Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Crunchie Attuxors
Always Another Corporate Venture
141
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 15:59:00 -
[1] - Quote
I mean, there is no indication that there is anything being done with this.
So is it real? Has it been abandoned?
I really do not feel this should be a priority over other things, but I am just wondering if this can be put there in the vaporware category? Eve forums official anthem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pudOFG5X6uA-áReal men tank hull. Fake women shield-tank Gallente. |
Medarr
ZeroSec
3
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 16:05:00 -
[2] - Quote
Crimewatch is part of the agro mechanics its currently implemented on the live server... its what flags you GCC for shooting idio... errr innocent miners... |
Crunchie Attuxors
Always Another Corporate Venture
141
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 16:16:00 -
[3] - Quote
Medarr wrote:Crimewatch is part of the agro mechanics its currently implemented on the live server... its what flags you GCC for shooting idio... errr innocent miners...
I mean the update and overhaul... sorry for shorthanding... Eve forums official anthem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pudOFG5X6uA-áReal men tank hull. Fake women shield-tank Gallente. |
Anubis Star
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 16:26:00 -
[4] - Quote
stream |
JusFooling Around
JusFooling Around Corp
60
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 18:20:00 -
[5] - Quote
KILL ALL BOTS
MINING, COURIOR, MARKETING
|
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
80
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 18:28:00 -
[6] - Quote
Crunchie Attuxors wrote:Medarr wrote:Crimewatch is part of the agro mechanics its currently implemented on the live server... its what flags you GCC for shooting idio... errr innocent miners... I mean the update and overhaul... sorry for shorthanding... Probably updates in the CSM minutes that are around the corner?
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
730
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 18:34:00 -
[7] - Quote
Considering how they hadn't even properly thought of how to make it work properly and not completely break highsec PVP the longer it takes to show up the better. |
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
196
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 19:23:00 -
[8] - Quote
Crunchie Attuxors wrote:I mean, there is no indication that there is anything being done with this.
So is it real? Has it been abandoned?
I really do not feel this should be a priority over other things, but I am just wondering if this can be put there in the vaporware category?
Youd think the gankers would want this... Given its supposed to make it so anyone who wants to (not just the non combat skilled miner in question) can kill you after
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Considering how they hadn't even properly thought of how to make it work properly and not completely fix highsec PVP by making it risky to do the longer it takes to show up the better.
fixt
Was there ever a dev blog about the Goon exloit thing or are they continuing to sweep that under the rug? http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
730
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 19:37:00 -
[9] - Quote
Because making it so that people who are flagged with aggression can be shot at by everyone in space but will get concorded if they shoot back is totally "fixing" highsec PVP.
That's straight up what was proposed at fanfest in the presentation and even after acknowledging that it was a bad idea in the roundtable that came after it they weren't able a think of a way for the suspect flagging system to allow suspects to shoot back without being concorded.
I don't know about you, but I don't think that mechanics like that showing up on TQ would be a good thing. |
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
411
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 19:55:00 -
[10] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:Crunchie Attuxors wrote:I mean, there is no indication that there is anything being done with this.
So is it real? Has it been abandoned?
I really do not feel this should be a priority over other things, but I am just wondering if this can be put there in the vaporware category? Youd think the gankers would want this... Given its supposed to make it so anyone who wants to (not just the non combat skilled miner in question) can kill you after
Umm... that's exactly what GCC means. Anyone who wants to can shoot you for 15 minutes. -RubyPorto
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
|
Andoria Thara
Fallen Avatars
87
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 20:00:00 -
[11] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Because making it so that people who are flagged with aggression can be shot at by everyone in space but will get concorded if they shoot back is totally "fixing" highsec PVP.
That's straight up what was proposed at fanfest in the presentation and even after acknowledging that it was a bad idea in the roundtable that came after it they weren't able a think of a way for the suspect flagging system to allow suspects to shoot back without being concorded.
I don't know about you, but I don't think that mechanics like that showing up on TQ would be a good thing.
My understanding was anyone who commited a crime would be flashing red for everyone. So logically, if a person shoots at that red flashy person, once the first shot is fired the criminal can fire back without being concorded.
If that's not how it works, and the criminal gets concorded for fighting back, then I can see why they put it on the back burner. |
Andoria Thara
Fallen Avatars
87
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 20:02:00 -
[12] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Antisocial Malkavian wrote:Crunchie Attuxors wrote:I mean, there is no indication that there is anything being done with this.
So is it real? Has it been abandoned?
I really do not feel this should be a priority over other things, but I am just wondering if this can be put there in the vaporware category? Youd think the gankers would want this... Given its supposed to make it so anyone who wants to (not just the non combat skilled miner in question) can kill you after Umm... that's exactly what GCC means. Anyone who wants to can shoot you for 15 minutes.
But they only get a GCC for firing on a ship, not for can flipping or stealing loot, which is what was proposed. |
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
411
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 20:13:00 -
[13] - Quote
Andoria Thara wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Antisocial Malkavian wrote:Crunchie Attuxors wrote:I mean, there is no indication that there is anything being done with this.
So is it real? Has it been abandoned?
I really do not feel this should be a priority over other things, but I am just wondering if this can be put there in the vaporware category? Youd think the gankers would want this... Given its supposed to make it so anyone who wants to (not just the non combat skilled miner in question) can kill you after Umm... that's exactly what GCC means. Anyone who wants to can shoot you for 15 minutes. But they only get a GCC for firing on a ship, not for can flipping or stealing loot, which is what was proposed.
GCC means CONCORDokken. But we'll assume it's some global combat flag instead.
Why would everyone get the right to shoot at a thief? The thief only wronged that one person (and his corp). Right now, the victim and his corp can shoot back. Allowing your friends to shoot at those who wrong you is one of the many benefits of Corp membership. -RubyPorto
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8558
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 20:24:00 -
[14] - Quote
What was proposed means that the concept of GÇ£GCCGÇ¥ is deprecated and no longer applies GÇö the suggested GÇ£felonGÇ¥ status kind of replaces it but also differs from it, so you can't really equate the two.
The problem was always with the GÇ£suspectGÇ¥ status GÇö the idea that any lesser crime opens you up to retaliation from any player in the vicinity GÇö and the initially hugely imbalanced effect this would have on the criminal elements. It's not just possible, but very very probable that the whole thing is being delayed until they can figure out how to do that part properly to have a balanced set of engagement rules without reintroducing the massive player-to-player flag fur-ball that they wanted to get away from with CW2.0. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
1373
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 21:10:00 -
[15] - Quote
First part of the rework shipped in Escalation, so no, not vaporware. That stage was all behind-the-scenes (as detailed in the presentation at Fanfest, which is on Youtube somewhere); the next step is to start implementing the redesign.
Also, the current design explicitly allows you to return fire in all cases |
|
Jason Xado
Xado Industries
6
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 21:20:00 -
[16] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:First part of the rework shipped in Escalation, so no, not vaporware. That stage was all behind-the-scenes (as detailed in the presentation at Fanfest, which is on Youtube somewhere); the next step is to start implementing the redesign. Also, the current design explicitly allows you to return fire in all cases
Any chance we can get some details?
The original idea of the changes was to eliminate the need for aggression maps and keep everything simple. The only way for that to work would be if the suspect couldn't fire back. Otherwise you would have to keep up with an aggression map.
Details would be welcome :-) |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
508
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 21:20:00 -
[17] - Quote
Crunchie Attuxors wrote:I mean, there is no indication that there is anything being done with this.
So is it real? Has it been abandoned?
I really do not feel this should be a priority over other things, but I am just wondering if this can be put there in the vaporware category?
CCP Greyscale just talked about in the live stream and seems they can't change as fast as they wanted because after all those years and many changes the core code would break more stuff than it would fix so they need to do it the right way by starting to implement everything already existing with new code so when they pick up something it doesn't screw up everything else.
Not sure I understood it all right, probably because he speaks a little fast (!) but looks something like this. brb |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
731
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 21:25:00 -
[18] - Quote
The inevitable end result will be that the new system will be more difficult to understand than the old system, even if what is happening serverside is simpler. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
1373
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 21:43:00 -
[19] - Quote
Jason Xado wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:First part of the rework shipped in Escalation, so no, not vaporware. That stage was all behind-the-scenes (as detailed in the presentation at Fanfest, which is on Youtube somewhere); the next step is to start implementing the redesign. Also, the current design explicitly allows you to return fire in all cases Any chance we can get some details? The original idea of the changes was to eliminate the need for aggression maps and keep everything simple. The only way for that to work would be if the suspect couldn't fire back. Otherwise you would have to keep up with an aggression map. Details would be welcome :-) Edit: Well another way to do it without maps would be if the suspect could fire at anyone, which although entertaining, would probobly not be the best way to go :-)
We allow one-time mappings but we don't make them transitive, ie if you're a suspect and someone shoots you then you can always fire back, but if that person has a third party repping them, you can't shoot the logi because we don't allow aggression transfer like that (for obvious reasons). |
|
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
508
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 21:45:00 -
[20] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:The inevitable end result will be that the new system will be more difficult to understand than the old system, even if what is happening serverside is simpler.
Challenge keeps things interesting and actually can't be worst than what it is. High sec PVP fans say they love pvp, witch seems to be true, but I'd like to see what happens if they start getting flagged and spanked by other players just waiting flags, unlike know they're pretty much safe behind concord exploiting aggression mechanics.
I pretty much like the idea every action brings consequences and the fact no one should be safe, whenever it comes to make choices in high sec it shouldn't be the joke it is with neutral repps/jam/boost, there should be real consequences just like in low sec/null/wh space. Those are not trusting Concord mechanics to get it done the easy way. brb |
|
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
196
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 21:48:00 -
[21] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Because making it so that people who are flagged with aggression can be shot at by everyone in space but will get concorded if they shoot back is totally "fixing" highsec PVP.
That's straight up what was proposed at fanfest in the presentation and even after acknowledging that it was a bad idea in the roundtable that came after it they weren't able a think of a way for the suspect flagging system to allow suspects to shoot back without being concorded.
I don't know about you, but I don't think that mechanics like that showing up on TQ would be a good thing.
yeah cause this game totally ISNT about having consequences for your actions. AT ALL. Amirite?
CCP Greyscale wrote:First part of the rework shipped in Escalation, so no, not vaporware. That stage was all behind-the-scenes (as detailed in the presentation at Fanfest, which is on Youtube somewhere); the next step is to start implementing the redesign. Also, the current design explicitly allows you to return fire in all cases
Ah so it was redesigned... can you guys put forth some details on that design?
CCP Greyscale wrote:
We allow one-time mappings but we don't make them transitive, ie if you're a suspect and someone shoots you then you can always fire back, but if that person has a third party repping them, you can't shoot the logi because we don't allow aggression transfer like that (for obvious reasons).
you should lol
You shouldnt be able to rep ppl in a fight and not become part of the fight. Because by your action you are engaging in the fight in a support role. http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
732
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 22:00:00 -
[22] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:The inevitable end result will be that the new system will be more difficult to understand than the old system, even if what is happening serverside is simpler. Challenge keeps things interesting and actually can't be worst than what it is. High sec PVP fans say they love pvp, witch seems to be true, but I'd like to see what happens if they start getting flagged and spanked by other players just waiting flags, unlike know they're pretty much safe behind concord exploiting aggression mechanics. I pretty much like the idea every action brings consequences and the fact no one should be safe, whenever it comes to make choices in high sec it shouldn't be the joke it is with neutral repps/jam/boost, there should be real consequences just like in low sec/null/wh space. Those are not trusting Concord mechanics to get it done the easy way. This post is probably the single most ignorant thing I've ever read on these forums, it's literally the opposite of reality.
As it is right now you can always shoot neutral reps that someone you're fighting is using unless they happen to be in the same corporation as you. If you don't believe me go and find someone, shoot at them and have a third party rep them, you'll be amazed to learn that you can shoot the third party with impunity. To reiterate, with the current aggression system you can always shoot at anyone who is remotely assisting someone that is shooting at you, nobody is "safe behind concord".
However as CCP Greyscale just said what he wants to do is make it so that you can be shooting someone who is suspect flagged and be receiving neutral RR and the suspect won't be able to shoot the neutral RR.
It is literally a step backwards from what you just said you wanted. |
Jason Xado
Xado Industries
6
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 22:33:00 -
[23] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:[quote=Jason Xado] We allow one-time mappings but we don't make them transitive, ie if you're a suspect and someone shoots you then you can always fire back, but if that person has a third party repping them, you can't shoot the logi because we don't allow aggression transfer like that (for obvious reasons).
Interesting. So you will still have aggression maps but they will be kept small and tidy.
Interesting. Let me take some time to digest this bit of information. Thanks for the details. |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
144
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 22:45:00 -
[24] - Quote
Hi
Please give players the option to flag themselves as suspects without committing crimes, so they can bait fights if they want.
Please flag players who shoot suspects as vigilantes. Anyone who assists a suspect becomes a suspect, and anyone who assists a vigilante becomes a vigilante.
There - you have a neat, two-sided high-sec fighting mechanic in which a player is either a suspect, vigilante, or neither. If they are neither, they have the ability to join either side in the fight, but otherwise are not involved. This system has few caveats with regards to remote assistance that are easy to iron out. Don't allow a vigilante to activate remote assistance on a suspect, and vice versa. Otherwise you could flag as a vigilante, RR your suspect friends and be immune from being shot by the other vigilantes. Alternatively allow players to receive both flags and be shot by both.
This system is significantly better than a "Suspect and everyone else" system. If you wish to engage a suspect, you should gain a flag that effectively separates you from "everyone else". This polarizes engagements and simplifies aggression maps. Furthermore, vigilantes will always have the upper hand, as they can decide when (and when not) to flag themselves by engaging a suspect and initiating the fight.
If you're lucky, you will see groups of players flying around as vigilantes, and others flying around as suspects. They will fight each other - possibly not on station, because they may be roaming. That will create high-sec PvP that is a good lead-in to low-sec and 0.0 PvP for new players. It's entirely optional, encourages players to work together, and is much more simple than the current system. |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 22:57:00 -
[25] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:We allow one-time mappings but we don't make them transitive, ie if you're a suspect and someone shoots you then you can always fire back, but if that person has a third party repping them, you can't shoot the logi because we don't allow aggression transfer like that (for obvious reasons).
so invincible third party logis now?
or was that he is repping you, you shoot someone, and the next cycle he gets the pop up warning? as yes getting aggression due to something another does could be annoying (such as the repping someone who then goes gcc and concorddokken which got fixed a while back), but I would think interfering and being immune would be a far bigger problem |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
801
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 23:47:00 -
[26] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: We allow one-time mappings but we don't make them transitive, ie if you're a suspect and someone shoots you then you can always fire back, but if that person has a third party repping them, you can't shoot the logi because we don't allow aggression transfer like that (for obvious reasons).
i don't like the third party logi immunity (for obvious reasons). 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 |
Ginger Barbarella
State War Academy Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 23:50:00 -
[27] - Quote
I'ts real. I got stopped just the other day by customs, who fined me for carrying illegal goods. They never confiscated it, so obviously CCP was behind it. ;-) |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
1373
|
Posted - 2012.07.15 23:59:00 -
[28] - Quote
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". |
|
Jonas Xiamon
83
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 00:02:00 -
[29] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:Strange vigilante suggestion.
Interesting idea, I don't see any glaring flaws in it either.
I'm not sure I would necessarily want to polarize fights, but it seems a far superior solution than CCP's non-transitive aggression mapping.
Yes Greyscale, the reasons we /need/ neutral 3rd party reppers are obvious and self evident. I usally write one of these and then change it a month later when I reread it and decide it sounds stupid. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
733
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 00:07:00 -
[30] - Quote
It's nice to have a straight up admission that you are literally trying to discourage highsec PVP. |
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
1373
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 00:15:00 -
[31] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:It's nice to have a straight up admission that you are literally trying to discourage highsec PVP.
Can you explain exactly what you mean by "highsec PVP" in this context?
|
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
733
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 00:16:00 -
[32] - Quote
You know, shooting at people in highsec. In this context specifically when the people being shot at aren't at war with you. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1342
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 00:20:00 -
[33] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:yeah cause this game totally ISNT about having consequences for your actions. AT ALL. Amirite?
So why do you want to shoot suspect-flagged characters without consequences? a rogue goon |
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
412
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 00:33:00 -
[34] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:As to "invicible logis", in the current design yes, that is the case
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. -RubyPorto
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
145
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 00:34:00 -
[35] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: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.
Yet in the currently-proposed system, anyone can shoot suspects. You're already creating a mechanic where a suspect is on his own with individual aggression. This allows someone to undock thirty of their associates and gank the suspect and any other suspects nearby. In fact, if there were 30 suspects on the undock, you could undock 30 of your friends, shoot one, and the others couldn't help. 29 other suspects would sit idly as they watched your blob kill their friend.
You need to create a system where those with suspect flags can all shoot the same targets and help each other out. If you engage a suspect, all suspects should be allowed to engage you. Simply sort people into 'teams'. No need for transitive individual kill rights there. Anyone who is a suspect can shoot anyone who is a vigilante.
It's - surprise - a risk. When you sit on an undock as a suspect in the proposed system, you are going to get blobbed. Likewise, if you sit flagged as a vigilante, there's a good chance some suspects are going to roll over you. That encourages people to group up and look out for each other, creating a system where random people are fighting alongside each other in a very emergent way.
I guess I don't see why you're opposed to a vigilante flag. The ganking is going to happen one way (Neutrals blapping suspects), but I see no reason to deny suspects the opportunity to do the same in return. Trying to shoot someone who is a suspect (hint: criminal/dangerous individual) shouldn't carry the risk of having the suspect's friends show up and strong-arm you.
In fact, a Vigilante/Suspect system not only fixes some of the current issues with the aggression system, it also creates an ENTIRE NEW PLAYSTYLE for people. There would be corps of people who are constantly vigilantes, and corps who are constantly suspects. They would brawl it out all the time. Perhaps, once you get such a system worked out and implemented, you could add incentives for being suspects and vigilantes. Vigilantes gain concord standing and rewards, and Suspects gain pirate faction standing/rewards, perhaps? There's a lot that can come out of such a system besides being a blanket-fix for your problems.
It's like you're looking to make a system where shooting suspects is a fish in a barrel or some other analogy involving a Japanese word spelled with some of the same letters as bucket |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1343
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 00:37:00 -
[36] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: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.
But on the other hand, you're looking to allow players to participate in a fight in a very meaningful way without risk or consequence. That's great! a rogue goon |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
145
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 00:41:00 -
[37] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: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. But on the other hand, you're looking to allow players to participate in a fight in a very meaningful way without risk or consequence. That's great!
Yeah what they're really looking for is a system where people can undock their neutral characters and gank a suspect-flagged character without any other suspects being able to help out their bros. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1919
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 00:49:00 -
[38] - Quote
The proposed crimewatch feels a lot less like iteration, and a lot more like a total rewrite. It's a shame they won't JUST fix the ability of logis to jump/dock with aggression, and THEN reconsider the whole aggression mechanic (which can be tweaked before being completely thrown out). The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
Grinder2210
Kaotic Intentions Cold Hand of Shadow
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 00:49:00 -
[39] - Quote
I mean realy
why shouldnt every faction fit battleship pilot in anymajor lv4 hub every have to risk loseing it anyways
It a great idea to have them just call in all of local to save there butt becasue thay made a ******** misstake with there billions of isk faction battleship
but hey its not there falt thay opend fire on a merlin and the merlin won was it
At not point was there anyway for them to know in there time playing eve online that mabye just mabye shooting at the guy stealing from your wrecks was a bad idea
its kinda like a jump bridge in null suck whan the titan jumps itself insteed of the fleet its deffently not the titans ******** action that was the problem
|
Jonas Xiamon
83
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 00:55:00 -
[40] - Quote
Grinder2210 wrote:I mean realy
why shouldnt every faction fit battleship pilot in anymajor lv4 hub every have to risk loseing it anyways
It a great idea to have them just call in all of local to save there butt becasue thay made a idiotic misstake with there billions of isk faction battleship
but hey its not there failt thay opend fire on a merlin and the merlin won was it
At no point was there anyway for them to know in there time playing eve online that mabye just mabye shooting at the guy stealing from your wrecks was a bad idea
its kinda like a jump bridge in null suck whan the titan jumps itself insteed of the fleet its deffently not the titans idiotic action that was the problem
You're dumb, concord will kill them. I usally write one of these and then change it a month later when I reread it and decide it sounds stupid. |
|
Jason Xado
Xado Industries
6
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 00:57:00 -
[41] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:It's nice to have a straight up admission that you are literally trying to discourage highsec PVP. Can you explain exactly what you mean by "highsec PVP" in this context?
I'm a bit new here, but since noone else is answering your question I will chime in.
I believe what people are refering to as "highsec PVP" is the practive known as "can flipping" in which a player steals another players cargo and hopes they are ignorant in the rule mechancis and fire back so the "can flipper" can enact revenge and blow up the offending player.
I believe this to be different than old fashioned "ore thievery" in which the suspect is actually trying to get away with the ore and not nessessarily blow up the other player's ship.
I could be wrong, but I believe that is what is being refered to as "highsec PVP". |
Jonas Xiamon
83
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:02:00 -
[42] - Quote
Jason Xado wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:It's nice to have a straight up admission that you are literally trying to discourage highsec PVP. Can you explain exactly what you mean by "highsec PVP" in this context? I'm a bit new here, but since noone else is answering your question I will chime in. I believe what people are refering to as "highsec PVP" is the practive known as "can flipping" in which a player steals another players cargo and hopes they are ignorant in the rule mechancis and fire back so the "can flipper" can enact revenge and blow up the offending player. I believe this to be different than old fashioned "ore thievery" in which the suspect is actually trying to get away with the ore and not nessessarily blow up the other player's ship. I could be wrong, but I believe that is what is being refered to as "highsec PVP".
Pretty much, though not exclusively. I usally write one of these and then change it a month later when I reread it and decide it sounds stupid. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
801
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:16:00 -
[43] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: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".
so. if you bring a cloaked logi into a lvl4 mission you are basically immune against ninja salvagers. If they become suspect you shoot them. If they come back with a pvp ship you decloak the invincible logistic ship. Or did i miss something?
(i don't say thats good or bad, just try to understand the new system)
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 |
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
197
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:16:00 -
[44] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
It wouldn't really be a huge issue if it was just going to be the case that everyone can shoot you, but you can shoot back just like normal and if you bring logi they can shoot your logi, but if they bring logi you can shoot it too
Why the hell arent we doing this? This sounds great
Like an ever expanding mini war
That sounds like itd be fun... cause you could recruit military types into it... you know, warriors for hire... oh crap theres a word for them... http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
146
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:18:00 -
[45] - Quote
Bienator II wrote: (i don't say thats good or bad, just try to understand the new system)
That's bad |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
146
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:20:00 -
[46] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:
It wouldn't really be a huge issue if it was just going to be the case that everyone can shoot you, but you can shoot back just like normal and if you bring logi they can shoot your logi, but if they bring logi you can shoot it too
Why the hell arent we doing this? This sounds great Like an ever expanding mini war That sounds like itd be fun... cause you could recruit military types into it... you know, warriors for hire... oh crap theres a word for them...
Hi just make suspects and vigilantes. If you assist either, you are flagged that way. No need for checking individual aggro between players. Any suspect can shoot any vigilante. No individual kill rights at all. SUPER. *******. SIMPLE. |
Grinder2210
Kaotic Intentions Cold Hand of Shadow
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:21:00 -
[47] - Quote
[/quote]
I'm a bit new here, but since noone else is answering your question I will chime in.
I believe what people are refering to as "highsec PVP" is the practive known as "can flipping" in which a player steals another players cargo and hopes they are ignorant in the rule mechancis and fire back so the "can flipper" can enact revenge and blow up the offending player.
I believe this to be different than old fashioned "ore thievery" in which the suspect is actually trying to get away with the ore and not nessessarily blow up the other player's ship.
I could be wrong, but I believe that is what is being refered to as "highsec PVP".[/quote]
There are 4 types of pvp in highsec as i currently stands
1 wardecs 2 sucide ganking 3 Can baiting / fliping 4 Corp pvp |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
1489
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:21:00 -
[48] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:It's nice to have a straight up admission that you are literally trying to discourage highsec PVP. Can you explain exactly what you mean by "highsec PVP" in this context? I am guessing that Vimsy is concerned that you are artificially stacking fights against those that gain a suspect flag, probably resulting in no one ever voluntarily gaining a suspect flag in a real ship. I say real, because im sure people will still ninja loot in t1 frigates and whatnot.
This wouldn't be such a bad thing if wars were a viable alternate source of PvP, but in their current state they are a bit of a joke. Almost everything in high sec can be done via NPC alts with no detrimental effect, and war dec evasion via corp hopping is trivial.
On top of that you're also finally deciding to give the miners ships that can't be suicide ganked, whilst screwing up can flipping and still not doing anything to discourage NPC corp mining/hauling etc.
Oh, and still no logi adopting aggression timers? I thought that was supposed to be coming aaaaaages ago?
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
197
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:22:00 -
[49] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: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".
Id like to see it where the neutral repper becomes free to kill for involving themself in the fight LIKE IN EVERY OTHER MMO
(that I know of anyways)
Take WoW (ugh first thing I thought of off the top of my head) you see a fight (on a non PVP server and/or in your faction held area - then again this is several tears ago, may be different now), youre a healer, the guy getting his ass handed to him is a friend, so you start throwing heals on him. THAT PVP FLAGS YOU
It SHOULD here too.
