All I see this doing is making my life as a vulture either really hard or really entertaining. Or both.

I'm hoping both.

So, I'm a suspect. Someone shoots me. I can shoot them. Someone assists them. Their neutral RR now becomes a suspect. I can shoot them, but so can the rest of EVE?

You said that the suspect flag should be a punishment for doing something bad. I don't see using a logistics ship to help someone fighting crime to be a criminal act.

You truly need two flags, where players of each flag can shoot one another, rather than flagging everyone as a suspect so all of EVE can shoot them.

If you shoot a suspect, every other suspect should be allowed to shoot you. If I engage a Vigilante on a gate, every other vigilante and his RR should be able to engage me without some of them becoming suspects also.

Suspects will always have the disadvantage, because vigilantes must start the fight and can carefully tailor the engagement in such a way that they will be more successful. A suspect will never know who is about to flag as a vigilante on them prior to it happening. It could be like 10 guys sitting on the gate with you that suddenly turn -insert vigilante overview color- and zonk you. But as soon as they reveal themselves and get that first kill, other suspects in the area that I alert via an intel channel or what have you are going to turn up, and there's going to be a fight.

It's nice to have a straight up admission that you are literally trying to discourage highsec PVP.

I remember in a blog or fanfest presentation mention of a "dueling" system. Any word of that? Is it real?, How will it work? Will it be just for single players? Fleets? 3 way matches?

Can we stream them to view-screens in establishments and have players bet on the results?

is that correct so far?

I'm hoping that they'll allow people to set up arranged fights in any configuration.


I don't see the value in doing that. People can watch from space.

The chilling effect on vigilantes would be almost instant. Say my crew puts out a can at a sniping location. I go suspect in a tanky ship and sit on a gate with our snipers just off grid and aligned to the can. When someone does finally engage me and gets the vigilante tag, those snipers can warp in, loot from the can, and start shooting any vigilante on the field immediately. If anything, it's the reverse of what you described: we'd have the ability to choose whether or not we go suspect, while the vigilante engaged one guy and suddenly found that he has 15 hostiles on grid. That's on par with joining an at-war corp while in space...which is against the rules for the very reason described above.

I do agree, though, that the system as we currently understand it is stupidly one-sided.

Cor someone tried to tie wow mechanics to EVE.

So I have 2 accounts (who doesn't?) and this is how I would abuse your mechanic of vigilantes:

- I use my alt in a griffin to hand 'suspect flag' to my main ("He looted my can, pew pew rockets" or something).
- I get the ACTUAL target I always intended to kill to rep my griffin as my main takes a shot at my griffin
- Neutral repper has now repaired my griffin so I can now kill them with impunity (They were always my target)

Nuetral repper dies and I loot him *SMUG*

Dock up until flag expires.

That's what you asked for right?

Allowing that 'good Samaritan' to be blown up ?

Sounds an awful lot like EVE to me lol

Cor someone tried to tie wow mechanics to EVE.

So I have 2 accounts (who doesn't?) and this is how I would abuse your mechanic of vigilantes:

- I use my alt in a griffin to hand 'suspect flag' to my main ("He looted my can, pew pew rockets" or something).
- I get the ACTUAL target I always intended to kill to rep my griffin as my main takes a shot at my griffin
- Neutral repper has now repaired my griffin so I can now kill them with impunity (They were always my target)

Nuetral repper dies and I loot him *SMUG*

Dock up until flag expires.

That's what you asked for right?

Allowing that 'good Samaritan' to be blown up ?

Sounds an awful lot like EVE to me lol

You should talk to GM Homonia about teaching people that highsec is for PVE and if that anyone bothers you while you're missioning or mining you're entitled to have them banned. What we all really need is more carebears who think they are entitled to safety.

We already get the big statement from CCP about null sec, what they intent it to be. With Incursion and Faction Warfare revamp, we get a blurred picture about low sec intention. So can we get a big statement about High sec and CCP intention for it?

CCPs intention for highsec is very obviously an almost completely PVE environment where PVP is just barely possible enough that they can still claim that EVE is a game with open PVP.

"if you rep something aggressed to another thing, the other thing should be able to shoot you"

Why do you disagree with this, Greyscale?

Now everything changes and neutral alts being invincible is really bad (I'm thinking about a nasty word right now but will avoid posting it)

*snip*

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.

*snip*

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

This solves a lot of potential problems imho.

But it doesn't. Explain to me how it makes sense that someone remote repairing a vigilante to help him fight crime should be flagged as a criminal and open to attack from all of EVE? It doesn't.

Ok, so.

.....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.... 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.

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.

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.

Thus, it is safer to use a jamming ship or dps ship to help out the vigilante. Do you treat jamming like RR activity?

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 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.