Seems pretty easy for the people who can be remotely assisted by as many people as they can find with no danger of ever being shot at to me.

Yet again I'm going to have to point out that it is NOT currently the case that neutral RR can't be shot at.

I'd like to point out for the billionth time that with the current game mechanics you will never be in a situation where you are shooting someone who is being assisted by logi and you can't shoot the logi. Once again because repetition helps people remember, it is currently the that logistics will always be flagged towards whoever is shooting at the person they are assisting.

So greyscale's crimewatch isn't even a failure to move forward, it is a direct step backwards.

Um I sympathize and agree with the point that neutral repairers should be valid targets, but honestly: Greyscale is right about how easily the suspect/vigilante thing could be turned around. It would be simplicity itself to set up Suspect bait/gank squads.

I assume you mean "for obvious server performance reasons" there because from a gameplay standpoint, that stinks. Neutral RR is bad enough when it's allowed to dock/jump at will if primaried; being completely immune to retaliation would make it absurd.

Just remove all non newbie PvE from anywhere that has CONCORD, Missions, Incursions, Mining, Exploration, the lot! Would fix so much that is wrong with EVE and push this game back firmly into the Sandbox category of MMO. Crimewatch will always be flawed, the very concept is bad, nothing good can come from it, no matter how much tinkering.

Seriously it would be less damaging to EVE to subject it to Trammel esk shard split, than to go further down this road of turning Highsec into a safe zone loaded with PvE that is valuable to non newbie players.

Great plan. Really, wonderful idea to have ships taking part in a fight without the other participants being able to legally shoot them. That's not going to get abused at all.

May as well say it CCP hates unconsentual pvp

Carebears online yea!

It's no problem to engage in unconsentual pvp, in hi-sec it just has consequences. If you for whatever reason don't like the pvp rules in hi-sec, you have low/null-sec where you can engage in all the unconsentual pvp you want, without any added consequences.

then Greyscale tell us that neut RR wont inherit a flag,

in what logical world is this a good idea ?

if you RR someone who is under GCC and get to do this with no penalty i mean WTF !!

The problem with low/null is that there you may end up as the "nonconsensual" participant in PvP. See, most folks only want nonconsensual anything when they are the aggressors, not recipients...

It's no problem to engage in unconsentual pvp, in hi-sec it just has consequences. If you for whatever reason don't like the pvp rules in hi-sec, you have low/null-sec where you can engage in all the unconsentual pvp you want, without any added consequences.

Can you explain exactly what you mean by "highsec PVP" in this context?

Currently from what grayscale has said this system will forse anyone who engages in unconsentual pvp out of hs over time while leaveing behind all mission runners to keep liveing in hs safely without fear of any consequences for there carebearing ways sucide ganks aside of corse

GǪexcept that that's not really what he said. He said that, if you rep someone who's fighting a suspect, their 1v1 flag will not be transferred to you.

Repping someone with a GCC GÇ£felonGÇ¥ status is a completely different matter and will most likely earn you a felon status of your own. It's not a matter of flag transfer, but of committing a crime and getting flagged for it all on your own.

What he's suggesting is a good idea because it means they don't have to keep track of the mess of interlinked person-to-person aggression flags that clogs up the current Crime-watch system, and instead replace it with two generic flags GÇö suspect and felon GÇö and a single, non-transitive GÇ£defensiveGÇ¥ flag so those suspects and felons have a chance of shooting back when someone comes gunning for them.

Having a global "vigilante" flag doesn't seem like a good option to us, because it allows you to then undock your thirty suspect-flagged associates and gank them, which is not the effect we're looking for here, and allowing transitive individual kill rights takes us back to square one.

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.

With the things that will get you into this state in the first place (such as neutrals repping war targets), we're deliberately giving you the ability to do the "bad thing" and take a hit for it rather than simply mechanically banning it, because that's the way we like to do things round here. There does however come a point where we're bending so far over backwards to make the consequences of doing the "bad thing" fair that we have to either stand up or fall over, and in these cases we're currently leaning towards saying "if you don't enjoy it, maybe you should consider not getting into that situation so often in the first place".

He said nothing of the kind, so no.

I think that some of you are planning too far ahead. Even the sov changes for Dominion created opportunities for many. Sadly, what I think everyone failed to realize is the the Dominion expansion would wipe out a vastly complex ecosystem that the devs and frankly the players didn't appreciate the depth of.

My thoughts on crimewatch are of a more wait and see approach in practice, but in principal I think one that supports more complex gameplay outcomes will be used in a greater variety of ways by the players would be better. More options are always good, but the net effect on the playerbase? I don't think anyone writing in this thread can claim to know the outcome. My fear is that in eliminating variables some players might not like, the devs will respond by making such simplistic and incremental changes that truly varied gameplay will not be possible. Those few permutations of surviving options will be plotted out by the geekery of eve, and will be discounted as they effectively were with Dominion era sov warfare and abandoned in lke kind, leaving a conformal gery goo of boring gameplay for pods. When did we get so scared of radical change? Why are some people so unwilling to stir up the pot and see what happens? Fearless my a55...

thanks for that Tippia, it sort of clears things up, but seems like the confusion is driven as much by greyscale either not being clear on this or in fact saying 2 very different things, hopefully an upcoming devblog will either clear things up or maybe not.

neutral RR is the most abused thing in existence in highsec. it is the single biggest thing that ruins highsec PVP. if you keep it the way it is now (which you said you intend to do) then all the other things you do to crimewatch don't matter: highsec PVP will still be broken.

What happens whan your sec standings gets under -2?

Ok, so.

Here is the presentation from Fanfest, which you should watch if you're curious about this stuff and you haven't seen it already.

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.

We want to be clear at the same time, though, that getting a suspect flag is a punishment for doing something "bad". As with the current system of killrights etc, it's not intended as a tool that you can abuse to do further "bad" things with impunity, and while we're generally OK with people abusing some of the loopholes in the design and/or UI presentation to use such systems for unintended purposes, the design intent is for suspect flagging to be something that you want to avoid or at the very least treat as a drawback, not an opportunity. If you find yourself saying "but then if I get a suspect flag, I'm at a disadvantage!", you should consider that this is likely intentional. This is EVE: we permit you to do whatever you please, but we mandate negative consequences for some actions, to encourage a generally healthy player ecosystem.

As to can-flipping in particular, this is something that we assume will become largely ineffective with the "safeties" system, which should hopefully lessen the usability issues which are at the root of this gimmick. People losing out because they made a bad decision is great. People losing out because they didn't fully understand the decision they were making is not ideal. We realize that, for people who've dedicated a portion of their careers to "hisec PvP" of this particular stripe, this will be disruptive to their play experience, but given that there are plenty of other forms of PvP available (many of which incidentally end up generating a much stronger net contribution to the game), we're confident that such players are more than capable of transitioning rapidly to other, more robustly-supported occupations.