Given the cold, harsh universe idea lol
Or would that make it too "fair"? http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Jason Xado
Xado Industries
6
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:24:00 -
[50] - Quote
Grinder2210 wrote: There are 4 types of pvp in highsec as i currently stands
1 wardecs 2 sucide ganking 3 Can baiting / fliping 4 Corp pvp
That is my understanding. And since the suspect flag only appies to option number 3 then I would assume that it the "highsec PVP" that is being refered to. |
|
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
197
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:25:00 -
[51] - Quote
Jason Xado wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:It's nice to have a straight up admission that you are literally trying to discourage highsec PVP. Can you explain exactly what you mean by "highsec PVP" in this context? I'm a bit new here, but since noone else is answering your question I will chime in. I believe what people are refering to as "highsec PVP" is the practive known as "can flipping" in which a player steals another players cargo and hopes they are ignorant in the rule mechancis and fire back so the "can flipper" can enact revenge and blow up the offending player. I believe this to be different than old fashioned "ore thievery" in which the suspect is actually trying to get away with the ore and not nessessarily blow up the other player's ship. I could be wrong, but I believe that is what is being refered to as "highsec PVP".
Yes, and when you try to discourage this, it makes you evil, but it also promotes consequences for the ppl that do it (something that doesnt really exist now) and all this screaming about how THEY CANT DO THAT and ITLL KILL HIGHSEC PVP is funny when these are the same ppl who scream that EVE is a harsh game and EVE isnt fair and how there should be consequences for you actions and I fing that just ******* funny
Jason Xado wrote:Grinder2210 wrote: There are 4 types of pvp in highsec as i currently stands
1 wardecs 2 sucide ganking 3 Can baiting / fliping 4 Corp pvp
That is my understanding. And since the suspect flag only appies to option number 3 then I would assume that it the "highsec PVP" that is being refered to.
As Ive SEEN devs say in blogs/posts that EVERYTHING IN THIS GAME is PVP But I think its damn funny DAMN FUNNY That the players try to argue that they know more about the direction of the game than the ppl developing the game lol (its already been proven the players know how to GAME the rules better lol) http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Grinder2210
Kaotic Intentions Cold Hand of Shadow
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:25:00 -
[52] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: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". Id like to see it where the neutral repper becomes free to kill for involving themself in the fight LIKE IN EVERY OTHER MMO (that I know of anyways) Take WoW (ugh first thing I thought of off the top of my head) you see a fight (on a non PVP server and/or in your faction held area - then again this is several tears ago, may be different now), youre a healer, the guy getting his ass handed to him is a friend, so you start throwing heals on him. THAT PVP FLAGS YOU It SHOULD here too. Given the cold, harsh universe idea lol Or would that make it too "fair"?
it is here logi currently gains any and all agression applyed to the person he / she is repping |
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
412
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:27:00 -
[53] - Quote
Grinder2210 wrote:Antisocial Malkavian wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: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". Id like to see it where the neutral repper becomes free to kill for involving themself in the fight LIKE IN EVERY OTHER MMO (that I know of anyways) Take WoW (ugh first thing I thought of off the top of my head) you see a fight (on a non PVP server and/or in your faction held area - then again this is several tears ago, may be different now), youre a healer, the guy getting his ass handed to him is a friend, so you start throwing heals on him. THAT PVP FLAGS YOU It SHOULD here too. Given the cold, harsh universe idea lol Or would that make it too "fair"? it is here logi currently gains any and all agression applyed to the person her / she is repping
Read CCP Greyscale's post, right up there. Where it says they're currently planning to change that, creating invincible logis. -RubyPorto
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Grinder2210
Kaotic Intentions Cold Hand of Shadow
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:27:00 -
[54] - Quote
Grinder2210 wrote:Antisocial Malkavian wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: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". Id like to see it where the neutral repper becomes free to kill for involving themself in the fight LIKE IN EVERY OTHER MMO (that I know of anyways) Take WoW (ugh first thing I thought of off the top of my head) you see a fight (on a non PVP server and/or in your faction held area - then again this is several tears ago, may be different now), youre a healer, the guy getting his ass handed to him is a friend, so you start throwing heals on him. THAT PVP FLAGS YOU It SHOULD here too. Given the cold, harsh universe idea lol Or would that make it too "fair"? it is here logi currently gains any and all agression applyed to the person he / she is repping
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1343
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:31:00 -
[55] - Quote
"if you rep something aggressed to another thing, the other thing should be able to shoot you"
Why do you disagree with this, Greyscale? a rogue goon |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
733
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:32:00 -
[56] - Quote
Jason Xado wrote:Grinder2210 wrote: There are 4 types of pvp in highsec as i currently stands
1 wardecs 2 sucide ganking 3 Can baiting / fliping 4 Corp pvp
That is my understanding. And since the suspect flag only applies to option number 3 then I would assume that it the "highsec PVP" that is being refered to. Grinder also missed ninja salvaging as well as intentionally putting out "fight" cans to cause engagements of varying scales. Can flipping, remote repping for aggro, can baiting and "fight" cans can all be put under the general label of "Intentionally gaining an aggression countdown so that an individual or members of a corporation or alliance can shoot you". |
Gatosai
Kaotic Intentions Cold Hand of Shadow
5
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:33:00 -
[57] - Quote
Am i the only one here that sees this as a direct attack to what people love about this game in the first place? That the players words count and that our opinions matter? Just seems to me that this is one really intricate game of Russian roulette with eve online looking down the barrel. you kill highsec pvp you kill yet another role to play in this game and thus in turn you kill a community of players love for the game. IGÇÖm not trying to point my finger at anyone and question their intelligence but really this doesnGÇÖt seem like a bad idea to ccp? |
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
197
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:40:00 -
[58] - Quote
Grinder2210 wrote:
it is here logi currently gains any and all agression applyed to the person he / she is repping
yes, read the thread tho; CCP dude is saying this is changing
The quote I QUOTED that YOU QUOTED when you included what I said said as much http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
EpicFailTroll
Hedion University Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:40:00 -
[59] - Quote
I for one endorse this meta griefing of highsec griefers |
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
197
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:45:00 -
[60] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote: Grinder also missed ninja salvaging as well as intentionally putting out "fight" cans to cause engagements of varying scales. Can flipping, remote repping for aggro, can baiting and "fight" cans can all be put under the general label of "Intentionally gaining an aggression countdown so that an individual or members of a corporation or alliance can shoot you".
Funniest thing I ever had happen to me was missioning, a ninja salvager came in, started his thing. This was a mission called "pot meet kettle" where you shoot mines that spawn rogue drones (but where it also does damage apparently to everyone/everything in the pocket).
He jumped in, I blew up like 4 to 6 mines and killed his ship, he warped out, came back in a Tengu, fired on me and got CONCORDED then started bitching in local about how I fired on him and was a cheating hacker.
http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
|
Grinder2210
Kaotic Intentions Cold Hand of Shadow
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:46:00 -
[61] - Quote
EpicFailTroll wrote:I for one endorse this meta griefing of highsec griefers
Crap you guys made me let my nuet probing alts probes expire |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
148
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:48:00 -
[62] - Quote
CCP Greyscale:
Can you please explain to me what it is you're looking for in the Crimewatch system? I'm genuinely interested in providing you with input that I've talked through with other players and had a very positive reaction from. I helped out Sreegs in his quest for labeling botters and ex-convicts, and I received much better feedback from him in response to the player suggestions I compiled. I felt as though player input made an impact in how he's planning his "Scarlet Letter" approach. Inversely, I feel as though the comments players have made here have been shrugged off and disregarded. You seem defensive of your current plan of action, rather than open to suggestions and criticisms.
For example, your response to the Suspect/Vigilante system that was proposed and refined in the ideas and discussion forum section was very dismissive. You say that a system allowing suspects and vigilantes to fight one another "isn't the effect we're going for", but you don't state what that is. You also claimed that such a system would introduce transitive, individual kill rights, when in fact it would do just the opposite. Kill rights would no longer be convoluted because you would know EXACTLY who you could shoot, who could shoot you, and what the consequences of assisting would be. You'd be on one side or the other if you chose to participate. Simple.
As long as you continue to say "oh this is not what we want" and don't tell us what you want, we can't help you. Your current suggestions allowing for invulnerable logistics, and suspects who can't reasonably expect to retaliate are not effective in solving any of the problems of high-sec aggression, and are detrimental to high-sec PvP. By high-sec PvP, we most nearly mean fighting in high-sec that happens outside of war decs. In completely redesigning the aggression system, you have the opportunity to create robust, dynamic PvP situations that aren't based on suspects being easily killed because "you committed a crime, tough luck".
If you don't tell us what you want, we can't help you - unless of course, you don't want help or suggestions on how to create a kickass overhaul to get more people fighting each other. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
734
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:50:00 -
[63] - Quote
Literally the only thing CCP Greyscale cares about is removing individual aggression flags. The resultant gameplay being good or making sense doesn't factor in to it. |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
148
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:55:00 -
[64] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Literally the only thing CCP Greyscale cares about is removing individual aggression flags. The resultant gameplay being good or making sense doesn't factor in to it.
Which is funny because the suggestion of a vigilante flag which floated around ideas and discussions forever removes individual aggression flags entire. It just lets suspects and vigilantes all shoot each other, no individual aggro at all. You rep a suspect, you become a suspect. Simple.
And he said it isn't what they wanted because it re-introduces individual kill rights. I don't get it. |
Grinder2210
Kaotic Intentions Cold Hand of Shadow
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:58:00 -
[65] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote: Grinder also missed ninja salvaging as well as intentionally putting out "fight" cans to cause engagements of varying scales. Can flipping, remote repping for aggro, can baiting and "fight" cans can all be put under the general label of "Intentionally gaining an aggression countdown so that an individual or members of a corporation or alliance can shoot you".
Funniest thing I ever had happen to me was missioning, a ninja salvager came in, started his thing. This was a mission called "pot meet kettle" where you shoot mines that spawn rogue drones (but where it also does damage apparently to everyone/everything in the pocket). He jumped in, I blew up like 4 to 6 mines and killed his ship, he warped out, came back in a Tengu, fired on me and got CONCORDED then started bitching in local about how I fired on him and was a cheating hacker.
you know this is half i what i just cant rap my head around here .... guy in your story screwd up its pritty funny in fact a very long time ago i lost a ship to what was mostlikely the same mission
i see the rules as clear defined i think there understood widely by most players in eve as thay stand
I understand the need to reduce load on the server i even get the idea that sometimes agression chains get a bit complex but it works its worked for a long time
if theres any problem here its that most players dont seem to take the time to learn how it works untill its allready to late for them and thay have filed there petitions to ccp crying about the cheaters who resently did something thay didnt bother to take the time needed to fully understand to begin with |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
1489
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 01:58:00 -
[66] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:CCP Greyscale:
Can you please explain to me what it is you're looking for in the Crimewatch system? I'm genuinely interested in providing you with input that I've talked through with other players and had a very positive reaction from. I helped out Sreegs in his quest for labeling botters and ex-convicts, and I received much better feedback from him in response to the player suggestions I compiled. I felt as though player input made an impact in how he's planning his "Scarlet Letter" approach. Inversely, I feel as though the comments players have made here have been shrugged off and disregarded. You seem defensive of your current plan of action, rather than open to suggestions and criticisms.
For example, your response to the Suspect/Vigilante system that was proposed and refined in the ideas and discussion forum section was very dismissive. You say that a system allowing suspects and vigilantes to fight one another "isn't the effect we're going for", but you don't state what that is. You also claimed that such a system would introduce transitive, individual kill rights, when in fact it would do just the opposite. Kill rights would no longer be convoluted because you would know EXACTLY who you could shoot, who could shoot you, and what the consequences of assisting would be. You'd be on one side or the other if you chose to participate. Simple.
As long as you continue to say "oh this is not what we want" and don't tell us what you want, we can't help you. Your current suggestions allowing for invulnerable logistics, and suspects who can't reasonably expect to retaliate are not effective in solving any of the problems of high-sec aggression, and are detrimental to high-sec PvP. By high-sec PvP, we most nearly mean fighting in high-sec that happens outside of war decs. In completely redesigning the aggression system, you have the opportunity to create robust, dynamic PvP situations that aren't based on suspects being easily killed because "you committed a crime, tough luck".
If you don't tell us what you want, we can't help you - unless of course, you don't want help or suggestions on how to create a kickass overhaul to get more people fighting each other. I guess they are still aiming for more "meaningful" PvP, the issue being that they seem to be going about it by nerfing can flipping and whatever they deem to be meaningless PvP. All the while not bothering to actually add anything to help generate meaningful PvP.
Either that or they're just trying to get rid of aggression maps, no matter the cost.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
Crunchie Attuxors
Always Another Corporate Venture
147
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 02:01:00 -
[67] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote: Grinder also missed ninja salvaging as well as intentionally putting out "fight" cans to cause engagements of varying scales. Can flipping, remote repping for aggro, can baiting and "fight" cans can all be put under the general label of "Intentionally gaining an aggression countdown so that an individual or members of a corporation or alliance can shoot you".
Funniest thing I ever had happen to me was missioning, a ninja salvager came in, started his thing. This was a mission called "pot meet kettle" where you shoot mines that spawn rogue drones (but where it also does damage apparently to everyone/everything in the pocket). He jumped in, I blew up like 4 to 6 mines and killed his ship, he warped out, came back in a Tengu, fired on me and got CONCORDED then started bitching in local about how I fired on him and was a cheating hacker.
He loses at eve. Every ninja salvager knows which missions not to salvage while live. That is one of the top ones.
Hilarious tears collected! Eve forums official anthem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pudOFG5X6uA-áReal men tank hull. Fake women shield-tank Gallente. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
735
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 02:01:00 -
[68] - Quote
It should probably be noted that individual aggression flags are the only thing keeping you able to shoot someone once the original reason why you're able to shoot them expires. And in situations where you don't gain individual times for attacking a person or object what happens when you're still shooting when the original reason you're able to shoot it stops being the case is that you get concorded instantly and without warning.
For example if you're shooting somebody who you're in corp with and that person is accepted into a different corp, or leaves their ship, docks up and quits corp while you're still shooting you get concorded without warning. Or if you're attacking a container like a GSC because you have aggression against its owner and the timer against the owner runs out then you get concorded without warning.
In a future with no individual timers at all everyone can look forward to getting concorded without warning even more often. |
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
198
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 02:04:00 -
[69] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote: . Your current suggestions allowing for invulnerable logistics, and suspects who can't reasonably expect to retaliate are not effective in solving any of the problems of high-sec aggression
except for the ones the miners who want pvp flags are asking for
http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
412
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 02:05:00 -
[70] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:In a future with no individual timers at all everyone can look forward to getting concorded without warning even more often.
Hooray? -RubyPorto
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
|
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
199
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 02:10:00 -
[71] - Quote
Crunchie Attuxors wrote:Antisocial Malkavian wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote: Grinder also missed ninja salvaging as well as intentionally putting out "fight" cans to cause engagements of varying scales. Can flipping, remote repping for aggro, can baiting and "fight" cans can all be put under the general label of "Intentionally gaining an aggression countdown so that an individual or members of a corporation or alliance can shoot you".
Funniest thing I ever had happen to me was missioning, a ninja salvager came in, started his thing. This was a mission called "pot meet kettle" where you shoot mines that spawn rogue drones (but where it also does damage apparently to everyone/everything in the pocket). He jumped in, I blew up like 4 to 6 mines and killed his ship, he warped out, came back in a Tengu, fired on me and got CONCORDED then started bitching in local about how I fired on him and was a cheating hacker. He loses at eve. Every ninja salvager knows which missions not to salvage while live. That is one of the top ones. Hilarious tears collected!
Hells yes, it was all the more funny given the price tag on his Tengu was like a billion plus (it was a long ways back when they were expensive) and the amount of crying he did in local was nice. I never even had to say anything other than the mission name in local cause once he started in on how I was a hacker and cheating and someone asked what mission it was I dropped in it there and they started trolling him for being stupid lol http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
149
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 02:11:00 -
[72] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:I guess they are still aiming for more "meaningful" PvP, the issue being that they seem to be going about it by nerfing can flipping and whatever they deem to be meaningless PvP. All the while not bothering to actually add anything to help generate meaningful PvP.
Either that or they're just trying to get rid of aggression maps, no matter the cost.
Except that it seems apparent that a system where suspects can flag themselves as such and vigilantes can do the same creates very meaningful PvP. You can get a group of friends and roam around high-sec as suspects trying to find fights from another group flagged as vigilantes.
That seems more meaningful to me than just flipping a can and hoping a miner shoots at you.
In fact, with such a system, a meaningful engagement might go like this:
1. Newbro in a Rifter flips a can, and becomes a suspect 2. The miner flips the can back (an action against a suspect) or shoots him, and becomes a Vigilante 3. Rifter begins shooting the miner, but the miner warps in a neutral logistic and begins to rep him. Repping the miner, who is a vigilante, turns the neutral RR into a vigilante 4. The Rifter tackles the logi instead, leaving the miner to warp off and come back in a combat ship. 5. A roaming suspect gang passes through and notices from the new icons next to the two vigilantes that they are nearby, and the Rifter upon seeing the local spike of friendlies tells them where he has the logi tackled at 6. The roaming gang comes in and begins killing the re-shipped miner and his logi, since all suspects and all vigilantes can shoot each other, regardless of where their flags came from. 7. The suspects hold the two vigilantes in the belt, trying to escalate the fight 8. The miner calls for his friends who come in, unflagged, and engage the suspects, automatically flagging themselves as vigilantes 9. The two groups fight until a winner comes out on top, or the fight continues to escalate with more people nearby suspects/vigilantes seeing in their intel channel where the fight is taking place
That's somewhat of an unrealistic scenario, but I think it gives you an idea of how things could escalate and bring together groups of people to create a unique PvP experience in high-sec that normally would have been a Rifter getting out-repped by neutral RR that he can't deal with. |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
1489
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 02:11:00 -
[73] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:It should probably be noted that individual aggression flags are the only thing keeping you able to shoot someone once the original reason why you're able to shoot them expires. And in situations where you don't gain individual timers for attacking a person or object what happens when you're still shooting when the original reason you're able to shoot it stops being the case is that you get concorded instantly and without warning.
For example if you're shooting somebody who you're in corp with and that person is accepted into a different corp, or leaves their ship, docks up and quits corp while you're still shooting you get concorded without warning. Or if you're attacking a container like a GSC because you have aggression against its owner and the timer against the owner runs out then you get concorded without warning.
In a future with no individual timers at all everyone can look forward to getting concorded without warning even more often. I presume fighting would extend the length of the suspect flag, I'm also guessing you wouldn't be able to shoot a GSC because you wouldn't be able to pick up individual aggression against the owner/corp?
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
199
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 02:15:00 -
[74] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:Simi Kusoni wrote:I guess they are still aiming for more "meaningful" PvP, the issue being that they seem to be going about it by nerfing can flipping and whatever they deem to be meaningless PvP. All the while not bothering to actually add anything to help generate meaningful PvP.
Either that or they're just trying to get rid of aggression maps, no matter the cost.
Except that it seems apparent that a system where suspects can flag themselves as such and vigilantes can do the same creates very meaningful PvP. You can get a group of friends and roam around high-sec as suspects trying to find fights from another group flagged as vigilantes. That seems more meaningful to me than just flipping a can and hoping a miner shoots at you. In fact, with such a system, a meaningful engagement might go like this: 1. Newbro in a Rifter flips a can, and becomes a suspect 2. The miner flips the can back (an action against a suspect) or shoots him, and becomes a Vigilante 3. Rifter begins shooting the miner, but the miner warps in a neutral logistic and begins to rep him. Repping the miner, who is a vigilante, turns the neutral RR into a vigilante 4. The Rifter tackles the logi instead, leaving the miner to warp off and come back in a combat ship. 5. A roaming suspect gang passes through and notices from the new icons next to the two vigilantes in local that they are nearby, and the Rifter upon seeing the local spike of friendlies tells them where he has the logi tackled at 6. The roaming gang comes in and begins killing the re-shipped miner and his logi, since all suspects and all vigilantes can shoot each other, regardless of where their flags came from. 7. The suspects hold the two vigilantes in the belt, trying to escalate the fight 8. The miner calls for his friends who come in, unflagged, and engage the suspects, automatically flagging themselves as vigilantes 9. The two groups fight until a winner comes out on top, or the fight continues to escalate with more people - nearby suspects/vigilantes seeing in their intel channel where the fight is taking place That's somewhat of an unrealistic scenario, but I think it gives you an idea of how things could escalate and bring together groups of people to create a unique PvP experience in high-sec that normally would have been a Rifter getting out-repped by neutral RR that he can't deal with.
I think any system where you flag for PVP would be largely denounced by the nonconsentuial PVP ppl. That would cause an outroar the Jedi would feel lol http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Crunchie Attuxors
Always Another Corporate Venture
147
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 02:19:00 -
[75] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:First part of the rework shipped in Escalation, so no, not vaporware. That stage was all behind-the-scenes (as detailed in the presentation at Fanfest, which is on Youtube somewhere); the next step is to start implementing the redesign. Also, the current design explicitly allows you to return fire in all cases
Can we get ETA? Eve forums official anthem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pudOFG5X6uA-áReal men tank hull. Fake women shield-tank Gallente. |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
149
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 02:19:00 -
[76] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote: I think any system where you flag for PVP would be largely denounced by the nonconsentuial PVP ppl. That would cause an outroar the Jedi would feel lol
The non-consensual "Oh I stole loot from a mission runner and he shot me so now he dies" PvP would still certainly exist.
Being unflagged wouldn't mean "I'm never going to get PvP'd, I'll only get PvP'd if I turn on this PvP flag to let people know I want to fight"
Instead, rolling around with a suspect/vigilante flag means you can find fights from other gangs of like-minded people who are looking for fights. It detracts nothing from the game currently, and only adds another way for people to get fights in high-sec.
In fact, even being flagged, there's still non-consensual PvP. You shoot a suspect because he took your stuff, then suddenly his friends show up and you get non-consensually PvP'd. You could argue that retaliating against someone looting your stuff is consensual PvP, because surely you know the consequences.
There's still "Whoops, you just jumped into a gatecamp as a suspect, prepare to get non-consensually blown up". Just adds more ease-your-way-in-to-0.0 mechanics to high-sec, so people can get fights if they want to. |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
1489
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 02:20:00 -
[77] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:Simi Kusoni wrote:I guess they are still aiming for more "meaningful" PvP, the issue being that they seem to be going about it by nerfing can flipping and whatever they deem to be meaningless PvP. All the while not bothering to actually add anything to help generate meaningful PvP.
Either that or they're just trying to get rid of aggression maps, no matter the cost.
Except that it seems apparent that a system where suspects can flag themselves as such and vigilantes can do the same creates very meaningful PvP. You can get a group of friends and roam around high-sec as suspects trying to find fights from another group flagged as vigilantes. That seems more meaningful to me than just flipping a can and hoping a miner shoots at you. In fact, with such a system, a meaningful engagement might go like this: 1. Newbro in a Rifter flips a can, and becomes a suspect 2. The miner flips the can back (an action against a suspect) or shoots him, and becomes a Vigilante 3. Rifter begins shooting the miner, but the miner warps in a neutral logistic and begins to rep him. Repping the miner, who is a vigilante, turns the neutral RR into a vigilante 4. The Rifter tackles the logi instead, leaving the miner to warp off and come back in a combat ship. 5. A roaming suspect gang passes through and notices from the new icons next to the two vigilantes in local that they are nearby, and the Rifter upon seeing the local spike of friendlies tells them where he has the logi tackled at 6. The roaming gang comes in and begins killing the re-shipped miner and his logi, since all suspects and all vigilantes can shoot each other, regardless of where their flags came from. 7. The suspects hold the two vigilantes in the belt, trying to escalate the fight 8. The miner calls for his friends who come in, unflagged, and engage the suspects, automatically flagging themselves as vigilantes 9. The two groups fight until a winner comes out on top, or the fight continues to escalate with more people - nearby suspects/vigilantes seeing in their intel channel where the fight is taking place That's somewhat of an unrealistic scenario, but I think it gives you an idea of how things could escalate and bring together groups of people to create a unique PvP experience in high-sec that normally would have been a Rifter getting out-repped by neutral RR that he can't deal with. That is quite an idealistic scenario.
But anyway, I think you misunderstood what I meant by "meaningful". I meant to kill for financial gain, for power or to hurt a rival. As opposed to fighting for the sake of fighting, so for example killing people to stop them doing exploration sites in your area would be for a purpose. But that's currently impossible in Eve, because war decs are massively limited and easily avoidable.
Similarly currently there is almost never any point PvPing purely for profit, because almost everything expensive is moved via neutral alts. Neutral mining and the like is also just as bad, many corporations will essentially disband on a war coming in, only to rejoin ot afterward. In the meantime mining with no ill effect in NPC corps.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
736
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 02:24:00 -
[78] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:I presume fighting would extend the length of the suspect flag, I'm also guessing you wouldn't be able to shoot a GSC because you wouldn't be able to pick up individual aggression against the owner/corp? If you're able to shoot the owner you have to be able to shoot a things owned by him as well, otherwise you wouldn't be able to shoot his drones.
