| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
235
   |
Posted - 2012.07.16 19:39:00 -
[1] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:Tippia wrote:Rara Yariza wrote:Now this proposed change, to a system where CCP says that this moral behavior/gameplay is 'bad' or 'good' and then unbalances situations to aid one side ('the good guys') removes that equal playing field. The GÇ£badGÇ¥ and GÇ£goodGÇ¥ morality is nothing new, so that's not a change, and with the idea mentioned in a later post GÇö that all neutral support is treated equally GÇö the imbalance is gone as well. The inequality i was talking about is where you are put in an imbalanced situation by explicit mechanics rather than by the players. The morality is certainly new; mechanics at the moment punish actual destruction of another players ship or pod in highsec due to making the game workable not due to core philosophy. The morality of stealing isn't, as it is up to the players to punish, as it should be.
It would still be up to the players to punish the act. It just widens the range of players that can do so for a particular transgression. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
235
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 21:01:00 -
[2] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:The concept of 'good' or 'bad' is something new.
Considering standing loss consequences for certain actions leading to not being welcome in certain areas of space I'd say that yes, there is and has for some time been a concept of "good" and "bad" in the game. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
235
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 23:08:00 -
[3] - Quote
Question:
Since engaging a suspect causes that suspect to be able to engage you in return it would appear that 1 to 1 flagging is still a part of crimewatch 2.0. Is it not possible for logistics and other forms of RR aiding the person attacking the suspect to simply inherit the same personal aggressions the person they are helping has? It seems like it wouldn't over-penalize RR while still leaving room for retaliation without adding something all too different for the aggression mechanics already described.
Or am I misunderstanding how it's intended to work from the start? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
235
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 23:19:00 -
[4] - Quote
Gogela wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Question:
Since engaging a suspect causes that suspect to be able to engage you in return it would appear that 1 to 1 flagging is still a part of crimewatch 2.0. Is it not possible for logistics and other forms of RR aiding the person attacking the suspect to simply inherit the same personal aggressions the person they are helping has? It seems like it wouldn't over-penalize RR while still leaving room for retaliation without adding something all too different for the aggression mechanics already described.
Or am I misunderstanding how it's intended to work from the start? As I understand it there's a technical problem with that... something about tracking who can agress who in more complex scenarios. CCP Greyscale talked about it in another thread. ...can't find link atm
Not knowing the ins and outs of the system, if it was possible to have a person inherit a strait exact copy of another persons aggression then that would solve the issue, but it they have already ruled that out for technical reasons, then yeah, I guess not. But it doesn't seem to much different than the mechanism able to make it so a person who has a suspect flag can only shoot people who aggress them in theory. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
235
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 23:39:00 -
[5] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Tippia wrote:Ziranda Hakuli wrote:Crime Watch from my understanding and a few others was to be ONE of the big highlights for Escalation. Big frackin let down. WeeeellGǪ they gave us some advance warning that it wouldn't be ready at that time. As for your ideas about RR, the first one will already happen (just like now), and the latter one is a bit OTT GÇö instead, the RR will get a suspect flag and be free-for-all so you (and everyone else) can just blow him up. Also, he won't be able to play docking games. Except that you gain the exact same aggression flag when you do something expressly legal like shooting at Outlaws or Rats.
How will outlaws be handled? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
235
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 23:42:00 -
[6] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Since engaging a suspect causes that suspect to be able to engage you in return it would appear that 1 to 1 flagging is still a part of crimewatch 2.0. Is it not possible for logistics and other forms of RR aiding the person attacking the suspect to simply inherit the same personal aggressions the person they are helping has? It's exactly that kind of 1-to-1 flagging transfer that they want to get away from because it's what has caused the mess that is the current CrimeWatch system. The only reason they're (re)implementing it for defensive purposes is because it would be hugely imbalanced if they didn't. The flagging is only there to let the criminal defend himself.
While I understand the need for simplicity, making a tactic a stupid thing to do to the point of all but explicitly removing it seems bad. That seems to be what's happening for suspect aggressing neutral RR. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
235
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 23:57:00 -
[7] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:sorry, Im not reading 10+ pages from when the CCP last spoke that I know of, but what HE said was to the effect that neutral repping would be good to go, did that change?
Last I saw in this thread from Greyscale was the idea that RR helping someone aggressing a suspect would get a suspect flag. And while I'm thinking about it, what happens with spider tanking or similar strategies where those fighting the suspect give remote assistance to each other? Do all involved wind up as suspects? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
235
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 00:03:00 -
[8] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:And while I'm thinking about it, what happens with spider tanking or similar strategies where those fighting the suspect give remote assistance to each other. Do all involved wind up as suspects? Yes, but that's where the GÇ£safetyGÇ¥ system is supposed to kick in and keep you from triggering flags you don't want to trigger.
Forgot about that, but that means any remote assistance is out of the picture for those with safeties enabled, even between pilots that have chosen to aggress the suspect. This seems less than optimal. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
235
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 00:28:00 -
[9] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:See last I saw was the quote CCP Greyscale wrote:
As to "invicible logis", in the current design yes, that is the case, but only in the scenario where you've already done something to become a suspect. There's a point at which we have to say "look, you've done something 'illegal', this fight isn't going to be fair, sorry" if we want to avoid the complexity of the current system.
See here
CCP Greyscale wrote:
We had a discussion this morning about the specific case of people RRing vigilantes. We're currently considering treating it like all other "neutral RR" situations under the new system, ie suspect-flagging you if you RR a vigilante, as this seems to iron out a lot of the wrinkles here and makes it more consistent with the rest of the design.
|
| |
|