensure that you have a good hand-off in place to make the loot safe. Your focus will be to have a good get-away plan so you can safe up and cloak.
I'm not arguing that it will no longer be possible (or fun or require more skill), simply that it will be more dangerous. Does the punishment actually fit the crime? Under the current rules we have a sort of "eye for an eye" thing going. Under the new rules, stealing will be punishable by anyone, rather than the victim.
- Karl Hobb IATS |
Price Check Aisle3
155
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 17:37:00 -
[4] - Quote
Gogela wrote:This is going to make very difficult for ninja looters in lowsec, that's for sure. I see the sun starting to set on the ninja looting profession.
In low-sec?
In high-sec, eh... I still think most people won't even bother except for a few dudes who will camp the docking rings in major missioning hubs and those butt-hurt idiots who get mad at salvagers (which shouldn't trigger a flag anyway...) I'll definitely still do it when I'm bored of whatever else I've been up to.
Gogela wrote:Ganking for profit will likely be out. Ganking in general... unless the motivation is like that of the goons trying to influence the isotope market or something, but that will require significant numbers of players to achieve. Maybe it would be cool if having a vigilante flag gave people with a sec status below 0 the right to shoot them there could still be fighting in highsec.
Ganking for fun is still in, lol. Oh Yeah's vigilante/criminal flags thing sounds pretty cool for pick-up PvP but I don't think it's a good system for actual punishment of crimes and would end up being a bit too "griefy" in the end. Who knows...
I honestly think CW 2.0 is a case of CCP going "What would be the easiest way to do this in code" and then doing it, rather than exploring what constitutes a crime and what the appropriate punishment should be.
- Karl Hobb IATS |
Price Check Aisle3
156
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 18:30:00 -
[5] - Quote
Gogela wrote:Yah... me too... but we'll loose more ships. Lowsec is better for ninja looting because you loot player ships, which are way better than NPCs. I don't even know why people loot missions and stuff... not very good isk for the effort even under the current mechanics. I've tried it and was too bored and too broke. ...but yes the Crimewatch mechanic is very important in lowsec too...
I'll have to try looting player wrecks in low-sec sometime. I'm no stranger to low-sec, that just never occured to me, lol. High-sec mission thieving is definitely hit-or-miss. The fun comes from the reactions you get.
Gogela wrote:Everyone I know who actually ganks for fun in highsec is pretty rich, imho. They are a minority of gankers. You may play with a bunch of people that do it for fun, but I'll wager all of your friends are doing pretty well in ISK terms too. Most of the people I know who gank in general are doing it for profit. Yah they have fun, but that's not their main objective. The loot is the imperative goal.
Good point, I missed (ignored, maybe?) the "for profit" part.
- Karl Hobb IATS |
Price Check Aisle3
156
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 20:03:00 -
[6] - Quote
Eh, the way I see it crime is getting punished far more than it should in order to make programming easier, when what CCP should be doing is examining what could be considered a crime and what the appropriate punishment should be, and then fielding the proposal to the players who can poke enormous holes in it until something satisfactory is reached. As Gogela points out the changes currently on the table are far wider-reaching than we're currently imagining, affecting gate-gun aggro mechanics (amirite?) in low-sec for looters, for instance. Who knows what else will get munged up.
Unfortunately it seems CCP just thinks "oh, that's an edge case" is a valid answer.
- Karl Hobb IATS |
Price Check Aisle3
157
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 21:55:00 -
[7] - Quote
Tyranis Marcus wrote:Neither was the guy you got that cargohold full of **** from. That's kind of the point.
So you think an appropriate punishment for me stealing something is everyone being able to shoot me? If I steal like a few little bits of mission goo I should potentially lose my ship?
Sounds like maybe CCP is taking a very dim (or extremely simplistic) view of crime.
- Karl Hobb IATS |
Price Check Aisle3
157
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 22:17:00 -
[8] - Quote
Tippia wrote:You already run that risk.
From the person I stole the stuff from.
- Karl Hobb IATS |
Price Check Aisle3
158
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 22:46:00 -
[9] - Quote
Disregard That wrote:I like how Greyscale's solution is to give the Crimewatch RR the same status as the criminal.
Greyscale's solution seems to be "whatever's easiest to program", which isn't always the best approach.
- Karl Hobb IATS |
Price Check Aisle3
158
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 13:43:00 -
[10] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:Yeah especially when you blow them up using in mission mechanics, they come after you in a billion isk fit ship thinking they have kill rights and CONCORD reminds them they dont. THOSE reactions are
...priceless...
I was actually talking about the dumbshit things they say, but if you prefer blowing idiots up, go for it.
- Karl Hobb IATS |
Price Check Aisle3
158
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 02:29:00 -
[11] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Gogela wrote:How would your system work? I still propose limited engagements GÇö temporary wardecs between ad-hoc groups added and subtracted from on the fly. snip
This is far better than the system currently on the table.
- Karl Hobb IATS |
Price Check Aisle3
158
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 03:14:00 -
[12] - Quote
Gogela wrote:Price Check Aisle3 wrote:This is far better than the system currently on the table. Lets refrain from massaging crotches until we iron it out. One f*** up and the whole mechanic crumbles.
Any system that deals with limited engagements is far preferable to something like "If you steal something everyone can shoot you". No one's sucking anyone's **** quite yet.
- Karl Hobb IATS |
| |
|