A bigger issue than that is that without individual flags the only thing keeping you able to shoot a war target that you are engaging is the fact that he is in a corporation that you are at war with. That might not seem like a huge issue, but corp hopping out of a corp while you're at war is already a thing, and you can leave a corp in space by having an application in to another player corp.
So you will be able to put an application in to a corporation, go and engage war targets and if you're losing have your application accepted and everyone shooting you will instantly be concorded without warning. Even in a best case scenario where that doesn't happen the person corp hopping will be able to escape.
The reason that doesn't happen right now is that shooting anyone gives you an individual timer against them so even if they leave their corporation while you're shooting them you are still able to attack each other because of the individual timer.
Greyscale's crimewatch could not be more of a step backwards in terms of the effect it will have on gameplay. |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
149
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 02:25:00 -
[79] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote: That is quite an idealistic scenario.
But anyway, I think you misunderstood what I meant by "meaningful". I meant to kill for financial gain, for power or to hurt a rival. As opposed to fighting for the sake of fighting, so for example killing people to stop them doing exploration sites in your area would be for a purpose. But that's currently impossible in Eve, because war decs are massively limited and easily avoidable.
Similarly currently there is almost never any point PvPing purely for profit, because almost everything expensive is moved via neutral alts. Neutral mining and the like is also just as bad, many corporations will essentially disband on a war coming in, only to rejoin ot afterward. In the meantime mining with no ill effect in NPC corps.
Of course it was idealistic. A more realistic situation would have been
1. Someone flags themselves on the 4-4 undock with tons of neutral RR on standby 2. People aggress the suspect, he reps himself with 5 guardians who all get flagged as suspects 3. People use THEIR neutral RR and all become flagged as vigilantes 4. Stuff dies
But I think the meaningfulness of this form of PvP would be to encourage people to start fighting and understand PvP. There's no meaningfulness to high-sec war decs about 90% of the time, but players new to PvP do it so they can ease into fighting others. This gives these players an opportunity to learn how PvP works, and offers a simple no-individual-kill-right-timers solution to high-sec aggression. |
Drinoch
Kaotic Intentions Cold Hand of Shadow
7
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 02:29:00 -
[80] - Quote
Cops and robbers...easy like faction warfare.
You make bounty hunters...We kill them alot
we get loyalty points and our bounties
We get LP and their frozen corpses |
|
Gatosai
Kaotic Intentions Cold Hand of Shadow
5
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 02:32:00 -
[81] - Quote
Drinoch wrote:Cops and robbers...easy like faction warfare.
You make bounty hunters...We kill them alot
we get loyalty points and our bounties
We get LP and their frozen corpses would be an interesting idea to have an npc corp you can sign on for to assit concord so that if u flag as a suspect these individuals that ally with concord can then take action insted of the entirity of local |
Drinoch
Kaotic Intentions Cold Hand of Shadow
7
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 02:39:00 -
[82] - Quote
Gatosai wrote:Drinoch wrote:Cops and robbers...easy like faction warfare.
You make bounty hunters...We kill them alot
we get loyalty points and our bounties
We get LP and their frozen corpses would be an interesting idea to have an npc corp you can sign on for to assit concord so that if u flag as a suspect these individuals that ally with concord can then take action insted of the entirity of local
I ment to say They get loyalty points and our bounties...my bad |
Drinoch
Kaotic Intentions Cold Hand of Shadow
7
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 02:42:00 -
[83] - Quote
Oh and this does 2 things it actually gives the bounty system a purpose other then to give us a seperate bank account...And you
could even take it a step further and concord could control our bounties..
Everytime we kill one of their Deputies they raise our bounties |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
149
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 02:46:00 -
[84] - Quote
Drinoch wrote:Oh and this does 2 things it actually gives the bounty system a purpose other then to give us a seperate bank account...And you
could even take it a step further and concord could control our bounties..
Everytime we kill one of their Deputies they raise our bounties
Not ISK bounties - Concord LP bounties
Suspects who kill Vigilantes get pirate LP |
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
880
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 02:56:00 -
[85] - Quote
So pretty much... log in alts, get them into remote sensor boosting logis, and sit by a gate in Jita with your main collecting free suspect bacon in your invincible insta lock bs?
OK.
|
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
150
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 03:00:00 -
[86] - Quote
Gogela wrote:So pretty much... log in alts, get them into remote sensor boosting logis, and sit by a gate in Jita with your main collecting free suspect bacon in your invincible insta lock bs?
OK.
You mean to tell me there's a risk associated with being a suspect?
And you also truly believe with a vigilante/suspect system that you would sit there camping for long before a group of suspects rolled up and zonked you? |
mkint
807
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 03:59:00 -
[87] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Jason Xado wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:First part of the rework shipped in Escalation, so no, not vaporware. That stage was all behind-the-scenes (as detailed in the presentation at Fanfest, which is on Youtube somewhere); the next step is to start implementing the redesign. Also, the current design explicitly allows you to return fire in all cases Any chance we can get some details? The original idea of the changes was to eliminate the need for aggression maps and keep everything simple. The only way for that to work would be if the suspect couldn't fire back. Otherwise you would have to keep up with an aggression map. Details would be welcome :-) Edit: Well another way to do it without maps would be if the suspect could fire at anyone, which although entertaining, would probobly not be the best way to go :-) We allow one-time mappings but we don't make them transitive, ie if you're a suspect and someone shoots you then you can always fire back, but if that person has a third party repping them, you can't shoot the logi because we don't allow aggression transfer like that (for obvious reasons). Obvious reasons being Grayscale's known associates. |
Mors Sanctitatis
Death of Virtue
724
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 04:02:00 -
[88] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:
We allow one-time mappings but we don't make them transitive, ie if you're a suspect and someone shoots you then you can always fire back, but if that person has a third party repping them, you can't shoot the logi because we don't allow aggression transfer like that (for obvious reasons).
This is precisely what is wrong with all the existing game design in the first place.
CCP's game designers allow a "get out of jail free card" for anyone who is contributing to the fight and not explicitly shooting someone. Including the ability to jump through gates and/or dock up. It needs to stop.
The game design team is purposefully protecting stupid players by limiting aggression propagation to only those who shoot someone. It is horrible game design, it's wrong, and you know it. If it takes someone fifty losses to figure out that you will lose your ship for remotely repping someone, so be it. But **** not being able to shoot someone because they're in Cambodia instead of Vietnam. The aggression mechanics should be as inclusive as possible, not as exclusive as possible. When in doubt, flag them as an aggressor.
It's so simple. Why are you making it complicated?
Intelligence shouldn't be free. -á Mining, reloaded. -á-áADDICTED. |
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
199
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 04:11:00 -
[89] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote: Similarly currently there is almost never any point PvPing purely for profit, because almost everything expensive is moved via neutral alts. Neutral mining and the like is also just as bad, many corporations will essentially disband on a war coming in, only to rejoin ot afterward. In the meantime mining with no ill effect in NPC corps.
I find this extremely funny cause CCP says the (never enforced) griefing rules say that if you do it for a non-gain reason, its called griefing (but life I said, never enforced)
http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
415
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 04:16:00 -
[90] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:Simi Kusoni wrote: Similarly currently there is almost never any point PvPing purely for profit, because almost everything expensive is moved via neutral alts. Neutral mining and the like is also just as bad, many corporations will essentially disband on a war coming in, only to rejoin ot afterward. In the meantime mining with no ill effect in NPC corps.
I find this extremely funny cause CCP says the (never enforced) griefing rules say that if you do it for a non-gain reason, its called griefing (but life I said, never enforced)
That rule doesn't seem to exist anymore (if it ever did).
http://support.eveonline.com/Pages/KB/Article.aspx?id=336 http://community.eveonline.com/pnp/terms.asp -RubyPorto
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
|
Y'nit Gidrine
Gold Horizons Industrial
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 04:22:00 -
[91] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:Simi Kusoni wrote: That is quite an idealistic scenario.
But anyway, I think you misunderstood what I meant by "meaningful". I meant to kill for financial gain, for power or to hurt a rival. As opposed to fighting for the sake of fighting, so for example killing people to stop them doing exploration sites in your area would be for a purpose. But that's currently impossible in Eve, because war decs are massively limited and easily avoidable.
Similarly currently there is almost never any point PvPing purely for profit, because almost everything expensive is moved via neutral alts. Neutral mining and the like is also just as bad, many corporations will essentially disband on a war coming in, only to rejoin ot afterward. In the meantime mining with no ill effect in NPC corps.
Of course it was idealistic. A more realistic situation would have been 1. Someone flags themselves on the 4-4 undock with tons of neutral RR on standby 2. People aggress the suspect, he reps himself with 5 guardians who all get flagged as suspects 3. People use THEIR neutral RR and all become flagged as vigilantes 4. Stuff dies But I think the meaningfulness of this form of PvP would be to encourage people to start fighting and understand PvP. There's no meaningfulness to high-sec war decs about 90% of the time, but players new to PvP do it so they can ease into fighting others. This gives these players an opportunity to learn how PvP works, and offers a simple no-individual-kill-right-timers solution to high-sec aggression.
Such a system would be incredibly abuseable.
Person A is mining into a can. Person B flips half of the can, and becomes a suspect. Person A then retaliates and shoots Person B and becomes a vigilante. Person C then warps into the belt and steals he rest of Person A's can, and thus also becomes a suspect. Person C can now shoot Person A even though Person A has done nothing to Person C.
And then you have confusing situations such as this:
Person A drops a can. Person B and Person C flip Person A's can and become suspects. Person C then proceeds to flip Person B's can. Is Person C a suspect, vigilante or both? Can he now attack everyone? Or perhaps he can attack no one?
Not to mention that the above system presumes that there are exactly two sides to a fight. |
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
199
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 04:26:00 -
[92] - Quote
mkint wrote: Obvious reasons being Grayscale's known associates.
If they ever planned on enforcing that instaban for rumor thing this might be a bad comment lol
Mors Sanctitatis wrote:
The game design team is purposefully protecting stupid players
CONCORD purposefully protects criminals, whats your point lol
Try shooting an obvious ganker before he attacks. http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
415
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 04:38:00 -
[93] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:mkint wrote: Obvious reasons being Grayscale's known associates.
If they ever planned on enforcing that instaban for rumor thing this might be a bad comment lol Mors Sanctitatis wrote:
The game design team is purposefully protecting stupid players
CONCORD purposefully protects criminals, whats your point lol Try shooting an obvious ganker before he attacks.
CONCORD provides consequences for anyone shooting anyone who has yet to do something wrong. Innocent until actually guilty.
If people don't like that, they can move to where CONCORD isn't.
Besides that, how do you suggest Concord tell the difference between some newbie in a Catalyst warping to a belt to rat and a ganker in a catalyst warping to a belt to shoot Hulks? -RubyPorto
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
880
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 04:43:00 -
[94] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:Gogela wrote:So pretty much... log in alts, get them into remote sensor boosting logis, and sit by a gate in Jita with your main collecting free suspect bacon in your invincible insta lock bs?
OK. You mean to tell me there's a risk associated with being a suspect? And you also truly believe with a vigilante/suspect system that you would sit there camping for long before a group of suspects rolled up and zonked you?
Who have you been fighting?
*sigh* this is probably a troll but I'll bite. My logi reppers are going to be untouchable regardless. I could have 10 there. Officer fit... why not? They'll never have a flag. So now it's just me sitting on that gate. So let's say a guy jumps in w/ the flag and he looks good. An easy kill. Little do I know there's 10 of his buddies on the other side of the gate, right? Well... first of all I'll be able to tank them. I have a bunch of logis feeding me cap shield and armor. WTF do I care if he has friends? Second, we're taking Jita. How long will it be before a few other random bored pilots roll up to the gate and start sniping this fleet of suspects that are attacking me? The longer I sit there the more will come... not because they like me but just to test this or that fit on free meat... and I'll be sitting there a while. ...at lest until I run out of ammo.... at which point I can have an alt bring me more. I could do it all day.
I'm just saying it'll become a feature of high traffic gates. Huge empire gate camps will form. They will just hang out, hirr lemming bubble camp style... but in empire. Quote me on that.
|
Powers Sa
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
247
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 04:46:00 -
[95] - 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.
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". I really dislike this post, but I'll get constructive criticism when I get off of work. |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
152
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 04:50:00 -
[96] - Quote
You're right. With the currently-proposed system, your logis will never be flagged - might as well officer fit them. The currently-proposed system is idiotic.
When you shoot at suspects, you should be flagged as a vigilante, and when you assist a vigilante, you should be flagged as a vigilante. So now you're sitting there with your 1 battleship and 10 logi, maybe some other vigilante friends. You honestly believe that there won't be corps or large groups of players who do nothing but flag as suspects and come zonk you on the gate?
But absolutely, as long as the logis never get flagged as per CCP Greyscale's flawless logic, you could 100% sit on the Perimeter gate with an instalocking tackler, a BS, and RR and blap dudes all day long.
Edit: I also like how you made a post and then went back and edited it afterwards to add insults about my alliance losing ships worth a fraction of their AT budget. |
mkint
807
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 04:55:00 -
[97] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:mkint wrote: Obvious reasons being Grayscale's known associates.
If they ever planned on enforcing that instaban for rumor thing this might be a bad comment lol I'm not sure I'd care. This is not the first time Grayscale will have implemented something game breaking that only benefits some very specific people. Why would anyone want to play a game that gets developed to keep dev-friends empowered at the cost of everyone else? |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
152
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 05:01:00 -
[98] - Quote
Y'nit Gidrine wrote: Such a system would be incredibly abuseable.
Person A is mining into a can. Person B flips half of the can, and becomes a suspect. Person A then retaliates and shoots Person B and becomes a vigilante. Person C then warps into the belt and steals he rest of Person A's can, and thus also becomes a suspect. Person C can now shoot Person A even though Person A has done nothing to Person C.
And then you have confusing situations such as this:
Person A drops a can. Person B and Person C flip Person A's can and become suspects. Person C then proceeds to flip Person B's can. Is Person C a suspect, vigilante or both? Can he now attack everyone? Or perhaps he can attack no one?
Not to mention that the above system presumes that there are exactly two sides to a fight.
I'll address both concerns:
1. Engaging a suspect should carry the consequence of the suspect's friends possibly showing up and blapping you. This goes both ways, as the suspect - in the current design of Crimewatch as per CCP Greyscale - can now be shot by any player in EVE. The only amendment that a Vigilante/Suspect system makes is that those who engage suspects now run the risk of retaliation rather than being able to gang up on a single suspect without him being able to fight back with equal numbers. If you're going to allow suspects to be shot by all of EVE, then those who shoot suspects should be killable by all other suspects. Batman doesn't fight one super-villain without all of the other super-villains plotting against him at the same time.
2. Simple. Flipping the can of a neutral makes you a suspect. Stealing from a suspect (or any other hostile action) makes you a vigilante. If person B flips player A's can and become suspect, and player A steals from player B, he is performing a hostile action against a suspect, making him a Vigilante. Any action you perform against one 'faction' will automatically put you in the other, and any assistance will put you with them.
The system does presume that there are exactly two sides to a fight. If you're looking for more robust, multi-sided engagements, go to low-sec or 0.0. This is a polarized solution to reduce aggression confusion. The only difference between this and CCP Greyscale's current plan is that those who shoot suspects are vulnerable to attack by other suspects. His plan creates situations where 30 suspects could be in a gang, but if a hostile gang only shoots one of them, the other 29 can only sit and watch their friend die. |
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
199
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 05:06:00 -
[99] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Antisocial Malkavian wrote:mkint wrote: Obvious reasons being Grayscale's known associates.
If they ever planned on enforcing that instaban for rumor thing this might be a bad comment lol Mors Sanctitatis wrote:
The game design team is purposefully protecting stupid players
CONCORD purposefully protects criminals, whats your point lol Try shooting an obvious ganker before he attacks. CONCORD provides consequences for anyone shooting anyone who has yet to do something wrong. Innocent until actually guilty.
Yeah cause the police totally wouldnt bother a known bank robber who is taking guns out of his car and walking into a bank
Real life comparisons work real well here lol
Pipa Porto wrote:
Besides that, how do you suggest Concord tell the difference between some newbie in a Catalyst warping to a belt to rat and a ganker in a catalyst warping to a belt to shoot Hulks?
remove CONCORD
Bet you werent expecting that... http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
736
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 05:19:00 -
[100] - Quote
Mors Sanctitatis wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:
We allow one-time mappings but we don't make them transitive, ie if you're a suspect and someone shoots you then you can always fire back, but if that person has a third party repping them, you can't shoot the logi because we don't allow aggression transfer like that (for obvious reasons).
This is precisely what is wrong with all the existing game design in the first place. 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. |
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
880
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 05:28:00 -
[101] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:You're right. With the currently-proposed system, your logis will never be flagged - might as well officer fit them. The currently-proposed system is idiotic.
When you shoot at suspects, you should be flagged as a vigilante, and when you assist a vigilante, you should be flagged as a vigilante. So now you're sitting there with your 1 battleship and 10 logi, maybe some other vigilante friends. You honestly believe that there won't be corps or large groups of players who do nothing but flag as suspects and come zonk you on the gate? Maybe even make it a good fight?
But absolutely, as long as the logis never get flagged as per CCP Greyscale's flawless logic, you could 100% sit on the Perimeter gate with an instalocking tackler, a BS, and RR and blap dudes all day long.
Edit: I also like how you made a post and then went back and edited it afterwards to add insults about my alliance losing ships worth a fraction of their AT budget. Yah. I used to be in hirr. It was awesome. Everyone was drunk or high and it was genuinely hilarious all of the time... even when nothing was coming through the gate we were on. There will be corps that form up to do nothing but. I may join one. Why not? No skin off my schlong...
Also: It wasn't really an insult. The jab at your flag ship.... maybe a little. I'm a big AT ship aficionado though, and it WAS very gutsy of PL to field them like they did (I'm putting their fleet at about 170 billion ISK fit not counting implants). It was the best alliance match I've ever seen. Very exciting to watch.... so kuddos to them. I'm amazed they didn't loose a Malice. From time to time I fit an AT ship and take it out to fight on sisi. Most of the time it's a PL pilot that kills me... and that's a fact. So much respect...
Edit: I would like to see things chain more in crimewatch. I would love to make empire more dangerous and have the probability of things spinning totally out of control and have entire empire systems collapse under the weight of complex aggression mechanics grow exponentially. I can't think of any better way to make empire vibrant and fun. At the same time, I appreciate the technical difficulties and from what I understand of what CCP Greyscale has written in other threads, I don't know how a solution can be found. I've thought a lot about it... I've got nothing.
|
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
153
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 05:33:00 -
[102] - Quote
Gogela wrote: Yah. I used to be in hirr. It was awesome. Everyone was drunk or high and it was genuinely hilarious all of the time... even when nothing was coming through the gate we were on. There will be corps that form up to do nothing but. I may join one. Why not? No skin off my schlong...
Problem is, with the current system, you'll never catch many suspects. They can't gang up and work together. Give suspects the ability to fight back together against the people shooting them and you'll get tons of fights on gates. It'd be interesting and maybe worth giving a shot.
As long as 50 people can shoot 1 suspect with only that suspect being able to shoot back via individual aggression timers, there's no point. You'll only catch a few stupid suspects in T1 looting/salvaging frigates. The rest will avoid gates like the plague until their timer is gone. |
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
880
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 05:39:00 -
[103] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:Gogela wrote: Yah. I used to be in hirr. It was awesome. Everyone was drunk or high and it was genuinely hilarious all of the time... even when nothing was coming through the gate we were on. There will be corps that form up to do nothing but. I may join one. Why not? No skin off my schlong...
Problem is, with the current system, you'll never catch many suspects. They can't gang up and work together. Give suspects the ability to fight back together against the people shooting them and you'll get tons of fights on gates. It'd be interesting and maybe worth giving a shot. As long as 50 people can shoot 1 suspect with only that suspect being able to shoot back via individual aggression timers, there's no point. You'll only catch a few stupid suspects in T1 looting/salvaging frigates. The rest will avoid gates like the plague until their timer is gone. You underestimate the power of the dumb side of the force...
|
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
415
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 05:40:00 -
[104] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:CONCORD provides consequences for anyone shooting anyone who has yet to do something wrong. Innocent until actually guilty. Yeah cause the police totally wouldnt bother a known bank robber who is taking guns out of his car and walking into a bank Real life comparisons work real well here lol Pipa Porto wrote:Besides that, how do you suggest Concord tell the difference between some newbie in a Catalyst warping to a belt to rat and a ganker in a catalyst warping to a belt to shoot Hulks? remove CONCORD Bet you werent expecting that...
Where did I make a Real Life Comparison? CONCORD provides consequences once you do something wrong and not a moment before. Why should CONCORD randomly decide that some Catalysts deserve death? As it is, your history of ganking is taken into account. The Faction Navies will hunt you and you can be preemptively shot at.
I'm not surprised by it. I think you've suggested it before. And I think I've pointed you to LowSec before. Lowsec is pretty much HS without CONCORD. Enjoy. -RubyPorto
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
73
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 05:47:00 -
[105] - Quote
Concord should work like the police in GTA, if you can make it to a station and change paintjobs, they forget everything you ever did. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
736
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 05:48:00 -
[106] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Concord should work like the police in GTA, if you can make it to a station and change paintjobs, they forget everything you ever did. Didn't you hear what Greyscale said? Fun gameplay isn't allowed in highsec. |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
153
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:00:00 -
[107] - Quote
Yeah, why would you want to expose players to interesting, compelling gameplay as soon as they start playing? |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1343
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:02:00 -
[108] - Quote
mkint wrote:I'm not sure I'd care. This is not the first time Grayscale will have implemented something game breaking that only benefits some very specific people. Why would anyone want to play a game that gets developed to keep dev-friends empowered at the cost of everyone else?
What "dev-friends" does it benefit and what other changes has he made for the benefit of "dev-friends?" a rogue goon |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
153
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:03:00 -
[109] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:mkint wrote:I'm not sure I'd care. This is not the first time Grayscale will have implemented something game breaking that only benefits some very specific people. Why would anyone want to play a game that gets developed to keep dev-friends empowered at the cost of everyone else? What "dev-friends" does it benefit and what other changes has he made for the benefit of "dev-friends?"
he nerfed titans
must be a goon alt for sure
maybe even shadoo's boyfriend |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
736
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:04:00 -
[110] - Quote
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. |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1343
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:05:00 -
[111] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:mkint wrote:I'm not sure I'd care. This is not the first time Grayscale will have implemented something game breaking that only benefits some very specific people. Why would anyone want to play a game that gets developed to keep dev-friends empowered at the cost of everyone else? What "dev-friends" does it benefit and what other changes has he made for the benefit of "dev-friends?" he nerfed titans must be a goon alt for sure maybe even shadoo's boyfriend
I doubt many of the "titans are fine" guys played EVE, let alone in 0.0, before the titan nerf.
Not that nerf, that nerf. a rogue goon |
mkint
808
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:07:00 -
[112] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:mkint wrote:I'm not sure I'd care. This is not the first time Grayscale will have implemented something game breaking that only benefits some very specific people. Why would anyone want to play a game that gets developed to keep dev-friends empowered at the cost of everyone else? What "dev-friends" does it benefit and what other changes has he made for the benefit of "dev-friends?" Remember that one time Grayscale destroyed trillions of isk of value in sov upgrades that completely destroyed alliances and coalitions, and further entrenched others?
What kind of player do you think would benefit from being able to use neutral RR with impunity? Maybe the kinds who have big ol' piles of anom and moon min isk to plex lots of logi alts? Maybe the kind that Grayscale actively goes out of his way to make game-wide sweeping changes to benefit? |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
736
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:10:00 -
[113] - Quote
I don't think you understood the situation in which you'd be able to use neutral RR without anyone ever being able to shoot at you.
It's totally irrelevant to goons and nullsec alliances in general. |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
153
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:14:00 -
[114] - Quote
mkint wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:mkint wrote:I'm not sure I'd care. This is not the first time Grayscale will have implemented something game breaking that only benefits some very specific people. Why would anyone want to play a game that gets developed to keep dev-friends empowered at the cost of everyone else? What "dev-friends" does it benefit and what other changes has he made for the benefit of "dev-friends?" Remember that one time Grayscale destroyed trillions of isk of value in sov upgrades that completely destroyed alliances and coalitions, and further entrenched others? What kind of player do you think would benefit from being able to use neutral RR with impunity? Maybe the kinds who have big ol' piles of anom and moon min isk to plex lots of logi alts? Maybe the kind that Grayscale actively goes out of his way to make game-wide sweeping changes to benefit?
You're right, it'd be such a joy to be able to spend all of our tech ISK on logi alts so we can use them in high-sec without getting shot at |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1343
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:14:00 -
[115] - Quote
mkint wrote:Remember that one time Grayscale destroyed trillions of isk of value in sov upgrades that completely destroyed alliances and coalitions, and further entrenched others?
what
mkint wrote:What kind of player do you think would benefit from being able to use neutral RR with impunity?
AFAIK neutral RR in wardec PvP will still work as it does - you get flagged upon repping somebody at war. In Crimewatch(TM) the current design will allow logistics to rep somebody shooting a suspect flagged player while still being "protected" by CONCORD.
Having to suicide gank a player who is assisting legal targets on the field is bad design. a rogue goon |
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
199
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:15:00 -
[116] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Antisocial Malkavian wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:CONCORD provides consequences for anyone shooting anyone who has yet to do something wrong. Innocent until actually guilty. Yeah cause the police totally wouldnt bother a known bank robber who is taking guns out of his car and walking into a bank Real life comparisons work real well here lol Pipa Porto wrote:Besides that, how do you suggest Concord tell the difference between some newbie in a Catalyst warping to a belt to rat and a ganker in a catalyst warping to a belt to shoot Hulks? remove CONCORD Bet you werent expecting that... Where did I make a Real Life Comparison? CONCORD provides consequences once you do something wrong and not a moment before. Why should CONCORD randomly decide that some Catalysts deserve death? As it is, your history of ganking is taken into account. The Faction Navies will hunt you and you can be preemptively shot at. I'm not surprised by it. I think you've suggested it before. And I think I've pointed you to LowSec before. Lowsec is pretty much HS without CONCORD. Enjoy.
wait since when can you not bring dreadnaughts and **** into lowsec? Oh yeah... you can, so that comparison fails too
and btw; real life comparison: Innocent until proven guilty. Unless thats the in game rule of law in this game too and if so then CONCORD are just retards http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
mkint
808
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:16:00 -
[117] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:I don't think you understood the situation in which you'd be able to use neutral RR without anyone ever being able to shoot at you.
It's totally irrelevant to goons and nullsec alliances in general. it's useful for any who want to go around being a nuisance in highsec.
Personally, I don't understand how people think the existing aggro system is complicated. It's not. You do something against someone, they get aggro rights on you. It's basically a "do you deserve it?" equation. All this new "well, you're now a suspect but then you become a vigilante, then you can be a sheriff but you have to chew space-tobacco" crap is just some dude trying to justify his position in a company that can no longer keep track of it's own employees. Bureaucracy at work. |
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
199
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:17:00 -
[118] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:
AFAIK neutral RR in wardec PvP will still work as it does - you get flagged upon repping somebody at war. In Crimewatch(TM) the current design will allow logistics to rep somebody shooting a suspect flagged player while still being "protected" by CONCORD.
Having to suicide gank a player who is assisting legal targets on the field is bad design.
damn I hate agreeing with Goons but Ownt like this guy: http://youtu.be/FM1gEZXzunI http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
736
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:17:00 -
[119] - Quote
mkint wrote:it's useful for any who want to go around being a nuisance in highsec. You have no idea what you're talking about. Go back and actually read the posts. The people who will be able to receive RR without the RR getting flagged will be people shooting suspect flagged characters. The only thing goons do in highsec is gank folks and very occasionally shoot at war targets, in neither of those situations will they be using RR either at all or in a way that it won't be attack-able by someone.
mkint wrote:Personally, I don't understand how people think the existing aggro system is complicated. It's not. You do something against someone, they get aggro rights on you. It's basically a "do you deserve it?" equation. All this new "well, you're now a suspect but then you become a vigilante, then you can be a sheriff but you have to chew space-tobacco" crap is just some dude trying to justify his position in a company that can no longer keep track of it's own employees. Bureaucracy at work.
This part is pretty much exactly the case. I get the impression that CCP Greyscale just wants to be able to say that he completed some big project and doesn't even remotely care what the actual outcome is. He very obviously couldn't care less about crimewatch actually leading to sensible, working gameplay that is fun. |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
153
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:18:00 -
[120] - Quote
mkint wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:I don't think you understood the situation in which you'd be able to use neutral RR without anyone ever being able to shoot at you.
It's totally irrelevant to goons and nullsec alliances in general. it's useful for any who want to go around being a nuisance in highsec.
Yeah I don't think that having RR that is immune from being shot by criminals is anywhere near as effective as just suicide ganking ice miners.
It's like you're fishing for a connection between CCP decisions and Goonswarm, but you keep catching boots. |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1344
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:19:00 -
[121] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:You have no idea what you're talking about. Go back and actually read the posts.
It's not as if two members of two wealthy nullsec alliances loaded to the teeth with technetium have been posting against the idea of immune RR! a rogue goon |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
153
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:24:00 -
[122] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:You have no idea what you're talking about. Go back and actually read the posts. It's not as if two members of two wealthy nullsec alliances loaded to the teeth with technetium have been posting against the idea of immune RR!
Our tech empire would crumble |
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
880
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:25:00 -
[123] - Quote
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...
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
736
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:28:00 -
[124] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:You have no idea what you're talking about. Go back and actually read the posts. It's not as if two members of two wealthy nullsec alliances loaded to the teeth with technetium have been posting against the idea of immune RR! I'm at a total loss as to what goons would even be doing in highsec that would involve un-shootable logistics.
I mean even if you're in highsec shooting jita campers and the jita campers have logistics that has gone suspect for repping a war target the logistics that are repping you are going to either: A) Be in corp/alliance where the war targets will be able to shoot them anyway B) Be neutral and also be suspect flagged because the people they have been repping are at war.
You'd have to bring neutral combat characters and neutral logistics for it to even make sense.
Although maybe I missed something and there's now a huge anti-ninja salvaging movement in GSF. |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
153
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:30:00 -
[125] - Quote
Gogela wrote: Why are some people so unwilling to stir up the pot and see what happens? Fearless my a55...
Because having participants in a fight that can't be shot at it stupid.
Because having suspects unable to shoot those aggressing their suspect friends right in front of them is stupid.
Because CCP Greyscale makes posts only defending his decisions rather than accepting criticisms, and seems ready to sacrifice gameplay quality at the expense of simplicity. |
mkint
808
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:31:00 -
[126] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:You have no idea what you're talking about. Go back and actually read the posts. It's not as if two members of two wealthy nullsec alliances loaded to the teeth with technetium have been posting against the idea of immune RR! actually this is probably the best argument that grayscale's ideas are just plain bad, and he's not just plain corrupt. Well, except in that vague bureaucrat-trying-to-justify-his-job kind of way.
Seriously, why has CCP been working so hard to revamp stuff that works just fine (if not optimally), but leaving stuff that is essentially game-breaking untouched? The awful new inventory, the awful neocom, the wardec revamp... all of that worked before, more or less. What about ****-poor corp management tools? What about POSes? What about broad swathes of gameplay being dead ends, abandoned, or flat out broken?
CCP, please for the love of sweet baby jeebus, if you're going to revamp systems that already function, stop making them worse off than they already were.
Or maybe CCP really hasn't changed since pre-barbie. They are still just fumbling in the dark, not actually playing their game. |
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
415
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:32:00 -
[127] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Where did I make a Real Life Comparison? CONCORD provides consequences once you do something wrong and not a moment before. Why should CONCORD randomly decide that some Catalysts deserve death? As it is, your history of ganking is taken into account. The Faction Navies will hunt you and you can be preemptively shot at.
I'm not surprised by it. I think you've suggested it before. And I think I've pointed you to LowSec before. Lowsec is pretty much HS without CONCORD. Enjoy. wait since when can you not bring dreadnaughts and **** into lowsec? Oh yeah... you can, so that comparison fails too and btw; real life comparison: Innocent until proven guilty. Unless thats the in game rule of law in this game too and if so then CONCORD are just retards
"Pretty Much," and Caps are pretty easy to avoid in LS. Besides that, CONCORD is the RP reason for HS's Cyno Jamming.
I said Innocent until actually guilty. No RL system uses that, because no RL system has magic crime detection powah like CONCORD does. Tell me, what alternative is there to punishing people after they commit crimes? -RubyPorto
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
153
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:32:00 -
[128] - Quote
mkint wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:You have no idea what you're talking about. Go back and actually read the posts. It's not as if two members of two wealthy nullsec alliances loaded to the teeth with technetium have been posting against the idea of immune RR! actually this is probably the best argument that grayscale's ideas are just plain bad, and he's not just plain corrupt. Well, except in that vague bureaucrat-trying-to-justify-his-job kind of way. Seriously, why has CCP been working so hard to revamp stuff that works just fine (if not optimally), but leaving stuff that is essentially game-breaking untouched? The awful new inventory, the awful neocom, the wardec revamp... all of that worked before, more or less. What about ****-poor corp management tools? What about POSes? What about broad swathes of gameplay being dead ends, abandoned, or flat out broken? CCP, please for the love of sweet baby jeebus, if you're going to revamp systems that already function, stop making them worse off than they already were. Or maybe CCP really hasn't changed since pre-barbie. They are still just fumbling in the dark, not actually playing their game.
Don't backpedal too fast, you'll steer off the sidewalk and crack your dignity |
Tsubutai
The Tuskers
105
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:34:00 -
[129] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:We allow one-time mappings but we don't make them transitive, ie if you're a suspect and someone shoots you then you can always fire back, but if that person has a third party repping them, you can't shoot the logi because we don't allow aggression transfer like that (for obvious reasons). I assume you mean "for obvious server performance reasons" there because from a gameplay standpoint, that stinks and is one of the things everyone hates about neutral RR as it stands. |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
153
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:37:00 -
[130] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:We allow one-time mappings but we don't make them transitive, ie if you're a suspect and someone shoots you then you can always fire back, but if that person has a third party repping them, you can't shoot the logi because we don't allow aggression transfer like that (for obvious reasons). 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.
Oh but he later justified it by saying something along the lines of "you reach a point where you just have to say "you committed crimes, this isn't going to be an easy fight" and tough luck"
So asinine |
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
736
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:37:00 -
[131] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote: I assume you mean "for obvious server performance reasons" there because from a gameplay standpoint, that stinks and is one of the things everyone hates about neutral RR as it stands.
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.
Right now on TQ if someone is repping someone that you are shooting at you can shoot the person that is repping them and if the person they are repping has aggression versus your corp or alliance then your corp or alliance can shoot the person repping too. It has been that way for as long as I have been playing the game.
Within the current game mechanics there is no invulnerable logistics.
I feel like I'm going to have to post that on every single page because apparently nobody actually knows what the current mechanics are and just assumes that logistics is invulnerable when repping in highsec even though it's totally untrue. |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
153
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:40:00 -
[132] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote: Within the current game mechanics there is no invulnerable logistics.
I feel like I'm going to have to post that on every single page because apparently nobody actually knows what the current mechanics are and just assumes that logistics is invulnerable when repping in highsec even though it's totally untrue.
Docking permission requested
Docking request accepted
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1344
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:42:00 -
[133] - Quote
mkint wrote:actually this is probably the best argument that grayscale's ideas are just plain bad, and he's not just plain corrupt. Well, except in that vague bureaucrat-trying-to-justify-his-job kind of way.
Seriously, why has CCP been working so hard to revamp stuff that works just fine (if not optimally), but leaving stuff that is essentially game-breaking untouched? The awful new inventory, the awful neocom, the wardec revamp... all of that worked before, more or less. What about ****-poor corp management tools? What about POSes? What about broad swathes of gameplay being dead ends, abandoned, or flat out broken?
CCP, please for the love of sweet baby jeebus, if you're going to revamp systems that already function, stop making them worse off than they already were.
Or maybe CCP really hasn't changed since pre-barbie. They are still just fumbling in the dark, not actually playing their game.
The new inventory system works great now that they fixed a lot of the performance issues - we have a corp hangar tab that often has 500+ individual stacks inside (assembled frigates for newbies) that previously took several minutes to load, and now it loads in moments. The new neocom is also great considering that I don't have to have crap that I never use there (jukebox, journal) and can have stuff on the main bar that I /do/ use. a rogue goon |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
736
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:43:00 -
[134] - Quote
They can dock or jump regardless of the type of space they are in. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1344
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:44:00 -
[135] - Quote
also, logistics is literally only balanced in 0.0
in lowsec, you won't take long to hit -10 as a logi pilot and in hisec, well, soon you'll literally be immune to retaliation because Aggression Transfer is Bad a rogue goon |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
155
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:47:00 -
[136] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:They can dock or jump regardless of the type of space they are in.
And in every type of space, sitting on a station and repping makes you 100% invulnerable. You'd have to be an idiot to die while motoring around the station in docking range repairing your friendlies.
Not only can they shoot you, but doing so only baits the DPS off of your friendlies while they continue to die. You can bait into low armor and then dock your precious Guardian up and then come right back out.
That's a joke. That should never have been allowed to go on as long as it has. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
736
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:47:00 -
[137] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Aggression Transfer is Bad I know right! Heaven forfend that people be able to shoot at the people who are actively performing aggressive actions against them. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1344
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:47:00 -
[138] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:I wasn't aware that there was some magical feature in every type of space other than highsec that prevented logistics ships from docking or jumping while repping someone.
there is, it's called bubbles and fights happening at places other than stations and gates a rogue goon |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
155
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:49:00 -
[139] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote: in lowsec, you won't take long to hit -10 as a logi pilot
Gotta disagree with you on this one, your sec status goes down SO SLOWLY flying logi in low-sec. Killing frigate rats on gates makes up for the sec status loss. Repping a friendly before your GCC runs out means you only have to get 1 sec status hit every time you go out.
We're talking going from -1.5 to -1.51 from getting your single GCC each time you roam low-sec. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
736
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:49:00 -
[140] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:They can dock or jump regardless of the type of space they are in. And in every type of space, sitting on a station and repping makes you 100% invulnerable. You'd have to be an idiot to die while motoring around the station in docking range repairing your friendlies. Not only can they shoot you, but doing so only baits the DPS off of your friendlies while they continue to die. You can bait into low armor and then dock your precious Guardian up and then come right back out. That's a joke. That should never have been allowed to go on as long as it has. The gentleman I quoted was talking specifically about neutral RR, the lack of a weapons timer on logistics has literally nothing to do with its neutrality so I'm still failing to see how brining this entire thing up is relevant. I don't disagree, it just has nothing to do with what I was talking about. |
|
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
344
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:52:00 -
[141] - Quote
As long as RR its self counts as a timer generater then it puts the logistics at risk. Which is what this whole converstion is about.
Grayscale most likely just back from vacation and did not present the idea well.
Hopefully a devblog will kill some of the corner cases and we can argue diffrent ones soon |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
736
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:55:00 -
[142] - Quote
I'd really like to see how the idea that someone can be shooting at you and receiving remote reps but if you shoot the repping parties you get a blast of concord to the face could possibly be presented well. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1344
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:55:00 -
[143] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:Richard Desturned wrote: in lowsec, you won't take long to hit -10 as a logi pilot
Gotta disagree with you on this one, your sec status goes down SO SLOWLY flying logi in low-sec. Killing frigate rats on gates makes up for the sec status loss. Repping a friendly before your GCC runs out means you only have to get 1 sec status hit every time you go out. We're talking going from -1.5 to -1.51 from getting your single GCC each time you roam low-sec.
mistakes were made a rogue goon |
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
880
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:56:00 -
[144] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:Gogela wrote: Why are some people so unwilling to stir up the pot and see what happens? Fearless my a55... Because having participants in a fight that can't be shot at it stupid. Because having suspects unable to shoot those aggressing their suspect friends right in front of them is stupid. Because CCP Greyscale makes posts only defending his decisions rather than accepting criticisms, and seems ready to sacrifice gameplay quality at the expense of simplicity.
You and I aren't even arguing opposing points, you know.
Read the original CrimeWatch thread. CCP Greyscale had a lot to say.
|
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
344
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:57:00 -
[145] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:I'd really like to see how the idea that someone can be shooting at you and receiving remote reps but if you shoot the repping parties you get a blast of concord to the face could possibly be presented well. Thats no what he said. I'll wait for clerification before I add to this troll thread |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
736
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 06:58:00 -
[146] - Quote
Err that's literally what he said. |
dexington
Lysergic.acid.diethylamide
49
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 07:00:00 -
[147] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:I'd really like to see how the idea that someone can be shooting at you and receiving remote reps but if you shoot the repping parties you get a blast of concord to the face could possibly be presented well.
No one said it should be easy to pvp in hi-sec.
|
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
344
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 07:01:00 -
[148] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Err that's literally what he said. He sayed it both ways in the last 24 hours once on the stream (transfer of the timer for those who you rep) and then the opposite in this thread. Waiting for the clearification post. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
736
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 07:03:00 -
[149] - Quote
dexington wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:I'd really like to see how the idea that someone can be shooting at you and receiving remote reps but if you shoot the repping parties you get a blast of concord to the face could possibly be presented well. No one said it should be easy to pvp in hi-sec. 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. |
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
880
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 07:13:00 -
[150] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:dexington wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:I'd really like to see how the idea that someone can be shooting at you and receiving remote reps but if you shoot the repping parties you get a blast of concord to the face could possibly be presented well. No one said it should be easy to pvp in hi-sec. 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. Why do you look like a Quaker. That's the real question...
|
|
dexington
Lysergic.acid.diethylamide
49
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 07:16:00 -
[151] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote: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.
Before you get to the point where you can shoot at someone while getting the remote assistance, but parties need to take certain steps. You flip the jetcan and he shoots at you, what happens next may be dirty and unfair, but that is just eve.
Maybe i have just misunderstood the new design, but i don't think you can just fly around with a logi support and shoot random people, without condor showing up. |
Tsubutai
The Tuskers
105
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 07:19:00 -
[152] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Tsubutai wrote: I assume you mean "for obvious server performance reasons" there because from a gameplay standpoint, that stinks and is one of the things everyone hates about neutral RR as it stands.
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. Yeah, my original post was clumsily worded. I actually edited it for accuracy before you and Ohh Yeah posted, but I guess you'd already hit reply and started writing by then.
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
880
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 07:21:00 -
[153] - Quote
Quick someone sell me some oats.
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
737
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 07:24:00 -
[154] - Quote
It's all part of my plan you see. |
Mors Sanctitatis
Death of Virtue
726
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 07:25:00 -
[155] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Mors Sanctitatis wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:
We allow one-time mappings but we don't make them transitive, ie if you're a suspect and someone shoots you then you can always fire back, but if that person has a third party repping them, you can't shoot the logi because we don't allow aggression transfer like that (for obvious reasons).
This is precisely what is wrong with all the existing game design in the first place. 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.
I know the current mechanics. What I'm saying is, CCP is continuing to remove sets of actions that will cost players their lives instead of being inclusive with respect to actions and situations that will allow you to be killed. There are numerous combinations of events that have been designed out of the game that used to allow players to be killed. Again, CCP keeps handholding instead of letting the noobs die a few dozen times in order to get the hang of things.
But yes, I agree, it's a direct step backwards and in the wrong direction.
Intelligence shouldn't be free. -á Mining, reloaded. -á-áADDICTED. |
Derron Bel
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 07:51:00 -
[156] - Quote
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. |
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
416
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 08:09:00 -
[157] - Quote
Derron Bel wrote: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.
(That's pretty much the point of the Suspect v Vigilante team idea, turn it into a pickup game of PvP)
If everyone is able to shoot suspects, suspects should be able to team up to fight back.
If we keep individual aggression for petty crimes, and global aggression for serious crimes, then we don't need to allow suspects to group together, because people won't be able to significantly group together against them. -RubyPorto
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Exhale.
149
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 08:22:00 -
[158] - Quote
The earlier proposal of things like stealing loot from cans giving you some kind of global flag allowing everyone in EVE to shoot you is one of those very pants-on-head ******** ideas that should never have been discussed or taken further than the initial idiotic utterance. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
415
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 08:28:00 -
[159] - Quote
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. |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Exhale.
149
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 08:46:00 -
[160] - Quote
On the issue of neutral reppers, the only argument I've seen in favour of not including them in the aggression is along the lines of "but then you might end up with aggression/GCC for something another player does!" ... well that's a risk you took when deciding to help that player. If you don't trust them to not do something off the rails and end up involving you in a fight you didn't expect or want to be in, then don't rep them. Simple.
The idea of invincible neutral logis is horrifically stupid. Go back to the drawing board, greyscale. |
|
Abigail Sagan
Active Fusion Cold Fusion.
19
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 10:11:00 -
[161] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:We allow one-time mappings but we don't make them transitive, ie if you're a suspect and someone shoots you then you can always fire back, but if that person has a third party repping them, you can't shoot the logi because we don't allow aggression transfer like that (for obvious reasons). 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.
I assume your assumption is right, and like you I think that reason sucks. If the reason for CCP to not allow aggression transfer like above is because of some other obvious reason, someone from CCP should obviously point that obvious reason out for us all to see (for obvious reasons). Obviously thank you. ;)
Abigail PS: Yes, I obviously don't like obvious reasons that aren't really so obvious. PPS: If Tsubutai's assumption is correct, then there is reason for CCP to find time from their training queue and insert Coding Skill there for few more levels. Thank you.
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1344
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 10:19:00 -
[162] - Quote
Xorv wrote: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.
This will literally never happen because you have the risk-averse evernoobs who want to make nullsec levels of income with hisec convenience in multi-billion ISK Machariels and do not play for any reason other than to watch their wallet climb up. The only point where they leave hisec is when they are finally ~mAX LEVel~ and finally feel like trying out that pee vee pee thing, and buy a supercapital and join whatever FOTM alliance is recruiting every supercarrier pilot with a heartbeat. a rogue goon |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8573
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 12:12:00 -
[163] - Quote
RR not receiving aggro flags for helping out victims of crimesGǪ? Meh. Who cares. It's such a rare edge case that it just adds a fun tactic.
The real question is: are you still planning on flagging people as suspect for butting in on wardecs (e.g. assisting a war target)? Is the idea of docking/jumping timer transfers to assisting ships still intact?
Those are the ones that will actually deal with the GÇ£neutral RRGÇ¥ problem as everyone knows it GÇö not the non-transitive nature of the player-to-player mappings. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Grinder2210
Kaotic Intentions Cold Hand of Shadow
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 12:35:00 -
[164] - Quote
May as well say it CCP hates unconsentual pvp
Carebears online yea! |
Thorn Galen
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
803
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 12:44:00 -
[165] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:As to "invicible logis", in the current design yes, that is the case 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.
Yeah this all the way. CCP Greyscale with respect, this scenario will have bad consequences when it is abused to the extent that a sudden "quick fix" has to be implemented. We all know what happens with "quick fixes". The universe is an ancient desert, a vast wasteland with only occasional habitable planets as oases. We Fremen, comfortable with deserts, shall now venture into another. - STILGAR, From the Sietch to the Stars. |
dexington
Lysergic.acid.diethylamide
50
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 12:44:00 -
[166] - Quote
Grinder2210 wrote: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. |
Jame Jarl Retief
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
196
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 12:52:00 -
[167] - Quote
dexington wrote:Grinder2210 wrote: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.
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... |
ed jeni
SKULLDOGS RED.OverLord
41
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 12:58:00 -
[168] - Quote
the overhaul to GCC has been long overdue, CCP have come up with some good ideas and seem to be working on solving the many issues that plague GCC as it has been.
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 !!
apart from the fact that this is going to be abused to hell n back, by people flying around in the company of a neut logi ship,
by taking part in any confrontation you should inherit the same risk as the parties involved in that conflict, whether that be 1v1 or 5v1 any other solution does not seem to make any sense whatsoever,
so i'd like to hear someone at CCP explain why this is a good idea, other than "meh"
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8574
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 13:04:00 -
[169] - Quote
ed jeni wrote: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 !! 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 CrimeWatch 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.
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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Grinder2210
Kaotic Intentions Cold Hand of Shadow
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 13:14:00 -
[170] - Quote
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:dexington wrote:Grinder2210 wrote: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. 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...
Low and null sec pvp in never unconsensual
if you belave it is exit than jump back threw a gate and read the huge worning given to you before entering theses areas of space |
|
Grinder2210
Kaotic Intentions Cold Hand of Shadow
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 13:23:00 -
[171] - Quote
dexington wrote:Grinder2210 wrote: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.
fact is i dont even mind half the ideas being put up buy ccp thow i belave there not very well thought out as thay stand 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
Dont cearbearing mission running guys disurve to be killed i for one think thay disurve warm hugs form my missles on a stady baisis |
Denidil
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
298
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 13:27:00 -
[172] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:It's nice to have a straight up admission that you are literally trying to discourage highsec PVP. Can you explain exactly what you mean by "highsec PVP" in this context?
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.
If you assist someone currently engaged in hostilities you should be flagged toward their enemies.
yes this has the ability to be abused by griefers - so be it. I like all these gankbear tears, now maybe you'll have to go prove your "l33t pvp" skills against something that shoots back like the rest of us do. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8575
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 13:28:00 -
[173] - Quote
Grinder2210 wrote: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 He said nothing of the kind, so no. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
ed jeni
SKULLDOGS RED.OverLord
41
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 13:29:00 -
[174] - Quote
Quote: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.
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. |
Vol Arm'OOO
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 13:33:00 -
[175] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: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".
Really? invincible logi? the disconnect between the perception of Eve and its reality is getting larger and larger. Eve is supposed to be this big open world hardcore pvp game - but the reality is that it is almost an entirely consensual pvp system - its a large safe zone with battle zones of consensual pvp surrounding it. In effect, just like wow. In empire there are only 4 ways of getting pvp - can flipping, war deccing, suiciding, and ninja salvaging. Of these, ninja salvaging has been nerfed to hell, and war deccing has been and remains borked - even with the recent changes, it is easy as hell to avoid the war dec. Now can flipping which was in essence a consensual act as the target never had to attack you if he didnt want to and was a dicey affair because he could bring his entire corp to help him, is going to be rendered an impossible affair due to invicible logi. So the net effect is an ever decreasing pool of potential pvp. What really hurts about this is that null and low sec are about blobs, hot drops, and capitals. Whereas, empire pvp was more about the small low scale grp pvp. Moreover, the population of low and null are simply not what empire is. If this is the trend IMO there is going to be an overall decrease in the the opportunities for significant amounts small scale pvp. |
Grinder2210
Kaotic Intentions Cold Hand of Shadow
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 13:33:00 -
[176] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Grinder2210 wrote: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 He said nothing of the kind, so no.
What happens whan your sec standings gets under -2?
It may not have been said word for word but its what will happen |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
1377
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 13:33:00 -
[177] - Quote
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. |
|
Vol Arm'OOO
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 13:42:00 -
[178] - Quote
Gogela wrote: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...
IMO what makes eve different then every other mmo is that it has always been about rewarding the player that learns the game. And this is not simply a function of vet vs newbe - for instance, i cant tell you how many times I have run across vet null sec pilots who do not know the aggro rules of empire and have suffered as a result. Given the complexity of eve, there is always more to learn and this keeps the game fresh and interesting. The actual game play of eve is pretty simplistic so when the complexity is bled out of the game, I suspect its going to be a lot less interesting of a game. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8575
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 13:43:00 -
[179] - Quote
ed jeni wrote: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. I think a lot of the lack of clarity has to do with people not being fully familiar with how they proposed to change the flagging mechanics, so when Greyscale says something, they assume it will apply as a change or addition to the current mechanics, rather than the upcoming one.
So, in this case, when he's talking about not transferring flagging, people assume that none of the flags we have right now will be transferredGǪ and that's kind of technically true, I suppose, but only because none of the flags we have right now will even exist. You can't transfer something that no longer exists, now can you?
Denidil wrote: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. He didn't say that. He actually said that neutral RR (in its most common form) will come at a price: it will flag the RR as a suspect GÇö i.e. a free-for-all targetGǪ Now add in the whole GÇ£inherits docking timersGÇ¥ idea (which I haven't seen them retract), and RR will most definitely not be the way it is now.
Grinder2210 wrote:What happens whan your sec standings gets under -2? Same thing as now: you will be chased by the faction police in 1.0 systems. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Vol Arm'OOO
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 13:45:00 -
[180] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: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.
So your saying that your eliminating one of the four pillars of empire pvp and are replacing it with what? Or are you saying that pvp in empire is simply not allowed outside of suciding and war decs?
|
|
Grinder2210
Kaotic Intentions Cold Hand of Shadow
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 13:47:00 -
[181] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: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.
Can Fliping by and large being the only way to ever gain agression on shiny ships missioning in high sec its just seem like your giveing a free pass these players |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8575
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 13:47:00 -
[182] - Quote
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:So your saying that your eliminating one of the four pillars of empire pvp and are replacing it with what? Or are you saying that pvp in empire is simply not allowed outside of suciding and war decs? I don't think he's saying either of those. What pillar is being removed?
Grinder2210 wrote:Can Fliping by and large being the only way to ever gain agression on shiny ships missioning in high sec its just seem like your giveing a free pass these players You can still do it (if he's turned his safeties offGǪ but that's no different than him just choosing not to take the bait), so the only difference is that, if he just shoots you rather than steal things back, he can have RR support and you cannot. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
738
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 13:49:00 -
[183] - Quote
I can't believe a dev literally just said that PVP is bad and that players trying to do it should get punished.
That's ******* astonishing. |
Vol Arm'OOO
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 13:50:00 -
[184] - Quote
Tippia wrote:[quote=Vol Arm'OOO]So your saying that your eliminating one of the four pillars of empire pvp and are replacing it with what? Or are you saying that pvp in empire is simply not allowed outside of suciding and war decs? I don't think he's saying either of those. What pillar is being removed?
There are only four ways of getting pvp in empire - can flipping, suiciding, ninja salvaging and war dec. He is saying that can flipping is being eliminated. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8575
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 13:51:00 -
[185] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:I can't believe a dev literally just said that PVP is bad and that players trying to do it should get punished. Good thing that he didn't, then. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
738
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 13:53:00 -
[186] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:I can't believe a dev literally just said that PVP is bad and that players trying to do it should get punished. Good thing that he didn't, then. Except for the part where that's exactly what he said. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8575
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 13:55:00 -
[187] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Except for the part where that's exactly what he said. Please link and quote it in full.
He said that doing something that earns you a suspect flag GÇö i.e. doing something that is a petty crime GÇö means you get punished for this petty crime (that punishment being the suspect flag). This is no different than what we have right now where you get punished for doing petty crimes.
You need to learn what quotation marks mean. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Grinder2210
Kaotic Intentions Cold Hand of Shadow
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 13:58:00 -
[188] - Quote
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:Tippia wrote:[quote=Vol Arm'OOO]So your saying that your eliminating one of the four pillars of empire pvp and are replacing it with what? Or are you saying that pvp in empire is simply not allowed outside of suciding and war decs? I don't think he's saying either of those. What pillar is being removed? There are only four ways of getting pvp in empire - can flipping, suiciding, ninja salvaging and war dec. He is saying that can flipping is being eliminated.
pritty much Canfliping gone ninja salvaging still around but only if your trying to salvage wrecks for profit
Wardecs have allready been messed with in such a way there there not nearly as vilable in hs
Sucide ganks Still ok and with Tere 3 battle cruisers a lot easyer win for sucide ganking |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
738
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 13:59:00 -
[189] - Quote
I know you really get off on playing backseat dev at fanfest, but I didn't realize that they'd actually started paying you to support their clearly moronic game design decisions, or maybe you're just verbally fellating greyscale to try and get dev buddy points? Rather than repeating the party line at me why don't you try actually thinking about what that actually means for players.
It is punishment for initiating PVP in no uncertain terms. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8575
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 14:02:00 -
[190] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:It is punishment for initiating PVP in no uncertain terms. GǪmuch like the current situation where you also get "punished" for doing "bad" things.
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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
738
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 14:05:00 -
[191] - Quote
Initiating PVP therefore is bad and you should be punished for doing it. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
823
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 14:06:00 -
[192] - Quote
CCP Greyscale, thanks for pointing out that actions have consequences in this game.
However there is a case where the consequences almost vanish. If you suicide gank someone you lose your ship and a goodly chunk of sec status. To keep your sec status high you got to go do "community service" killing red plus signs. That is a big time sink and a real consequence. (Losing a cheap ship is of almost no consequence).
But what if you let your sec status go to -10? That is a big consequence in and of itself, but:
Once you are -10 the additional consequence for an additional gank is almost zero (loss of a cheap ship).
Its like the opposite of a three strikes law: Do sufficient crimes and the penalties go away.
What additional penalty could there be? Well, how about ganker pays out the insurance for the ship that he destroyed? And if your wallet goes negative, than you cannot board a ship other than a shuttle until its positive. (You could even say that the interest on our wallet balance goes to paying the ship crew, and with a negative balance, you are not contributing your share, so no crewed ship for you). This could apply to all suicide gankers, or just the ones with a real low sec status. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8575
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 14:08:00 -
[193] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Initiating PVP therefore is bad and you should be punished for doing it. You really don't understand the meaning of quotation marks do you?
You already get GÇ£punishedGÇ¥ for doing GÇ£badGÇ¥ things. This does not mean that PvP is bad GÇö it means that the mechanics are set up to differentiate between legal and illegal actions and that you will be flagged for doing the latter.
So no, he's not saying that PvP is bad. He's saying that committing criminal acts is GÇ£badGÇ¥, which is no different from the current situation. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Quaaid
ABOS Industrial Enterprises
50
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 14:16:00 -
[194] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: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.
So long as it works both ways and aggressors can have risk free logistical support as well, then it's all good. Something tells me that won't be the case though.l
Be very careful how you play with the scales, this game is riddled with the combat adverse but is not dominated by them. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8575
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 14:20:00 -
[195] - Quote
Ok, lookGǪ I'll sketch out some scenarios and how I understand that they will play out with CW2.0. Greyscale, please correct me if I've misunderstood them.
1. Theft. Thief is flagged suspect GÇö anyone can attack him. Any remote support to the thief will be flagged suspect GÇö anyone can attack them as well. Anyone attacking the thief becomes a legal target for the thief. Anyone remote-supporting these attackers cannot be attacked by the thief.
2a. Failed canflip (i.e. target does not steal back the dropped can). Exactly the same situation as scenario #1.
2b. Successful canflip (i.e. target steals from the flipped can). Thief and target are both flagged suspect GÇö anyone can attack them. Any remote support to either the target or the thief will be flagged suspsect GÇö anyone can attack them as well. Anyone attacking the target or the thief becomes a legal target to whomever they attacked. Anyone remote-supporting these attackers cannot be attacked by the target/thief.
3. Suicide gank Ganker is flagged felon GÇö anyone can attack him and CONCORD will come along shortly to mop up. Any remote support to the ganker will be flagged felon GÇö anyone can attack them as well (before CONCORD deals with them). Anyone attacking the ganker becomes a legal target (good luck making use of it before CONCORD shows up). Anyone supporting these attackers cannot be attacked by the ganker.
4. Wardec Corp1-members and Corp2-members can attack each other freely without triggering any flags. Any neutral remote support to an Corp1 or Corp2 will be flagged suspect GÇö anyone can attack them. Anyone remote-supporting the neutral support will be flagged suspect GÇö anyone can attack them. Any neutral attacking a Corp1 or Corp2 member will be flagged felon (assuming said member has not flagged himself felon or suspect in some other way) GÇö anyone can attack them and CONCORD will be along to mop up. Anyone supporting these neutral attackers will be flagged felons, with the same effect.
On top of this, any remote-support action will inherit the docking/jumping timers of the ship(s) they're supporting. They either have to stop their support and deaggress on their own, or the ships they're supporting have to deaggress, before the remote support ship can jump/dock up. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
738
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 14:23:00 -
[196] - Quote
You can just go ahead and say that you think that highsec PVP shouldn't exist, nobody will begrudge you your opinion, but pretending that "if someone did something to you then you specifically are allowed to retaliate at your own risk" is the same as "If someone did something to you anyone in the game can retaliate against them with the odds artificially stacked in their favour" is dishonest.
It doesn't matter how many quotation marks you put around the word bad. If game design stacks the odds against people for doing something the thing that they are doing is being discoruaged, if something is just "bad" and not actually bad then the game mechanics shouldn't actively discourage it. |
Vol Arm'OOO
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 14:33:00 -
[197] - Quote
Grinder2210 wrote:Vol Arm'OOO wrote:Tippia wrote:[quote=Vol Arm'OOO]So your saying that your eliminating one of the four pillars of empire pvp and are replacing it with what? Or are you saying that pvp in empire is simply not allowed outside of suciding and war decs? I don't think he's saying either of those. What pillar is being removed? There are only four ways of getting pvp in empire - can flipping, suiciding, ninja salvaging and war dec. He is saying that can flipping is being eliminated. pritty much Canfliping gone ninja salvaging still around but only if your trying to salvage wrecks for profit Wardecs have allready been messed with in such a way there there not nearly as vilable in hs Sucide ganks Still ok and with Tere 3 battle cruisers a lot easyer win for sucide ganking
Yea - this is exactly the way i see it. PVP in empire is gone - except for suicide ganks and consensual pvp in things like rvb. I wonder if CCP is going to change their marketing - come to eve we got safe zones and battle grounds just like wow? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8575
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 14:34:00 -
[198] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:pretending that "if someone did something to you then you specifically are allowed to retaliate at your own risk" is the same as "If someone did something to you anyone in the game can retaliate against them with the odds artificially stacked in their favour" is dishonest. GǪexcept that you keep missing the point, and that the quotation marks bear meaning.
Doing something GÇ£badGÇ¥ will get you GÇ£punishedGÇ¥. This holds true for both the old and the new system.
You are trying to blow this very simple statement way out of proportion by saying that, suddenly, CCP are telling us that PvP is bad. They're not GÇö they're applying the exact same model of GÇ£Criminal Act GåÆ Criminal FlagGÇ¥ as the game has had for +ªons. They're just using GÇ£badGÇ¥ and GÇ£punishmentGÇ¥ to describe the two parts. The GÇ£bad thingsGÇ¥ and the GÇ£punishmentsGÇ¥ may change a bit, but so will the mechanics behind them and they will open up new fun ways of blowing people up (my list of scenarios above should provide you with a very obvious one).
In fact, if you want to cry about something, you've missed the really annoying change with the new system GÇö the one that will actually make a difference for thieves and canflippers: the safety system. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Vol Arm'OOO
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 14:41:00 -
[199] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:I can't believe a dev literally just said that PVP is bad and that players trying to do it should get punished. Good thing that he didn't, then. Vol Arm'OOO wrote:There are only four ways of getting pvp in empire - can flipping, suiciding, ninja salvaging and war dec. He is saying that can flipping is being eliminated. No, he's not. You can still can flip. If the other guy doesn't take the bait, you just can't kill any logis that come to support him.
You didnt read all of the dev statements above - they are imposing safeties on everybody that will make it impossible for you to flip a can unless you specifically disable the safeties. CCP has indicated that they expect that this will make can flipping non-viable. CCP has not indicated what they anticipate will replace can flipping as a source of pvp in empire - I suspect that they dont anticipate anything replacing can flipping - what they want is empire to be "safe" while pushing people to low/null. Of course such efforts to compel people into low/null have always failed in the past. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
738
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 14:42:00 -
[200] - Quote
Tippia wrote:In fact, if you want to cry about something, you've missed the really annoying change with the new system GÇö the one that will actually make a difference for thieves and canflippers: the safety system. Safeties in and of themselves will have virtually no effect on canflipping, although I can see how you'd think that if your entire understanding of canflipping came from reading wikis about it that were written by people whos entire understanding of canflipping came from wikis about it.
People virtually never steal back a flipped can, in practice you're more likely to see a hulk set its drones on a canflipper than actually try and take their ore back. When you canflip someone what you're actually trying to do is get the person you flipped or their corp members to shoot at you so the safeties are virtually a non-issue. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8575
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 14:44:00 -
[201] - Quote
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:they are imposing safeties on everybody that will make it impossible for you to flip a can unless you specifically disable the safeties. Vimsy Vortis wrote:Safeties in and of themselves will have virtually no effect on canflipping How about you two just fight it out and leave me out of it?
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:CCP has indicated that they expect that this will make can flipping non-viable. They've indicated that it will no longer automatically work on people who aren't familiar with the mechanics. Rest assured, though: enough people will be stupid enough to ignore those warnings and let themselves get blow up.
It may be trickier to pull off against the unknowing, but the results of doing it successfully will be all that more spectacular, and it's not like the method is being removed. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
738
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 14:52:00 -
[202] - Quote
I'll argue that one with anyone because I've got like 30 barge/exhumer kills from canflipping and not a single one ever took stuff out of a container.
I understand where the argument comes from, but it makes the assumption that getting kills from canflipping relies on people being able to steal ore back from you without knowing what they are doing and it just plain doesn't. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8576
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 14:56:00 -
[203] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:I'll argue that one with anyone because I've got like 30 barge/exhumer kills from canflipping and not a single one ever took stuff out of a container. Then it's not really a canflip, now is it? It's just plain old theft and itchy trigger fingers.
GǪand anyway, the safeties will help against that too afair. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Vol Arm'OOO
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 14:59:00 -
[204] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:[quote=Tippia]
People virtually never steal back a flipped can, in practice you're more likely to see a hulk set its drones on a canflipper than actually try and take their ore back. When you canflip someone what you're actually trying to do is get the person you flipped or their corp members to shoot at you so the safeties are virtually a non-issue.
Um no - simply not true. Many folk try to flip their cans back - and there are many ways to successfully steal your can back if you take the time to learn them. And yes the goal is not to get the person to shoot at you but to flip the can - that way you and your friends can shoot at them. But of course if no one ever bothered to reflip the cans then there would be no need for ccp to force the safeties on its players. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1920
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 15:03:00 -
[205] - Quote
One major concern I have with the suspect system is you're removing a major incentive toward corporate membership. If I'm running a mining operation using jetcans and someone comes along and canflips me today, any defensive action taken has to be by my own corp. With your new system, every member of my fleet can be in an NPC corp and we can all engage the thief. The last thing Eve needs is to make NPC corps more attractive.
The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
738
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 15:10:00 -
[206] - Quote
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote: People virtually never steal back a flipped can, in practice you're more likely to see a hulk set its drones on a canflipper than actually try and take their ore back. When you canflip someone what you're actually trying to do is get the person you flipped or their corp members to shoot at you so the safeties are virtually a non-issue.
Um no - simply not true. Many folk try to flip their cans back - and there are many ways to successfully steal your can back if you take the time to learn them. And yes the goal is not to get the person to shoot at you but to flip the can - that way you and your friends can shoot at them. But of course if no one ever bothered to reflip the cans then there would be no need for ccp to force the safeties on its players. Horseshit. The only time anyone ever takes a can back is in a hauler, and if they're intent on doing that then they're going to disable their safeties to do it. Also generally speaking I'd much rather get kills on the half a dozen combat ships belonging to the corporation I'm canflipping that come to shoot me then having my entire corp come along to gank a single itty 5, I don't know about you though.
People who're successful at getting their cans back will be just as successful in a system with safeties and you'll be just as unable to kill them as you are now, it's not like you won't be able to turn them off when you're specifically trying to do something that you know will get you flagged.
The problem with safeties is that if by default you're unable to attack flagged characters without disabling a safety it's a get out of jail free card for braindead mission runners in 30 billion isk mission ships. |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
159
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 15:56:00 -
[207] - Quote
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.
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. |
Arcueid Saber
Perkone Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 16:07:00 -
[208] - Quote
I hope that CCP will put the suspect tag in kill mail so that mercenary corp can gain reputation in the eyes of high sec dweller. That also helps out their employments in war dec side.
The vigilante/suspect system should make high sec more lively with a bunch of bad boys and "good cop" duking it out at gate. |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
159
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 16:11:00 -
[209] - Quote
Arcueid Saber wrote: The vigilante/suspect system should make high sec more lively with a bunch of bad boys and "good cop" duking it out at gate.
Unfortunately it doesn't look like we'll get a vigilante/suspect system. We're going to get a suspect/neutrals-who-attack-risk-free system. It'll be 50 cops punching a single robber while all of the other robbers stand right next to him and can't do anything until the cops throw punches at them.
Edit: CCP Greyscale, you want suspects to be at risk for their crimes. Anyone who decides they want to be a white-knight and FIGHT CRIME AND EVIL in high-sec should run the risk of ACTUALLY FACING CRIMINALS, not just the one little Rifter they decide to volley with their instalocking Tornado on a gate. Having a system where you can shoot one suspect, but no other suspects can shoot you back is ridiculous.
"In for a penny, in for a pound", not "In for a penny, collect loot and be completely safe" |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1056
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 16:15:00 -
[210] - Quote
All I see this doing is making my life as a vulture either really hard or really entertaining. Or both.
I'm hoping both. |
|
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1927
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 16:24:00 -
[211] - Quote
Thinking this through and reading some more of the thread, I'm not sure the changes to can aggression and safeties is going to have CCP's desired effect.
First, the safety system. Right now, everyone has a safety. If you try to steal from a can, it tells you exactly what you're risking. You can choose to take from the can or abort. This warning would be triggered each time you try this, unless you actively disable it. However as I understand the proposed system, you'd simply fail to take from the can UNLESS you go in and globally disable the safety, at which point you take on suspect aggression without any further warning.
How, pray tell, is this protecting new users? All they want is to get their ore back and make a run for it, and they've opened themselves up to the potential for future suspect flags without warning! What's more, they ALREADY have a safety in place, telling them that taking from the can invites aggression.
Second, it will be quite easy to abuse less informed players who WILL try to get their stuff back. I've already thought up a couple of clever stunts that I'll try if this proposed system goes into place. There should be a glaringly obvious problem with this that CCP appears to be overlooking. The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1927
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 16:29:00 -
[212] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:All I see this doing is making my life as a vulture either really hard or really entertaining. Or both.
I'm hoping both.
If you're clever, it will be both.
Let's be optimistic: we're usually all about changes that make things harder for people and reward those willing to put forth the effort to work through the problems. This will take can flipping from something any idiot can do, and elevate it to an art form where only those of us creative enough to imagine new and better methods will succeed. The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1927
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 16:38:00 -
[213] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote: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.
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.
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. The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
Barakach
R-ISK Shadow Operations.
69
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 16:45:00 -
[214] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:It's nice to have a straight up admission that you are literally trying to discourage highsec PVP.
I didn't know can flipping is known as "PvP"
I didn't know that "PvP" players complained when other people wanted to fight them. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
823
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 16:51:00 -
[215] - Quote
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? http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1930
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 16:55:00 -
[216] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote: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? I'm hoping that they'll allow people to set up arranged fights in any configuration.
Vincent Athena wrote:Can we stream them to view-screens in establishments and have players bet on the results? I don't see the value in doing that. People can watch from space. The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
802
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 16:57:00 -
[217] - Quote
just to make sure i understood the proposed new system correctly
- the new system will completly get rid of ANY graph structure in the agression mechanics. - this means that a suspect is basically a temporary outlaw -> free for all - a suspect is viral, if you help a suspect you become a suspect - edit: shooting suspects is completly fine, you don't become a suspect - a suspect can still dock and jump since its still independent from agression timers
is that correct so far? 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 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8576
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 17:00:00 -
[218] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:is that correct so far? Pretty much.
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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
823
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 17:05:00 -
[219] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Vincent Athena wrote: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? I'm hoping that they'll allow people to set up arranged fights in any configuration. Vincent Athena wrote:Can we stream them to view-screens in establishments and have players bet on the results? I don't see the value in doing that. People can watch from space.
Not if they are waiting for a fleet op to start four regions away. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Eternal Error
Exitus Acta Probant
69
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 17:06:00 -
[220] - Quote
The proposed suspect system sucks (for most of the reasons outlined by various people, particularly Vimsy, in this thread. There's no point in repeating them). I really don't like the direction that Eve seems to be taking as this seems to be a deliberate move to reduce danger in the Eve universe under the guise of "fixes" (much in the same way that the inferno wardec changes screwed up wardecs).
The current system is not THAT bad. I understand that some of the mechanics are complicated, and you should try to untangle the web. Neutral logi needs looked at, but can mostly be fixed by adding an aggression timer. What does NOT need to happen is a complete rework. What does NOT need to happen is making any small thing a global flag rather than the current system where you flag to a corp (side note: make it flag to alliances if the corporation is in one) and they can work together to do something about it. |
|
Arcueid Saber
Perkone Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 17:10:00 -
[221] - Quote
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? |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
159
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 17:10:00 -
[222] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote: 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.
Problem is, the guy who shot at you also made the decision to shoot you. In practice it's no different than making bait wrecks on a gate and waiting for someone to steal so your corp can kill them. With a two-sided system, you would be taking a huge risk to become either a suspect OR a vigilante. Ideally, you would have the option (along with the global safety switches that Greyscale mentioned) to enable a Vigilante or Suspect flag without doing anything first.
In the scenario you described, your friends wouldn't need to loot from a can to get their flag, they could just sit flagged in a safespot ready to go. There would also be icons similar to the current GCC skull that indicate any active suspects or vigilantes in the system. Sure, you gank a few people who shoot at you in your bait ship. But what stops another group of players from taking the bait, getting your snipers exposed, and then flagging 30 bombers they had sitting on grid and zonking you?
It's a system that supports both consensual and non-consensual PvP in both directions, and creates a new high-sec PvP dynamic. It also accommodates the current aggression system by sorting players who engage in certain actions with either a suspect or vigilante flag.
I'm not quite sure why CCP Greyscale and his team want the suspect flag to be something you want to AVOID at all costs. Why not give players the opportunity to roam high-sec together as shady individuals looking for a fight, and others the opportunity to band together and fight them head-to-head? |
Spurty
D00M. Northern Coalition.
362
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 17:23:00 -
[223] - Quote
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 ---- CONCORD arrested two n00bs yesterday, one was drinking battery acid, the other was eating fireworks. They charged one and let the other one off. |
Eternal Error
Exitus Acta Probant
69
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 17:36:00 -
[224] - Quote
Spurty wrote: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 Any mechanic can be abused. This would at least allow there to be consequences for "vigilantes" whereas in the currently proposed system the end outcome is going to be gang **** (or running/docking) of the suspect 95% of the time with essentially zero risk to people shooting at him. |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
160
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 17:47:00 -
[225] - Quote
Spurty wrote: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
I think your plan stops at about the part where you trick a neutral into repping your Griffin alt. You can already get people killed by tricking them into repping your alt. Most people won't just RR you for no reason. |
Chokichi Ozuwara
Royal One Piece Corporation Deadly Unknown
379
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 18:01:00 -
[226] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote: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. You need to simmer down a bit pint-size. Tears will be shed and pants will need to be changed all round. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
742
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 18:06:00 -
[227] - Quote
Arcueid Saber wrote: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. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8577
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 18:08:00 -
[228] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote: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. GǪaside from the fact that they're not making PvP GÇ£barely possibleGÇ¥ GÇö it's just as possible as before (especially given your stance on safeties). 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
515
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 18:09:00 -
[229] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:"if you rep something aggressed to another thing, the other thing should be able to shoot you"
Why do you disagree with this, Greyscale?
That was the initial idea that came up with the dev blog and I just jumped in because I believed it was good. 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)
This is completely awful, it's not pvp at all and has nothing to do with the fracking sandbox where choices have consequences. Those naabs will have no consequence for their choice, great step forward for the worst in the sandbox with this single change... brb |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8577
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 18:15:00 -
[230] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote: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) Good thing that they're not doing that, then, unless you want to be a whole lot more specific (and even then, according to Greyscale's last post, it will be completely untrue since not even the old exception will be in effect). 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
881
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 18:35:00 -
[231] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:*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* This solves a lot of potential problems imho.
Vimsy Vortis wrote:So greyscale's crimewatch isn't even a failure to move forward, it is a direct step backwards. You can't go backwards from the current version of crimewatch. There's nothing to go "back" to... crimewatch is old as hell. What should be done to balance it though is since the risk level for living in empire is going down the rewards need to follow suit.
|
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
162
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 18:58:00 -
[232] - Quote
Gogela wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:*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* 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.
If you fight against or assist someone in their fight against suspects, all other suspects should be allowed to shoot you. Not all of EVE. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8577
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 19:03:00 -
[233] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote: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. Different issue.
GÇ£Making senseGÇ¥ is something completely different to GÇ£solve problemsGÇ¥. It makes sense because it means all neutral support is treated equally: it's always a horribly bad idea. It makes sense because it allows people being attacked to always take out any support the attacker might bring.
If you want to fight criminals (including helping other crime fighters), just shoot the criminalsGǪ 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
19
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 19:05:00 -
[234] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: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.
Hi there CCP Greyscale. I'm trying to understand the game philosophy behind these changes, and i hope you can help me out.
My understanding of EvE when i first started playing, around 2007-08, was that CCP wanted a game where they were 'hands off' requiring players to enforce behavior themselves as much as possible. Essentially an equal playing field in terms of mechanics (the only failure i can see is remote reppers being able to dock, jump instantly). Not regulating moral behavior/gameplay in-game, unless it transgressed out of game acceptability guidelines (racisim, threats etc..). This seemed in keeping with a harsh, survival of the fittest MMO, as EvE was marketed. Where those who put the effort in, to understand the game and its workings, were rewarded at the expense of those who didn't. This is a wonderful concept as everyone who plays EvE has access to the same information and opportunities to learn. There is no bias for anyone.
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. Doing this panders to the lazy who didn't take the time to learn what EvE is like and how it works. It takes responsibility away from 'the good guys', who don't need to put the same effort in to excel. Shouldn't it be i want to avoid player x, not i want to avoid mechanic x?
As i mentioned above, everyone has access to the same information, and plays under the same rules. So if in this equal landscape one player can't provide consequences for another it is not a problem with the game. Please let me know what you see as the core game philosophy.
What sort of game does CCP want EvE to be?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8577
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 19:12:00 -
[235] - Quote
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.
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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Arcueid Saber
Perkone Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 19:18:00 -
[236] - Quote
To be clear, if a neutral RR a vigilante while he is fighting a suspect, the goodie 2 shoe will be flag as suspect also. According to the fanfest video, suspect can be shot at by anyone (go to 17:35 on that video). So, can we safe to say that the first suspect can turn around and fire at RR guy without any penalty?
Now, once the neutral RR turn suspect, he with a suspect tag can still repair the vigilante ship with no penalty like concorden. Is that correct?
A new neutral warps into grid, sees 2 suspects and 1 vigilante, and start shooting at RR suspect with no penalty because everyone can shoot at suspect. However the first suspect cannot shoot at the new neutral or else he will be killed by concord according to the dev post.
Thus, it is safer to use a jamming ship or dps ship to help out the vigilante. Do you treat jamming like RR activity? |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
941
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 19:21:00 -
[237] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: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.
The suspects vs. vigilantes team thing is a bad idea in terms of what hi-sec is supposed to be. It's a good gameplay gimmick and simplifies programming, but makes no sense in terms of law enforcement.
If I am defending my home from a burglar (or shooting at a guy who just stole from my jetcan), why should a nearby car-jacker (other suspect) be allowed to come shoot at me just because I'm now on the vigilante team for defending my property?
Kudos to Greyscale and team for dismissing that idea despite the insinuations that he's only looking for the easy programming way out.
Also, remote assistance of any kind absolutely must inherit whatever conditions their beneficiary is under. If you're going to let suspects shoot back at the "vigilante" in the first place, then you better let the suspect also shoot at the guy RR'ing the vigilante. Leave the criminal on his own as punishment for his crimes, and similarly criminalize anyone RR'ing him, but don't just let any other outside criminal come in and start shooting up the joint because just because there was a local dispute. Even Wild-West-style justice has it's limits.
My .02 isk. Here's your sign... |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8577
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 19:23:00 -
[238] - Quote
Arcueid Saber wrote:Thus, it is safer to use a jamming ship or dps ship to help out the vigilante. Do you treat jamming like RR activity? Jamming is an offensive act against a hostile target, not a support act against a friendly target.
So yes, it would be safer to jam the original criminal GÇö that would just make you another vigilante. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
20
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 19:27:00 -
[239] - Quote
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. |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
162
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 19:28:00 -
[240] - Quote
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.
Yeah but I guess what confuses is me is why all neutral support is treated exactly the same.
With a two-flag system, anyone who assists a vigilante becomes a vigilante, and anyone who assists a suspect becomes a suspect. That's a much more reasonable system that reduces confusion significantly.
In the current system, if I'm trying to fight "the bad guys", and I have a logistics ship repairing me (see: it could even be in my corp, not even neutral) they will become a suspect. Rather than just my aggressors being able to shoot my logistics, suddenly all of EVE can. Some nerd sitting 50km in his 1400mm Tornado can start volleying chunks out of my logistic's shields/armor all the while technically being in "the right" because he's shooting a suspect.
There is no considerable reason to not have a two-flag system with an aggression flag that is the opposite of SUSPECT. If you engage suspects, you become a Vigilante, and are flagged as such. Not only does this fix issues with neutral RR entirely, it also simplifies aggression maps during engagements.
In the aforementioned example - with a two-flag system - the player shooting the suspect would become a vigilante. The vigilante's neutral RR would also become a vigilante. At this point, both vigilantes can be shot by any suspects who may enable their flag and join the fight. The tornado who fired on the neutral RR (now a vigilante) will become flagged as a suspect. That leaves you with your original suspect and the Tornado pilot with suspect flags, and the original vigilante and his RR with vigilante flags. Now, other players may engage the two suspects and become vigilantes, or enable their suspect flag and start shooting the vigilantes. You have two CLEARLY DEFINED teams instead of a suspect who can shoot his aggressor, all of EVE who can shoot the aggressor's neutral RR, and only the neutral RR who can aggress the Tornado that shot it. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8578
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 19:34:00 -
[241] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:The inequality i was talking about is where you are put in an imbalanced situation by explicit mechanics rather than by the players. GǪand what mechanics are you referring to here?
Quote: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. GǪand nothing has changed in that respect. The morality of GǣgoodGǥ and GǣbadGǥ acts already exists and it is already up to players to mete out the punishment for most crimes. Neither of these will change with the new system.
Ohh Yeah wrote:There is no considerable reason to not have a two-flag system with an aggression flag that is the opposite of SUSPECT. GǪaside from it being ridiculously easy to exploit to screw over targets. The proposed idea already solves RR entirely: it makes it a horribly bad idea to do for everyone. Want to help? Bring something offensive and punish the sucker. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
881
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 19:34:00 -
[242] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ohh Yeah wrote: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. Different issue. GǣMaking senseGǥ is something completely different to Gǣsolve problemsGǥ. There are tons of things that don't make sense in EVE, but which are in place because it provides better and more consistent gameplay. In this case, it makes sense because it means all neutral support is treated equally: it's always a horribly bad idea. It makes sense because it allows people being attacked to always take out any support the attacker might bring. If you want to fight criminals (including helping other crime fighters), just shoot the criminalsGǪ Cloaky Nullified T3s are invulnerable gate to gate anywhere in EvE. Blockade Runners and CovOps frigates are invulnerable gate to gate in low sec. Jump Bridges. Jump Freighters... pretty much invulnerable. There's enough invulnerable stuff in this game. Every year there's something new that's invulnerable. It's a lame trend. In the case of a ship well tanked getting reps from a logi fleet of unlimited size that cannot be agressed w/o CONCORD coming to their aid, you would have had a situation where a vigilante would in effect be invulnerable. That would really cross the line in my view. I don't care what kind of flag the logi gets, just so long as it can't contribute to the fight while remaining invulnerable. I agree w/ Tippia... I'm more concerned about the end state than I am about things making sense. Not being able to use a bubble or a bomb in low or high sec doesn't make any more sense... maybe the logi roll shouldn't be so broad in high sec either...
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
235
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 19:39:00 -
[243] - 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. |
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
881
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 19:41:00 -
[244] - Quote
Does anyone know if the plan still includes giving people smuggling contraband a suspect flag?
|
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
20
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 19:44:00 -
[245] - Quote
Tippia wrote:GǪand what mechanics are you referring to here?
That of suspect flagging leaving you open to be freely attacked by everybody whether you have done something to affect them or not. It is CCP punishing 'bad' behavior with this imbalance. rather than the player who you have agressed.
Quote:GǪand nothing has changed in that respect. The morality of GǣgoodGǥ and GǣbadGǥ acts already exists and it is already up to players to mete out the punishment for most crimes. Neither of these will change with the new system.
see above. It tips the fight way in the favor of the 'good' guy rather than it being on a level field where agression mechanics are the same for everyone. This is punishment of 'good' and 'bad' behavior that currently isn't present.
|
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
162
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 19:48:00 -
[246] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ohh Yeah wrote:There is no considerable reason to not have a two-flag system with an aggression flag that is the opposite of SUSPECT. GǪaside from it being ridiculously easy to exploit to screw over targets. The proposed idea already solves RR entirely: it makes it a horribly bad idea to do for everyone. Want to help? Bring something offensive and punish the sucker.
So essentially you want to punish the use of an entire class of ship? I don't get it.
You shouldn't be _punished_ for using logistics. Logistics are used everywhere. The suspect should be able to shoot the logistics, but not everyone else.
Explain to me the justification for letting all of EVE shoot you for repairing someone who is fighting a suspect. Are logistics a force multiplier? Yes. Should they be made a "horribly bad idea to do for everyone" - no. Why would you actively discourage people from using an entire class of ship? Anyone with experience outside of high-sec knows that logistics are hailed as one of the most useful assets to a gang. Why would you teach new players and those who haven't been exposed to the null-sec climate that logistics are inherently bad and deserve punishment?
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
941
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 19:55:00 -
[247] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:
see above. It tips the fight way in the favor of the 'good' guy rather than it being on a level field where agression mechanics are the same for everyone. This is punishment of 'good' and 'bad' behavior that currently isn't present.
We have low-law space, and law-less space where this holds true.
Why should law-abiding space be a level playing field for criminals? The fights there *should* be tipped in the favor of the "good guy" imo.
(And this is from my perspective as a "criminal" that lives in lowsec and wanders all over hi and null as well)
Hell, if the system actually favors law-abiding hi-sec residents to turn vigilante, more of them might actually engage if they perceive a chance at victory. And all of you *know* you'll be able to play this to your advantage in some way.
Here's your sign... |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
941
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 19:57:00 -
[248] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:Tippia wrote:Ohh Yeah wrote:There is no considerable reason to not have a two-flag system with an aggression flag that is the opposite of SUSPECT. GǪaside from it being ridiculously easy to exploit to screw over targets. The proposed idea already solves RR entirely: it makes it a horribly bad idea to do for everyone. Want to help? Bring something offensive and punish the sucker. So essentially you want to punish the use of an entire class of ship? I don't get it. You shouldn't be _punished_ for using logistics. Logistics are used everywhere. The suspect should be able to shoot the logistics, but not everyone else. Explain to me the justification for letting all of EVE shoot you for repairing someone who is fighting a suspect. Are logistics a force multiplier? Yes. Should they be made a "horribly bad idea to do for everyone" - no. Why would you actively discourage people from using an entire class of ship? Anyone with experience outside of high-sec knows that logistics are hailed as one of the most useful assets to a gang. Why would you teach new players and those who haven't been exposed to the null-sec climate that logistics are inherently bad and deserve punishment?
I also agree here - if CCP is rewriting the system to "do it right", there is no reason to take a shortcut and make using RR on a vigilante a criminal act.
Do it right, or don't do it CCP. Don't half-ass another feature onto us please. Here's your sign... |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
162
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 19:57:00 -
[249] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:low-law space, and law-less space where this holds true.
Why should law-abiding space be a level playing field for criminals? The fights there *should* be tipped in the favor of the "good guy" imo.
Because if they were performing criminal actions, CONCORD would be taking care of it. Stealing from a can or other similar actions that earn someone a suspect flag aren't really criminal actions, as CONCORD doesn't step in. It just makes them a suspect. Being a vigilante and trying to do the job of CONCORD by engaging someone who hasn't done anything to necessitate CONCORD intervention should come with the risk of getting beat up by the shady individuals you picked a fight with in the first place. |
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
20
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:03:00 -
[250] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:
We have low-law space, and law-less space where this holds true.
Why should law-abiding space be a level playing field for criminals? The fights there *should* be tipped in the favor of the "good guy" imo.
Why should it be tipped in favour of one? As it stands now it's equal, so people make the difference. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8578
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:05:00 -
[251] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:That of suspect flagging leaving you open to be freely attacked by everybody whether you have done something to affect them or not. That's not all that different to what we have now, when a whole heap of players can descend on you, even if you only affected one (or even none) of them. This is countered by the fact that you can trick them into being the same kind of free-for all target so it's just the stakes being raised on both sides.
Yes? The morality of good an bad still already exists and it's already up to players to mete out the punishment. None of what you said addresses or contradicts what I said and nothing about it all changes with the new system. Good and bad acts already exist as does the mechanical punishment for these acts GÇö go check out the criminal flagging wiki page.
Ohh Yeah wrote:So essentially you want to punish the use of an entire class of ship? Nope, and that's not what's happening either. What's being punished is the attempt to use GÇ£neutralsGÇ¥ to help you engage a target.
Quote:Explain to me the justification for letting all of EVE shoot you for repairing someone who is fighting a suspect. It makes the rules consistent and clear without any odd special edge cases to be abused and twisted into logical pretzels. It provides a single simple rule: don't use neutral remote support. No classes of ships are being discouraged GÇö it's one specific tactic (that pretty much everyone agrees is BS to begin with) that is being discouraged. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
20
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:14:00 -
[252] - Quote
Tippia wrote:That's not all that different to what we have now, when a whole heap of players can descend on you, even if you only affected one (or even none) of them.
Opening yourself up to be directly attacked by everyone in system is vastly different than just corp members of the aggressed player.
Quote:Yes? The morality of good an bad still already exists and it's already up to players to mete out the punishment.
The issue is that currently CCP doesn't make judgments on morality, whereas with these changes they do. I put this in my original post, i suggest you re-read it.
[ |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
162
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:14:00 -
[253] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Quote:Explain to me the justification for letting all of EVE shoot you for repairing someone who is fighting a suspect. It makes the rules consistent and clear without any odd special edge cases to be abused and twisted into logical pretzels. It provides a single simple rule: don't use neutral remote support. No classes of ships are being discouraged GÇö it's one specific tactic (that pretty much everyone agrees is BS to begin with) that is being discouraged.
But with such a system, is there anything other than neutral logistics? Even if the logistics pilot is in your corporation, they're neutral to the suspect until they start repping their corp mate.
The entire class of ship IS being discouraged. There is no such thing as non-neutral support in high-sec with the proposed system. There's no such thing as support that a suspect can identify before engaging, as opposed to in-corp logistics during war-decs.
What is your opposition to having two different aggression flags - suspect and vigilante - and sorting their associated RR by giving them the same flag? That way, all of the suspects can shoot the RR, but random passerbys aren't encouraged to shoot at the logistics without retaliation.
CCP Greyscale's current proposition allows for random neutrals to shoot at logistics ships without the logistic pilot's friends being able to defend him. Some random pilot in a Falcon could jam out a vigilante's logistic ship just for fun, and the vigilante will never be able to protect his friend in the logi.
That, in fact, gives a huge advantage to suspects with Falcon alts, who can freely jam out a vigilante's support without expecting any retaliation of their own. With a two-flag system, the logi would become a vigilante, the Falcon would become a suspect, and all involved parties could fire on one another without wondering who is allowed to shoot who. The currently-proposed system does not make clearly defined rules, and makes more chains of "I can shoot your logi, but you can't shoot me, but you CAN shoot my friend, who can shoot you and your logi alt" |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8579
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:24:00 -
[254] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:Opening yourself up to be directly attacked by everyone in system is vastly different than just corp members of the aggressed player. Not much, and again, this is counter-balanced by how the targets will be treated by the same system and what you can open them up to that you can't nowGǪ
Quote:The issue is that currently CCP doesn't make judgments on morality, whereas with these changes they do. No, they really don't GÇö no more than they currently do. Nothing of what you've used to illustrate some kind of GÇ¥mechanic moralityGÇ¥ is new to the new system. If you think the new one imposes morality, than the current one does as well; if you think the current one does not impose morality, then neither does the new one.
Ohh Yeah wrote:But with such a system, is there anything other than neutral logistics? Yes. War logistics and logistics for acts without any legal flagging GÇö the two most common uses for logistics in highsecGǪ
Quote:What is your opposition to having two different aggression flags - suspect and vigilante - and sorting their associated RR by giving them the same flag? It's ridiculously easy to exploit to the point of making it utterly and absolutely suicidal to be a vigilante, thus making the whole system 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
20
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:34:00 -
[255] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Not much, and again, this is counter-balanced by how the targets will be treated by the same system and what you can open them up to that you can't nowGǪ
'Not much' downplays it alot. Anyone in system being able to indiscriminately dog-pile you is a vastly lopsided situation compared to only corp members. It would be a disproportionate response made possible by explicit game mechanics.
Quote:No, they really don't GÇö no more than they currently do.
Yes, these new mechanics would. By saying you are flagged for stealing and flagging meaning you are opened up to the situation outlined above it is a punishment, as it is a massively one-sided advantage to the 'good guys'
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8580
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:38:00 -
[256] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:'Not much' downplays it alot. Not really. You're overestimating how keen people are on attacking other players when they could just go about their business and not bother with any of it.
There may be more of them but they also have a hell of a lot less incentive to do so than the corp members, and again, you keep ignoring the counter-balancing factor that the new system brings.
Quote:Yes, these new mechanics would. By saying you are flagged for stealing and flagging meaning you are opened up to the situation outlined above it is a punishment, as it is a massively one-sided advantage to the 'good guys' GǪand the flagging of Gǣbad guysGǥ and providing the Gǣgood guysGǥ with advantages is nothing new that CW2.0 brings. The same kind of morality already exists in the current system.
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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
162
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:39:00 -
[257] - Quote
Tippia wrote:It's ridiculously easy to exploit to the point of making it utterly and absolutely suicidal to be a vigilante, thus making the whole system pointless.
Any more suicidal than being a suspect? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8580
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:41:00 -
[258] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:Tippia wrote:It's ridiculously easy to exploit to the point of making it utterly and absolutely suicidal to be a vigilante, thus making the whole system pointless. Any more suicidal than being a suspect? Much.
Joining a PUG against a co-ordinated fleet is far more suicidal than being in a co-ordinated fleet put together to fight PUGs. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1347
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:49:00 -
[259] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Not really. You're overestimating how keen people are on attacking other players when they could just go about their business and not bother with any of it.
When it is easily done as a group activity with absolutely no risk, yes, they are keen on getting easy kills. a rogue goon |
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
20
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:49:00 -
[260] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Not really. You're overestimating how keen people are on attacking other players when they could just go about their business and not bother with any of it.
That's a lot of 'ifs' though. The fact that with these mechanics such an imbalanced situation could happen is enough.
Quote:GǪand the flagging of Gǣbad guysGǥ and providing the Gǣgood guysGǥ with advantages is nothing new that CW2.0 brings. The same kind of morality already exists in the current system.
it is something new as it introduces the concept of 'good' and 'bad' guys, whereas currently it doesn't (in highsec) with regards to can flipping. CCP are making that judgment and providing a vast advantage that wasn't there before.
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8581
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:52:00 -
[261] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:That's a lot of 'ifs' though. 0 is not GÇ£a lotGÇ¥.
Quote:The fact that with these mechanics such an imbalanced situation could happen is enough. Such an imbalanced situation could happen with the current mechanics as well.
Quote:it is something new as it introduces the concept of 'good' and 'bad' guys GǪwhich has been there all along GÇö it's not new. Good guys and bad guys have existed ever since aggression and criminal flagging was introduced back in the early Triassic era. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
162
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:52:00 -
[262] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ohh Yeah wrote:Tippia wrote:It's ridiculously easy to exploit to the point of making it utterly and absolutely suicidal to be a vigilante, thus making the whole system pointless. Any more suicidal than being a suspect? Much. Joining a PUG against a co-ordinated fleet is far more suicidal than being in a co-ordinated fleet put together to fight PUGs.
And you don't think there will be co-ordinated fleets of vigilantes?
There will be single suspects getting ganked by groups of vigilantes.
There will be single vigilantes getting ganked by groups of suspects.
Goes both ways. Makes interesting conflicts. Gets people interested in PvP, gets people ganked. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8581
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:54:00 -
[263] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:And you don't think there will be co-ordinated fleets of vigilantes? GǪwhich should be easy to avoid and still exploit the system. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
20
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:58:00 -
[264] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Rara Yariza wrote:That's a lot of 'ifs' though. 0 is not GÇ£a lotGÇ¥. Quote:The fact that with these mechanics such an imbalanced situation could happen is enough. Such an imbalanced situation could happen with the current mechanics as well. Quote:it is something new as it introduces the concept of 'good' and 'bad' guys GǪwhich has been there all along GÇö it's not new. Good guys and bad guys have existed ever since aggression and criminal flagging was introduced back in the early Triassic era.
I think you are deliberately missing the point. There are a lot of ifs brought up by your reasoning. Saying someone might not shoot you is ignoring the fact that they have the opportunity to, and so the mechanics open up a lopsided advantage, It would be a vastly different situation than what is currently the case. The concept of 'good' or 'bad' is something new. |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
162
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 20:59:00 -
[265] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ohh Yeah wrote:And you don't think there will be co-ordinated fleets of vigilantes? GǪwhich should be easy to avoid and still exploit the system.
And you don't think that co-ordinated fleets of suspects won't be easy to avoid?
You'll likely end up with groups who consider themselves suspects or vigilantes that roam around unflagged - under the radar if you will - and jump on people.
The same thing is going to happen without a two-flag system. People are going to hell-death-camp gates with instalocking tackle, completely unaggressed to any suspects, and only pick off the ones they can deal with.
A two-flag system only provides opportunities for suspects to fight back. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8582
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 21:01:00 -
[266] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:Saying someone might not shoot you is ignoring the fact that they have the opportunity to, and so the mechanics open up a lopsided advantage, It would be a vastly different situation than what is currently the case. GǪand you're missing the point that the same GǣifGǥ exists right now.
Quote:The concept of CCP calling can flipping being 'good' or 'bad' is something new. GǪaside from it being having been GǣbadGǥ for many years now, since it triggers a criminal flag and lets Gǣgood guysGǥ come and shoot you.
Ohh Yeah wrote:And you don't think that co-ordinated fleets of suspects won't be easy to avoid? Not for the targets they're after. They're stupid enough as it is, and don't seem to get more clever with time.
Quote:A two-flag system only provides opportunities for suspects to fight back. They will have that opportunity regardless. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
235
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 21:01:00 -
[267] - 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. |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
162
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 21:05:00 -
[268] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Quote:A two-flag system only provides opportunities for suspects to fight back. They will have that opportunity regardless.
Yeah, if one person shoots you, you can shoot back.
If you have a group of 5-10 suspects, and another group of 5-10 vigilantes shoots you, none of your friends can help you out, since you're the only one with aggro.
That means to be successful as a suspect, it's gotta be one person in a DPS ship, and everyone else in logistics. Isn't that something you said should be discouraged? That will 100% be the outcome of crimewatch without a two-flag system. A single suspect with all of his friends in neutral RR meatgrinding those targets that don't "get more clever". |
Dr Frust
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
25
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 21:06:00 -
[269] - Quote
So far if I understood everything all the change does is remove content:
Stealing from a can for whatever reason will be nearly gone. Why? If you steal victim will call whole local for help unless it's stupid, victim will never engage which is the reason to do this(ex no more baiting miners & missioners, it would be suicide without profit). The second reason is to steal for the items worth which will be much riskier than before because everyone will be able to shoot you(ex. less stealing from suiciders or fights). The third is consentual pvp(1v1 cans) as you see it mostly at hubs (ex. mostly done for 1vs1s in highsec aswell as smaller more balanced fights which you can hardly find in low and null).
All of the above have currently good potential to escalate, this can be exciting for both sides (ex. Corpmates spanking ass, Logis join the fun etc.)
I have not seen the whole plan but the proposed changes seem to me to drastically reduce all of these activities. It seems to me that this is the wanted effect of the changes? Why? I get that for the code and servers efficiency and modifiability the current individual flag system needs to go and be replaced by something simple. But why target valid parts of the sandbox with such an overkill change? Why not try to preserve parts of EVEs holy grail: unexpected player interaction, we ultimately call it 'the sandbox'. It shouldn't be CCPs target to reduce sandbox content. And no you won't find these forms of potentially escalating 'carebear pvp' in low or null, its unique to high.
I'm thinking of the 2 trailers which made me join EVE: The Butterfly Effect & Causality.
I admit that because I don't know the big reasoning behind this I may actually not be aware of possible new content or improvements added with these changes. Just please be careful with this one CCP, theres still lots of time to engage constructive talk & draft, no need to rush while you revamp the code. |
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
20
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 21:08:00 -
[270] - Quote
Tippia wrote:and you're missing the point that the same GÇ£ifGÇ¥ exists right now.
The difference between corp members and anyone in system is vastly different.
Quote:GǪaside from it being having been GǣbadGǥ for many years now, since it triggers a criminal flag and lets Gǣgood guysGǥ come and shoot you.
it isn't bad, it is a mechanic that allows someone to attack people taking their stuff, which was implemented as those people losing their stuff wanted it. It's an aggression flag that is neither good nor bad. |
|
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
516
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 21:09:00 -
[271] - Quote
Seems pretty clear to me I haven't understood at all what's all the fuss going on, but I think I can loose a bunch of griffins to test this out brb |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
162
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 21:10:00 -
[272] - Quote
Dr Frust wrote:So far if I understood everything all the change does is remove content:
Stealing from a can for whatever reason will be nearly gone. Why? If you steal victim will call whole local for help unless it's stupid, victim will never engage which is the reason to do this(ex no more baiting miners & missioners, it would be suicide without profit). The second reason is to steal for the items worth which will be much riskier than before because everyone will be able to shoot you(ex. less stealing from suiciders or fights).
I can tell you right now that ninja-looters and mission runner baiters support a system where anyone can shoot them. If stealing something gives them aggro to everyone in the system, that's even better than only getting aggro on a single mission runner. People who are baiting miners and missioners WANT to get aggressed, and I'm sure can handle themselves.
Just more things for them to shoot. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8582
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 21:15:00 -
[273] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:Yeah, if one person shoots you, you can shoot back.
If you have a group of 5-10 suspects, and another group of 5-10 vigilantes shoots you, none of your friends can help you out, since you're the only one with aggro. GǪand this is surprisingly similar to the current system, where people seem to constantly groan about how the criminals have all the advantages.
Rara Yariza wrote:The difference between corp members and anyone in system is vastly different. Maybe. Maybe not. Again, it's a different dynamic with different balances.
Quote:it isn't bad, it is a mechanic that allows someone to attack people taking their stuff, which was implemented as those people losing their stuff wanted it. It's an aggression flag that is neither good nor bad. GǪit's an aggression flag just like the new one: it's your mechanical punishment for doing an illegal act. It's as good or bad under the new system as under the old one. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
21
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 21:28:00 -
[274] - Quote
Quote:GǪit's an aggression flag just like the new one: it's your mechanical punishment for doing an illegal act. It's as good or bad under the new system as under the old one.
How can flipping works now is a simple aggression flag, that doesn't say it is 'good' or 'bad', with the new changes it wont be. The outcome of the mechanic is designed to create a massively disproportionate situation than exists now, because CCP are making the judgment that stealing is a 'bad' thing. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8582
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 21:36:00 -
[275] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:How can flipping works now is a simple aggression flag, Really? Wow. Imagine that. How can flipping will work in CW2.0 is a simple aggression flag.
it won't be any more (or less) GÇ£goodGÇ¥ or GÇ£badGÇ¥ than the current aggression flag is. It will still be a criminal act that is being punished. There is no additional GÇ£moralityGÇ¥ compared to the old system since it's the exact same thing: crime GåÆ flag. GÇ£Bad actGÇ¥ GåÆ hunted by GÇ£good guysGÇ¥.
Theft has been a bad thing since roughly forever. That's why it has triggered a criminal flag for an equally long time. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Dr Frust
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
26
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 21:36:00 -
[276] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote: I can tell you right now that ninja-looters and mission runner baiters support a system where anyone can shoot them. If stealing something gives them aggro to everyone in the system, that's even better than only getting aggro on a single mission runner. People who are baiting miners and missioners WANT to get aggressed, and I'm sure can handle themselves.
Just more things for them to shoot.
I don't see how. I assume that neither a targeted miner nor a missioner will take the bait. I believe the looter will either not be engaged or hunted by a fleet of angry people through the system.The shiny ships will never engage unless stupid. He won't get support as repping him will get you flagged and if I understood correctly you can't dock and reship while flagged unless this idea was changed recently. Means you need to have a ship ready floating in space which is risky. |
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
21
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 21:41:00 -
[277] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Rara Yariza wrote:How can flipping works now is a simple aggression flag, Really? Wow. Imagine that. How can flipping will work in CW2.0 is a simple aggression flag. it won't be any more (or less) GÇ£goodGÇ¥ or GÇ£badGÇ¥ than the current aggression flag is. It will still be a criminal act that is being punished. There is no additional GÇ£moralityGÇ¥ compared to the old system since it's the exact same thing: crime GåÆ flag. GÇ£Bad actGÇ¥ GåÆ hunted by GÇ£good guysGÇ¥. Theft has been a bad thing since roughly forever. That's why it has triggered a criminal flag for an equally long time.
No it hasn't been a bad thing, and it didn't have a flag at first. Only after players complained that people could steal from them and there was nothing they could do that it was implemented.
There is a new morality added that is saying you will be at a bigger disadvantage than another player if you steal. This judgment isn't present now.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8582
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 21:43:00 -
[278] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:No it hasn't been a bad thing, GǪaside from it triggering a criminal flag, which lets people punish you for your misdeeds. Same as in CW2.0.
Quote:it didn't have a flag at first. Only after players complained that people could steal from them and there was nothing they could do that it was implemented. Sure. But then the morality you're complaining about was implemented all those years ago GÇö it's not something that is new with CW2.0. The thief is already at a disadvantage, by the way, so that's not a change in GÇ£moralityGÇ¥ either. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
515
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 21:48:00 -
[279] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Ok, so. Here 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,.
Oh really. |
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
21
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 21:54:00 -
[280] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Rara Yariza wrote:No it hasn't been a bad thing, GǪaside from it triggering a criminal flag, which lets people punish you for your misdeeds. Same as in CW2.0. Quote:it didn't have a flag at first. Only after players complained that people could steal from them and there was nothing they could do that it was implemented. Sure. But then the morality you're complaining about was implemented all those years ago GÇö it's not something that is new with CW2.0. The thief is already at a disadvantage, by the way, so that's not a change in GÇ£moralityGÇ¥ either.
It was never bad from the games point of view, and i never said that it was. I said it was up to the player to decide if that behavior was bad and the aggression flag a way for them to do something about it if they decided to. This new way is deciding a morality that someone who can flips is 'bad' and so is exposed to an imbalanced situation as punishment, as I've repeatedly explained. The imbalanced situation here being anyone in system can shoot you even if you haven't stolen from them (caused aggression) |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8582
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 21:57:00 -
[281] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:It was never bad from the games point of view GǪaside from it triggering a criminal flagging, just like it will with CW2.0.
Quote:I said it was up to the player to decide if that behavior was bad and the aggression flag a way for them to do something about it if they decided to. GǪjust like it will be with CW2.0.
If it is mechanically GÇ£badGÇ¥ after the change, it was mechanically GÇ£badGÇ¥ in the same way and for the same reasons under the current system. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Ziranda Hakuli
Relativity Holding Corp
120
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 22:02:00 -
[282] - Quote
the more i read this and re read CCP Greyscale's comments is just starting to make the head hurt and only drawing the conclusion that CCP has their head up thier ass again.
Crime Watch from my understanding and a few others was to be ONE of the big highlights for Escalation. Big frackin let down.
For the Neut RR crap. just do not let it happen, but at the same time i can see why this would be an issue with the Incursion community.
how about this as for an idea 1> Neut RR reps someone with GCC looses sec rating and concord shows up and pops them 2> Neut RR interferes in a War Dec. Looses Sec Status and Concord blows up the Neut RR.
For the Gankers this has always been a hot topic 1> Global criminal Tag. make this last a week. A> Anyone can shoot them B> Empire stations should deny them docking permission C> Committing another offense resets times and lose twice has much Sec Status and standing with faction in area.
How about also create a new organization for players to join. something like the Navy police. Granted this idea is kinda on the spur of the moment. 1> Anyone with Global Criminal Tag will show up on overview even if off grid within Empire space. 2> can shot anyone with negative Sec Status or Faction status you are working for. 3> anyone shooting a player who has joined the force navy police ship show up immediately to reinforce their officer with concord showing up at their normal time. 4> NPC reinforcements cannot aid those in Low Sec.
crazy idea.
have fun kids |
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
21
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 22:04:00 -
[283] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Rara Yariza wrote:It was never bad from the games point of view GǪaside from it triggering a criminal flagging, just like it will with CW2.0. Quote:I said it was up to the player to decide if that behavior was bad and the aggression flag a way for them to do something about it if they decided to. GǪjust like it will be with CW2.0. If it is mechanically GǣbadGǥ after the change, it was mechanically GǣbadGǥ in the same way and for the same reasons under the current system.
it isn't at all, it doesn't trigger a criminal flag it triggers an aggression flag. A criminal flag will get you concorded. The new way doesn't only let the player decide if he wants to do something, it's letting anyone decide they want to do something, whether you have done something to them or not.
currently the game is saying:
'that guy took your stuff, we don't mind, but if you want to do something up here in highsec, you can and concord wont shoot you'
with the new change the game is saying:
'that guy took someones stuff! you can all shoot because we think that is bad!'
do you see the difference? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8582
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 22:18:00 -
[284] - Quote
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.
Rara Yariza wrote:it isn't at all, it doesn't trigger a criminal flag it triggers an aggression flag. GǪwhich is a criminal flag. It's not a GCC, but it's still a criminal flag. You're still engaging in an illegal act and you're still being mechanically punished for it by being given that timer. None of that changes with GW2.0. Just like now, in GW2.0, it's up to the players to decide whether they want to do something or not.
There is no change in GÇ£moralityGÇ¥ GÇö it's the same act being treated the same way: a crime being flagged and left to players to deal with. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
21
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 22:24:00 -
[285] - Quote
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. Rara Yariza wrote:it isn't at all, it doesn't trigger a criminal flag it triggers an aggression flag. GǪwhich is a criminal flag. It's not a GCC, but it's still a criminal flag. You're still engaging in an illegal act and you're still being mechanically punished for it by being given that timer. None of that changes with GW2.0. Just like now, in GW2.0, it's up to the players to decide whether they want to do something or not. There is no change in GÇ£moralityGÇ¥ GÇö it's the same act being treated the same way: a crime being flagged and left to players to deal with.
it does change.... as i've explained.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8582
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 22:28:00 -
[286] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:it does change.... as i've explained. It remains balanced, as I've explained.
GǪand the GǣmoralityGǥ is no different.
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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
21
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 22:29:00 -
[287] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Rara Yariza wrote:it does change.... as i've explained. It remains balanced, as I've explained. GǪand the GǣmoralityGǥ is no different.
it isn't balanced, and the morality is different as it brings in a CCP judged morality to game play that didn't exist before.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8582
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 22:33:00 -
[288] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:it isn't balanced, and the morality is different as it brings in a CCP judged morality to game play that didn't exist before. More people (potentially), but less incentive. More risk for the thief; vastly more risk for the can-flipped.
Seems balanced enough.
And CCP hasn't added or even changed their judgement. The bad act is still bad. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
21
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 22:40:00 -
[289] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Rara Yariza wrote:it isn't balanced, and the morality is different as it brings in a CCP judged morality to game play that didn't exist before. More people (potentially), but less incentive. More risk for the thief; vastly more risk for the can-flipped. Seems balanced enough. And CCP hasn't added or even changed their judgement. The bad act is still bad.
Nope, balanced isn't turning high sec into null for one guy and not the other. The act isn't bad now, it will be considered so if those changes go through. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8582
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 22:49:00 -
[290] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:Nope, balanced isn't turning high sec into null for one guy and not the other. Good thing that they're not doing that, then.
Quote:The act isn't bad now, it will be considered so if those changes go through. It's bad now and will still be be after the change. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Why do you think the act triggers any flags? What do you think the act will do after the change but trigger a flag?
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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|
Zedrik Cayne
Standards and Practices
147
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 22:56:00 -
[291] - Quote
The new mechanics as described here are the other reason the IEEE will be shutting down.
Stealing from jet-cans is one of the ways that the IEEE keeps the office in paper and staples. And also provides many teachable moments to folks who attempted to stop us.
What it provided, was a nice easy way to attempt to get some aggression going in a limited fashion. Warp to a belt, and there are four barges, a hauler and a rifter. Bustle the battle iteron up to the can and take it all. And usually that rifter is going to light you up.
And usually that rifter is going to die. Soon to be followed by one or more of the barges present as they try to gang up on you. And as they yell in local for help. You were aware of who was in local because you looked. How many of them, how many of you, you watched like a hawk for others coming in and out of local. You see a spike of 'them' and you finish what you can and take off. Or look at the d-scan to see what they are bringing. Can you tank it and spank it? Some folks show up to watch. On occasion you get a white knight out there with remote repair.
Or you catch someone mining in a navy apoc
You have a nice, limited engagement. And only overconfident or dumb people do the dumb thing. With risk of someone wandering in and finishing you off if you aren't careful. And I do get blown up plenty often doing this.
With the new changes, this is going to go by the wayside. No more grand theft navy apoc. Even stealing ore for fun and profit will go away as the limited engagement envelope disappear. Adding the 'vigilante' flag helps with organized groups of suspects. Making a pick-up game of 0.0 play. (suspects vs vigilantes or red v blue) but it still effectively cuts out the one guy trying to watch the world learn.
Realistically, anyone shooting a suspect should probably also be a suspect. You want to get involved in someone else's business? Mind you, the poor miner defending himself should not become a suspect. He was directly affronted. So what to do?
Let's see...a steals from corp b's can. And goes suspect, also creates an aggression link to corp b. Member of corp b starts to shoot a. A can shoot member of corp b because there is an aggression link from b to a directly now. All members of corp b who choose to shoot get an aggression link to a. The timer on the 'corp' aggression counts down like it does currently. The 'suspect' flag keeps resetting to 15 minutes as long as A keeps doing stuff that looks suspicious. Shooting at valid aggression targets count.
So far, we're all cool. Guys can defend themselves, suspect is shootable by everyone. Nobody has nosed in on the fight.
So a's can flipping hauler dies after 5 minutes. He still has 15 minutes of 'suspect' time. Plus 15 minutes vs some members of corp b. He returns 10 minutes later. The corporate aggression is gone. He is still a suspect. So say he starts to mop the floor with the members of corp b who foolishly stayed out there. The rest of the corpmates can still intervene. But at the cost of becoming suspects themselves. Or someone else can wander in and white knight. Becoming a suspect themselves to protect the 'innocent' (and possibly get shot themselves). Folks applying remote repair? Get 15 minutes of suspect.
This way we get a limited amount of keeping track of aggression specific to a single act. And a big global 'Shoot at me' flag. It still hammers down on my preferred methods of behaving in EvE. But it is more, fair. Do something suspicious? Get a suspect flag. Shoot a suspect without a valid reason? You are a suspect since it is awfully suspicious to just shoot someone suspected of doing something wrong. If you are defending yourself or your corporation? No suspect flag.
How does that sound? No transitive aggression timers. Easy to limit aggression timers. And big global suspect flag timers. (And since the big global flag is on a pilot basis, can we please get this visible so we know they only have 5 seconds worth of timer left, and possibly the same thing with GCC? Nice little round pie wedge gague of how much aggression is left.)
Hm, that was awfully rambling. But looks like it might work without having to involve a vigilante that can be gamed into aggro creation. You are the internet equivalent of a Mars bar filled with stupid. |
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
21
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 22:59:00 -
[292] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Rara Yariza wrote:Nope, balanced isn't turning high sec into null for one guy and not the other. Good thing that they're not doing that, then. Quote:The act isn't bad now, it will be considered so if those changes go through. It's bad now and will still be be after the change. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Why do you think the act triggers any flags? What do you think the act will do after the change but trigger a flag?
They are doing that. read what the suspect flag means and you'll see.
CCP are changing the mechanic of stealing into something that puts anyone who steals into a massively imbalanced situation, and they're saying this is ok as stealing is 'bad'. The current mechanics don't do this.
I'll repost an example, think about it.
currently the game is saying:
'that guy took your stuff, we don't mind, but if you want to do something up here in highsec, you can and concord wont shoot you'
with the new change the game is saying:
'that guy took someones stuff! you can all shoot because we think that is bad!'
do you see the difference? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
235
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 23:08:00 -
[293] - 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? |
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
881
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 23:11:00 -
[294] - Quote
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
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8584
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 23:15:00 -
[295] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:They are doing that. read what the suspect flag means and you'll see. I was there when they first presented it. I know what it means. What it doesn't mean is turning highsec into null.
Quote:CCP are changing the mechanic of stealing into something that puts anyone who steals into a massively imbalanced situation, and they're saying this is ok as stealing is 'bad'. GǪcompared to the current situation where stealing has a chance of putting the thief in a massively imbalanced situation, and this is ok as stealing is GǣbadGǥ (as shown by the fact that it triggers a criminal timer).
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. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
235
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 23:19:00 -
[296] - 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. |
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
15
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 23:22:00 -
[297] - Quote
Crimewatch 2.0 looks great so far and hooray for the end of neutral-RR.
And are you people really fighting over special canflipping cases ? The only areas where I can see a change are can flipping/stealing on gates, stations and highly frequented belts. For most people stealing in mission pockets or in in a random belt with 3 ships active nothing will change. So only a minority of the minority of can flippers is actually harmed by this.
Anyway I have one question about RR: If someone agresses a suspect and then remote-reps someone else who is also agressed to that suspect, will he go into suspect mode ? |
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
21
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 23:30:00 -
[298] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Rara Yariza wrote:They are doing that. read what the suspect flag means and you'll see. I was there when they first presented it. I know what it means. What it doesn't mean is turning highsec into null. Quote:CCP are changing the mechanic of stealing into something that puts anyone who steals into a massively imbalanced situation, and they're saying this is ok as stealing is 'bad'. GǪcompared to the current situation where stealing has a chance of putting the thief in a massively imbalanced situation, and this is ok as stealing is GǣbadGǥ (as shown by the fact that it triggers a criminal timer).
let me break it down for you:
Under the new mechanics you steal and get suspect flag = everyone can shoot you without consequences and without you doing something to them that causes an aggression flag, this is just like null. So if you steal it turns highsec into null for you (the other guy doesn't have this disadvantage) if you are then shot at by the guy you stole from it now becomes you v guy you stole from + everyone else. That is imbalanced.
This situation is only possible as they are changing the mechanic so you get an aggression flag to everyone, whether you did something that affected them or not. That is not like it is now at all, and CCP are saying it is ok to do this as they will consider stealing as 'bad'. Do you understand that this is a moral judgment? and that CCP aren't making that moral judgment now?Giving a guy and his corp the option to shoot you is nowhere near as imbalanced as letting everyone shoot you.
|
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
427
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 23:33:00 -
[299] - Quote
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. -RubyPorto
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
202
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 23:33:00 -
[300] - Quote
Ziranda Hakuli wrote:the more i read this and re read CCP Greyscale's comments is just starting to make the head hurt and only drawing the conclusion that CCP has their head up thier ass again.
Crime Watch from my understanding and a few others was to be ONE of the big highlights for Escalation. Big frackin let down.
For the Neut RR crap. just do not let it happen, but at the same time i can see why this would be an issue with the Incursion community.
how about this as for an idea 1> Neut RR reps someone with GCC looses sec rating and concord shows up and pops them 2> Neut RR interferes in a War Dec. Looses Sec Status and Concord blows up the Neut RR.
For the Gankers this has always been a hot topic 1> Global criminal Tag. make this last a week. A> Anyone can shoot them B> Empire stations should deny them docking permission C> Committing another offense resets times and lose twice has much Sec Status and standing with faction in area.
How about also create a new organization for players to join. something like the Navy police. Granted this idea is kinda on the spur of the moment. 1> Anyone with Global Criminal Tag will show up on overview even if off grid within Empire space. 2> can shot anyone with negative Sec Status or Faction status you are working for. 3> anyone shooting a player who has joined the force navy police ship show up immediately to reinforce their officer with concord showing up at their normal time. 4> NPC reinforcements cannot aid those in Low Sec.
crazy idea.
have fun kids
Sounds like fun except remove concord. Its gotten stupidly offender security heavy lately anyways
Let players defend players in high sec belts. I think THAT would be fun. Then youd have that "mercenary market" Soundwave was pretending he wanted http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
|
Kalicor Lightwind
Vigihan Zombie Ninja Space Bears
18
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 23:38:00 -
[301] - Quote
I think the main thing they are considering is grieving potential in high sec group activities like incursions. I could easily see people using the vigilante/suspect flag to flag logi for pvp combat and then come gank them.
Maybe only flag logi if their target is actively engaged in pvp combat, as in being actively shot at or actively shooting at someone? Might need a short "Defender Aggro" flag, that's maybe only a minute long and happens if the logi pilot helps the suspect actively in a fight. Like the gate aggro mechanic: If the vigilante/suspect can't jump a gate because of their recent aggression, then the logis would inherit their pvp flag. Same should happen to logi that rep a wartarget: only flagged for pvp/suspect if they are actively engaged with their war targets.
I mean because really: if they haven't been shot at or shot someone for a minute, how does repping the target hurt anyone? They've obviously escaped any immediate pvp combat threat, and inheriting aggression from long timers is less about "killing the logi that helped your war target/enemy" and more about "let's see how we can abuse these mechanics to gank unsuspecting lemmings.
Plus it's kind of annoying to be banned from public incursions in faction war, even in high (.7, .8+) security friendly space. Same deal with one man war decs against large alliances/corps, most of the time this ostracizes them from any sort of high sec group activity because of the aggression mechanics. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
235
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 23:39:00 -
[302] - 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 -
[303] - 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. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8585
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 23:46:00 -
[304] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:Under the new mechanics you steal and get suspect flag = everyone can shoot you without consequences and without you doing something to them that causes an aggression flag, this is just like null. If it were like null, I'd be able to take on all comers as would my team mates. I would also expect to have an SC or two dropped on me. None of that will happen.
Quote:This situation is only possible as they are changing the mechanic so you get an aggression flag to everyone, whether you did something that affected them or not. Sure, but the flipside of that is that if I manage to get a proper canflip in, my associates (and anyone else who'd like to join in) can come and blow the target up without repercussions. In addition, as existing criminal and outlaw flagging shows, people are in general rather apathetic about pursuing free legitimate targets GÇö corp mates will most likely still be the larger threat.
Quote:CCP are saying it is ok to do this as they will consider stealing as 'bad'. GǪwhich is no different than now since they are already saying that stealing is GÇ£badGÇ¥. The moral judgement was made back when theft flagging was introduced GÇö it is not something they suddenly add in or change with CW2.0.
Pipa Porto wrote:Except that you gain the exact same aggression flag when you do something expressly legal like shooting at Outlaws or Rats. ? What are you referring to? You don't get (nor will you get) any suspect flags for doing those. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
202
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 23:48:00 -
[305] - Quote
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? http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
202
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 23:50:00 -
[306] - Quote
Tippia wrote:[quote=Rara Yariza]I would also expect to have an SC or two dropped on me. None of that will happen.
Splittin them hairs mighty thin when youre saying the only difference is you cant bring cap ships lol
cause you WILL be able to "take on all comers" once youre flagged unless theyre dropping the idea that anyone can shoot you when flagged. http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
235
|
Posted - 2012.07.16 23:57:00 -
[307] - 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? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8585
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 00:00:00 -
[308] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:cause you WILL be able to "take on all comers" once youre flagged unless theyre dropping the idea that anyone can shoot you when flagged. GǪbut only after they've chosen to do so, not because I want to get rid of them, and I can't go after all their support (only some, depending on what they do with the remote-support flagging), and I can get far better support while doing so.
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. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
24
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 00:01:00 -
[309] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Rara Yariza wrote:Under the new mechanics you steal and get suspect flag = everyone can shoot you without consequences and without you doing something to them that causes an aggression flag, this is just like null. If it were like null, I'd be able to take on all comers as would my team mates. I would also expect to have an SC or two dropped on me. None of that will happen. Quote:This situation is only possible as they are changing the mechanic so you get an aggression flag to everyone, whether you did something that affected them or not. Sure, but the flipside of that is that if I manage to get a proper canflip in, my associates (and anyone else who'd like to join in) can come and blow the target up without repercussions. In addition, as existing criminal and outlaw flagging shows, people are in general rather apathetic about pursuing free legitimate targets GÇö corp mates will most likely still be the larger threat. Quote:CCP are saying it is ok to do this as they will consider stealing as 'bad'. GǪwhich is no different than now since they are already saying that stealing is GÇ£badGÇ¥. The moral judgement was made back when theft flagging was introduced GÇö it is not something they suddenly add in or change with CW2.0. Pipa Porto wrote:Except that you gain the exact same aggression flag when you do something expressly legal like shooting at Outlaws or Rats. ? What are you referring to? You don't get (nor will you get) any suspect flags for doing those.
In the case of aggression mechanics though it will be like null for a person with a suspect flag and not for the other guy.
I understand you can do this and that, but these changes still provide a vastly more imbalanced outcome that helps defenders. My original point and question to CCP was basically 'are introducing these changes that cause a larger imbalance part of how you want EvE to be?' If CCP sticks their head in here I'd love it if they could take the time to say.
We can keep going over this but as it is now the aggression flag doesn't denote a 'bad' thing. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
235
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 00:03:00 -
[310] - 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. |
|
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
427
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 00:04:00 -
[311] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Except that you gain the exact same aggression flag when you do something expressly legal like shooting at Outlaws or Rats. ? What are you referring to? You don't get (nor will you get) any suspect flags for doing those.
Sorry, I quoted the wrong part of your post.
Right now, there are 2 flags, the GCC (red) and the Agression Flag (Yellow). The aggression flag isn't a criminal one, because there are ways to get it without committing any crime, like shooting an Outlaw or helping someone who's doing the same. Shooting someone who's gone GCC also gives you an Aggression Flag, though it's not currently particularly important, as it won't last more than 20-30s longer than that pilot's GCC. All of these aggression flags are identical to the one you get from flipping a can.
Now, with this new "2 flag" system, the GCC (felon) looks like it will stay roughly the same. Now, with only the Suspect flag left, what flag do you give someone who shoots an outlaw to indicate that the Outlaw can shoot them back? It's now a 3 flag system when it used to be a two flag one. Now, aiding someone who's shooting an outlaw will give you the suspect flag, because there's no individual flagging (well, except for the new "X can shoot me, because I shot him legally" flag) making you a criminal (what?).
One way to get rid of the necessity of the third, individual aggression flag would be to make everyone who shoots someone else a suspect (I think that's silly), another would be to not flag the person shooting the outlaw with anything (so an outlaw defending themselves gets CONCORDed, also silly). -RubyPorto
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8585
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 00:12:00 -
[312] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:All of these aggression flags are identical to the one you get from flipping a can. Not quite. The one you get for stealing is still something you get in response to an actual crime (which is the same reason you get one for stealing under CW2.0). It differs from the others in that it's a group flagging rather than just a player-to-player flag as with attacking outlaws and an utterly irrelevant and mechanically functionless relic that you get for shooting rats.
Quote:One way to get rid of the necessity of the third, individual aggression flag would be to make everyone who shoots someone else a suspect (I think that's silly), another would be to not flag the person shooting the outlaw with anything (so an outlaw defending themselves gets CONCORDed, also silly). I was always partial to the idea of them implementing GÇ£limited engagementsGÇ¥ GÇö ad hoc groups that had temporary wardec mechanics tied to them.
It would still be a three-flag system, but that third flag would let you dynamically add participants as they got involved without it spreading to everyone in the galaxy (and could double as a base mechanic for formal duels). 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
202
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 00:22:00 -
[313] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote: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?
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.
came out of
http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
202
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 00:23:00 -
[314] - Quote
bah http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
24
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 00:27:00 -
[315] - 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.
Well bummer, so it looks like CCP do want imbalanced gameplay |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8585
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 00:28:00 -
[316] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:See last I saw was the quote [GǪ] came out of The GÇ£current designGÇ¥ he's talking about there is the idea presented at page 1 GÇö that they have a single, non-transferable flag between suspects and attackers. The idea Tyberius is talking about was the one mentioned later, where all kinds of neutral support would flag you suspect.
Quote:so after they trigger this (what used to be) "everyone kill this guy" flag ISNT that anymore? That part is still intact GÇö what (might) have changed is how others might interact with the suspect and his attackers. What I'm referring to, though, is the difference between being a free-for-all target that can shoot back and being in null, where you don't have to wait to shoot back since you can just shoot first (and get ample support in doing so). 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
235
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 00:28:00 -
[317] - 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.
|
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
427
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 00:32:00 -
[318] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:All of these aggression flags are identical to the one you get from flipping a can. Not quite. The one you get for stealing is still something you get in response to an actual crime (which is the same reason you get one for stealing under CW2.0). It differs from the others in that it's a group flagging rather than just a player-to-player flag as with attacking outlaws and an utterly irrelevant and mechanically functionless relic that you get for shooting rats. Quote:One way to get rid of the necessity of the third, individual aggression flag would be to make everyone who shoots someone else a suspect (I think that's silly), another would be to not flag the person shooting the outlaw with anything (so an outlaw defending themselves gets CONCORDed, also silly). I was always partial to the idea of them implementing GÇ£limited engagementsGÇ¥ GÇö ad hoc groups that had temporary wardec mechanics tied to them. It would still be a three-flag system, but that third flag would let you dynamically add participants as they got involved without it spreading to everyone in the galaxy (and could double as a base mechanic for formal duels).
The current aggression flag for can flipping is a flag to the affected party (the corp owns the can, as it owns just about everything floating in space), just like the aggression flag for shooting outlaws is, as is the aggression flag for repping WTs.
That would be fine with me. I just have a problem with petty theft making you a de facto outlaw, as the Suspect flag does.
It's similar to the difference between Civil tort and Criminal law. Some wrongs are considered to be private wrongs, where the wronged party must take action to gain redress, while some are considered to be public wrongs, where the state takes over to punish the offender. Where each wrong gets sorted is up to the individual legal system (Rome included Murder in the private wrong category, the US includes theft in the public wrong category, for example), but I can't think of a legal system anywhere or anytime that allowed anyone to take action against someone for a private wrong against an unaffiliated third party. Current aggression mechanics have CONCORD punishing Public Wrongs and allowing players to deal with Private wrongs privately. The suspect flag allows third parties to butt into the resolution of a Private wrong even though they are unaffiliated with the wronged party.
I think some sort of limited engagement system would be a good thing, though I'm at a loss for a way to fairly implement it. But the aggression mechanics we have now are closer to that then the proposed suspect (everyone in local, let's whomp on the can-flipper) flag mechanics. -RubyPorto
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
202
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 01:09:00 -
[319] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Antisocial Malkavian wrote:See last I saw was the quote [GǪ] came out of The GÇ£current designGÇ¥ he's talking about there is the idea presented at page 1 GÇö that they have a single, non-transferable flag between suspects and attackers. The idea Tyberius is talking about was the one mentioned later, where all kinds of neutral support would flag you suspect. Quote:so after they trigger this (what used to be) "everyone kill this guy" flag ISNT that anymore? That part is still intact GÇö what (might) have changed is how others might interact with the suspect and his attackers. What I'm referring to, though, is the difference between being a free-for-all target that can shoot back and being in null, where you don't have to wait to shoot back since you can just shoot first (and get ample support in doing so).
well yea, what Im hoping theyll do is what every other friggin MMO I know of does. If you heal someone in PVP you BECOME PART OF THE FIGHT http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
165
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 01:16:00 -
[320] - Quote
Tippia wrote:It's bad now and will still be be after the change. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Why do you think the act triggers any flags? What do you think the act will do after the change but trigger a flag?
I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or just stupid anymore.
Before the new system, stealing triggers a flag.
After the new system, stealing triggers a flag.
Before the new system, only your victim and his corp mates can shoot you.
After the new system, every single pilot in EVE can shoot you.
Tell me how that isn't an arbitrary change in morality - before the new system, stealing from someone gave the victim and their corporation the opportunity to deal with you personally. After the new system, stealing from someone makes you a criminal such that everyone in EVE can shoot at you. That is a change in morality. Before, it was bad in the sense that you were harming a single individual, and they had the opportunity to retaliate. Now, you're committing a crime that warrants all of EVE shooting you. |
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
881
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 03:01:00 -
[321] - Quote
You know... it may just be the case that this is an indirect way of getting more people into lowsec. I mean, by making it harder to perform asshattery in highsec wouldn't that compel asshats to move to low? Personally I'm pretty uninterested in highsec on the whole.
|
Evelyn Meiyi
Meiyi Family Holdings
14
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 03:13:00 -
[322] - Quote
Vol Arm'OOO wrote: So your saying that your eliminating one of the four pillars of empire pvp and are replacing it with nothing? Or are you saying that pvp in empire is simply not allowed outside of suciding and war decs - which of course means that if i choose to stay in an npc corp I am completely safe from all non-consensual pvp except for suiciding? Why not just introduce flagging and put the final nail in the coffin of eve being a hardcore game?
When a system is left without balance or control, that system will inevitably fall into anarchy and self-destruct.
Think about it for a moment: every single new player starts out in high-security empire space. They're looking forward to a unique game experience, but before they can even get started, some jerk with a remote repper gathers up four or five of his friends and they sit outside the starter systems blowing the snot out of anyone who flies by.
An experienced player with a remote repper is nigh-indestructible to a new pilot. They don't have the skills, the ship or the modules to fight back. After the sixth time they have to buy a brand-new ship within their first fifteen minutes of play, they're more than likely reconsidering their choice of game.
Facing that kind of obstacle, I certainly would. |
Betrinna Cantis
22
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 03:16:00 -
[323] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:Tippia wrote:It's bad now and will still be be after the change. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Why do you think the act triggers any flags? What do you think the act will do after the change but trigger a flag?
I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or just stupid anymore. Before the new system, stealing triggers a flag. After the new system, stealing triggers a flag. Before the new system, only your victim and his corp mates can shoot you. After the new system, every single pilot in EVE can shoot you. Tell me how that isn't an arbitrary change in morality - before the new system, stealing from someone gave the victim and their corporation the opportunity to deal with you personally. After the new system, stealing from someone makes you a criminal such that everyone in EVE can shoot at you. That is a change in morality. Before, it was bad in the sense that you were harming a single individual, and they had the opportunity to retaliate. Now, you're committing a crime that warrants all of EVE shooting you. Think of it as a "Neighborhood Watch" thing. If someone broke into your house and started to run away with your things, would you not yell at the people closest by to stop the thief? The thief knew what they were doing when they stole,so they should know that all the "neighborhood" is gonna beat you to death with a stick. Sends a message to the rest of the thieves not to screw with you, doesn't it? Alts have been changed to protect the Innocent. You may have mistaken me for someone who cares..... |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
165
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 04:00:00 -
[324] - Quote
Real life examples work poorly in a game where often one person effectively taunts another into throwing the first punch so they can murder them without consequences. |
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
429
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 04:35:00 -
[325] - Quote
Betrinna Cantis wrote:Ohh Yeah wrote:Tippia wrote:It's bad now and will still be be after the change. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Why do you think the act triggers any flags? What do you think the act will do after the change but trigger a flag?
I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or just stupid anymore. Before the new system, stealing triggers a flag. After the new system, stealing triggers a flag. Before the new system, only your victim and his corp mates can shoot you. After the new system, every single pilot in EVE can shoot you. Tell me how that isn't an arbitrary change in morality - before the new system, stealing from someone gave the victim and their corporation the opportunity to deal with you personally. After the new system, stealing from someone makes you a criminal such that everyone in EVE can shoot at you. That is a change in morality. Before, it was bad in the sense that you were harming a single individual, and they had the opportunity to retaliate. Now, you're committing a crime that warrants all of EVE shooting you. Think of it as a "Neighborhood Watch" thing. If someone broke into your house and started to run away with your things, would you not yell at the people closest by to stop the thief? The thief knew what they were doing when they stole,so they should know that all the "neighborhood" is gonna beat you to death with a stick. Sends a message to the rest of the thieves not to screw with you, doesn't it?
If you want to make a real life comparison, do you know what happens to those neighbors after they murder the thief? They go to prison.
In EVE, similarly, they get CONCORDed. -RubyPorto
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
203
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 04:39:00 -
[326] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Betrinna Cantis wrote:Ohh Yeah wrote:Tippia wrote:It's bad now and will still be be after the change. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Why do you think the act triggers any flags? What do you think the act will do after the change but trigger a flag?
I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or just stupid anymore. Before the new system, stealing triggers a flag. After the new system, stealing triggers a flag. Before the new system, only your victim and his corp mates can shoot you. After the new system, every single pilot in EVE can shoot you. Tell me how that isn't an arbitrary change in morality - before the new system, stealing from someone gave the victim and their corporation the opportunity to deal with you personally. After the new system, stealing from someone makes you a criminal such that everyone in EVE can shoot at you. That is a change in morality. Before, it was bad in the sense that you were harming a single individual, and they had the opportunity to retaliate. Now, you're committing a crime that warrants all of EVE shooting you. Think of it as a "Neighborhood Watch" thing. If someone broke into your house and started to run away with your things, would you not yell at the people closest by to stop the thief? The thief knew what they were doing when they stole,so they should know that all the "neighborhood" is gonna beat you to death with a stick. Sends a message to the rest of the thieves not to screw with you, doesn't it? If you want to make a real life comparison, do you know what happens to those neighbors after they murder the thief? They go to prison. In EVE, similarly, they get CONCORDed.
Hence why it needs to go http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
429
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 04:51:00 -
[327] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Betrinna Cantis wrote:Ohh Yeah wrote:Tippia wrote:It's bad now and will still be be after the change. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Why do you think the act triggers any flags? What do you think the act will do after the change but trigger a flag?
I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or just stupid anymore. Before the new system, stealing triggers a flag. After the new system, stealing triggers a flag. Before the new system, only your victim and his corp mates can shoot you. After the new system, every single pilot in EVE can shoot you. Tell me how that isn't an arbitrary change in morality - before the new system, stealing from someone gave the victim and their corporation the opportunity to deal with you personally. After the new system, stealing from someone makes you a criminal such that everyone in EVE can shoot at you. That is a change in morality. Before, it was bad in the sense that you were harming a single individual, and they had the opportunity to retaliate. Now, you're committing a crime that warrants all of EVE shooting you. Think of it as a "Neighborhood Watch" thing. If someone broke into your house and started to run away with your things, would you not yell at the people closest by to stop the thief? The thief knew what they were doing when they stole,so they should know that all the "neighborhood" is gonna beat you to death with a stick. Sends a message to the rest of the thieves not to screw with you, doesn't it? If you want to make a real life comparison, do you know what happens to those neighbors after they murder the thief? They go to prison. In EVE, similarly, they get CONCORDed. Hence why it needs to go
At one point, EVE didn't have an effective CONCORD. It was a bad idea. The Zombies in Yulai proved that. HS without CONCORD means that you cannot effectively do logistical work in HS, so all Logistics would happen via JF (or Titan bridged Freighter) in lowsec, knocking everyone who can't afford a JF out of the hauling game, leading to nobody moving anything anywhere except for large groups with logistical wings organized well enough to handle it.
Removing CONCORD is a stupid idea. -RubyPorto
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
166
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 05:12:00 -
[328] - Quote
I don't think he meant that CONCORD needed to go. |
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
430
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 05:14:00 -
[329] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:I don't think he meant that CONCORD needed to go.
He's advocated it elsewhere, and plain reading only allows CONCORD to be the antecedent of his pronoun. -RubyPorto
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
203
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 05:14:00 -
[330] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:I don't think he meant that CONCORD needed to go.
Yeah I actually do.
Its a stupid, kneejerk response to a problem and CCP didnt think it out when they implimented it (like usual) http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
|
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
430
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 05:22:00 -
[331] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:Ohh Yeah wrote:I don't think he meant that CONCORD needed to go. Yeah I actually do. Its a stupid, kneejerk response to a problem and CCP didnt think it out when they implimented it (like usual) You replace the stupid godlike powers of an NPC organization with players that run security for those logistics. Like those mercenary groups Soundwave was pretending he cared about after the wardec change. THAT actually makes the MARKET he said EVE needs so very badly that they had to change the wardec mechanic
Ever been a part of a Freighter convoy? They're not fun. In fact, they suck. And that's with the availability of Titans to bridge.
Without Titans to bridge some of the distance, they'd be even worse.
(By the way, CONCORD was introduced before EVE launched, so what exactly, was it a kneejerk reaction to?) -RubyPorto
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
882
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 05:58:00 -
[332] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Antisocial Malkavian wrote:Ohh Yeah wrote:I don't think he meant that CONCORD needed to go. Yeah I actually do. Its a stupid, kneejerk response to a problem and CCP didnt think it out when they implimented it (like usual) You replace the stupid godlike powers of an NPC organization with players that run security for those logistics. Like those mercenary groups Soundwave was pretending he cared about after the wardec change. THAT actually makes the MARKET he said EVE needs so very badly that they had to change the wardec mechanic Ever been a part of a Freighter convoy? They're not fun. In fact, they suck. And that's with the availability of Titans to bridge. Without Titans to bridge some of the distance, they'd be even worse. (By the way, CONCORD was introduced before EVE launched, so what exactly, was it a kneejerk reaction to?) Please. Freighter ops don't suck nearly as much as they should. Logistics is supposed to be hard. It's supposed to be dangerous. The only reason you are b1tching is because they are now boring. Your invulnerable in a JF. This is a major nullsec problem. WTF do you know about freighter convoys? They don't even exist anymore. Teleportation was by far the worst addition to eve.
|
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
430
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 06:50:00 -
[333] - Quote
Gogela wrote: Please. Freighter ops don't suck nearly as much as they should. Logistics is supposed to be hard. It's supposed to be dangerous. The only reason you are b1tching is because they are now boring. Your invulnerable in a JF. This is a major nullsec problem. WTF do you know about freighter convoys? They don't even exist anymore. Teleportation was by far the worst addition to eve.
Which JF does this fit into again? Or this?
When the NC was losing Branch, there were a number of large Freighter convoys evacuating very large quantities of material. I was in some of them. But, of course, the jump freighter has made freighter convoys entirely obsolete, so I must have been hallucinating, you're right. -RubyPorto
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Tysinger
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
13
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 07:23:00 -
[334] - Quote
Everyone, go play DayZ where there is no pve and the person that developed it says **** YOU to pve'rs.
This game is dying fast thanks to **** ass morons like CCP Greyscale. How that dude still has a job there I will never understand.
CCP wise up or you will lose the rest of all your old player base, hope you can fill it with more WoW players to make up for them but I really dont think thats going to happen anytime soon, and as for your new game? HAHAHAHA Planetside is going to crush all yoru hopes and dreams of being anything.
Ban me if you want to, like you have been doing to others that are speaking out against you, but I still say **** YOU!! |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
418
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 08:24:00 -
[335] - Quote
Tysinger wrote:Everyone, go play DayZ where there is no pve and the person that developed it says **** YOU to pve'rs. [...] CCP wise up or you will lose the rest of all your old player base, hope you can fill it with more WoW players to make up for them but I really dont think thats going to happen anytime soon, and as for your new game? HAHAHAHA Planetside is going to crush all yoru hopes and dreams of being anything.
DayZ looked promising until I saw it was based on Zombie/Horror... Just don't like that stuff. But yeah high hopes for Planetside 2. The first game was quite possibly the best PvP MMO ever made, and the second one looks as though it could be way better.
But yeah, EVE just gets more meh with every non art based dev update. I still can't get over that the expansion is called "Inferno" "Camp Fire" would have been more appropriate. |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Exhale.
151
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 10:05:00 -
[336] - Quote
Wardecs are all wonky Mining ships are getting buffs to the point where some of them have battleship ehp Now we're getting invulnerable neut RR and messing with stealing/baiting mechanics
oh look hisec has become hello kitty online. Thanks greyscale!
jesus h christ |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8585
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 11:04:00 -
[337] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or just stupid anymore.
Before the new system, stealing triggers a flag.
After the new system, stealing triggers a flag. GǪthus no change in morality. Stealing was always a crime. The whole notion that CCP suddenly says that theft is GÇ£badGÇ¥ whereas before they didn't is just wilfully ignorant and completely nonsensical. It's almost as silly as the hallucination some people had earlier about how they now called PvP bad. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Vol Arm'OOO
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
11
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 11:25:00 -
[338] - Quote
Evelyn Meiyi wrote:Vol Arm'OOO wrote: So your saying that your eliminating one of the four pillars of empire pvp and are replacing it with nothing? Or are you saying that pvp in empire is simply not allowed outside of suciding and war decs - which of course means that if i choose to stay in an npc corp I am completely safe from all non-consensual pvp except for suiciding? Why not just introduce flagging and put the final nail in the coffin of eve being a hardcore game?
When a system is left without balance or control, that system will inevitably fall into anarchy and self-destruct. Think about it for a moment: every single new player starts out in high-security empire space. They're looking forward to a unique game experience, but before they can even get started, some jerk with a remote repper gathers up four or five of his friends and they sit outside the starter systems blowing the snot out of anyone who flies by. An experienced player with a remote repper is nigh-indestructible to a new pilot. They don't have the skills, the ship or the modules to fight back. After the sixth time they have to buy a brand-new ship within their first fifteen minutes of play, they're more than likely reconsidering their choice of game. Facing that kind of obstacle, I certainly would.
When I first came to eve way back when I did so because I was looking for an open world pop experience. Every thing I saw written about eve said it was an open world pop hardcore game. So imagine my surprise when after doing the tutorials I looked around and couldn't find any pvp. In fact I learned that you couldn't just shoot folk in empire . . . So I worked my way to low sec where of course my ill fitted ships were raped by the local pirates. After some more research I came upon can flipping . . . It turns out that for a young pilot can flipping allowed you to have limited controlled fights at a level that approximated your own experience. Now without can flipping as a viable outlet - new pilots who want to pvp are going to be forced to go to lowest to be the repeated victims of vastly more experienced pilots. How fun is that? Won't that drive those players out of the game?
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
941
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 13:47:00 -
[339] - Quote
Some seem to be missing the point of hi-sec and the design goals as stated by CCP.
From the presentation:
"You should be pretty safe in hi-sec" - "It may be controversial to some but that's the way it is."
And from this thread:
CCP Greyscale wrote: 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.
Arguing for changes that are contrary to the stated goals isn't likely to go very far. This *is* EVE, but there are places designed into the world that are supposed to have some semblance of law and order. Being a badguy in those places should not be easy or necessarily fair. Here's your sign... |
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
25
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 14:06:00 -
[340] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:Some seem to be missing the point of hi-sec and the design goals as stated by CCP. From the presentation: "You should be pretty safe in hi-sec" - "It may be controversial to some but that's the way it is." And from this thread: CCP Greyscale wrote: 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.
Arguing for changes that are contrary to the stated goals isn't likely to go very far. This *is* EVE, but there are places designed into the world that are supposed to have some semblance of law and order. Being a badguy in those places should not be easy or necessarily fair.
EvE is a fair game at the moment, in terms of mechanics providing the same consequences for everyone. With CCP changing this to now punish behavior it deems bad, EvE is no longer the same kind of game. CCP Greyscale has mentioned they want to make the code simpler. So I'm wondering, and part of the reason why i asked my original question, do CCP want this new kind of game (e.g game B) or is it they aren't currently capable of cleaning up the code and keeping it like it is now (game A) but would want to if they could.
So, once again CCP, what is your core philosophy for EvE now? and if it's changed, why? |
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
941
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 14:12:00 -
[341] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:
EvE is a fair game at the moment, in terms of mechanics providing the same consequences for everyone. With CCP changing this to now punish behavior it deems bad, EvE is no longer the same kind of game. CCP Greyscale has mentioned they want to make the code simpler. So I'm wondering, and part of the reason why i asked my original question, do CCP want this new kind of game (e.g game B) or is it they aren't currently capable of cleaning up the code and keeping it like it is now (game A) but would want to if they could.
So, once again CCP, what is your core philosophy for EvE now?
The concept of doing bad is not new. Quit pretending it is.
It has always been bad to shoot someone in empire without cause. It has always been bad to steal from another person in empire.
The degree of badness varies whether you're in hisec or lowsec.
They are adjusting the degree of badness for stealing in hisec, but not introducing a new concept.
Why? Because of their stated design that, "You should be pretty safe in hisec".
Here's your sign... |
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
25
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 14:15:00 -
[342] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:Rara Yariza wrote:
EvE is a fair game at the moment, in terms of mechanics providing the same consequences for everyone. With CCP changing this to now punish behavior it deems bad, EvE is no longer the same kind of game. CCP Greyscale has mentioned they want to make the code simpler. So I'm wondering, and part of the reason why i asked my original question, do CCP want this new kind of game (e.g game B) or is it they aren't currently capable of cleaning up the code and keeping it like it is now (game A) but would want to if they could.
So, once again CCP, what is your core philosophy for EvE now?
The concept of doing bad is not new. Quit pretending it is. It has always been bad to shoot someone in empire without cause. It has always been bad to steal from another person in empire. The degree of badness varies whether you're in hisec or lowsec. They are adjusting the degree of badness for stealing in hisec, but not introducing a new concept. Why? Because of their stated design that, "You should be pretty safe in hisec".
I never said that shooting someone in empire unprovoked wasn't bad, i said stealing. If stealing was bad you'd get concorded. My issue is with CCP changing stealing which isn't currently bad to something that is. Being safe in highsec due to your own initiative is different to being safe in highsec because CCP are coding it to snuff out legitimate gameplay. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8586
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 14:40:00 -
[343] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:I never said that shooting someone in empire unprovoked wasn't bad, i said stealing. If stealing was bad you'd get concorded. No. Stealing was always bad, as shown by the fact that doing so lets people kill you. This is nothing new.
Oh, and no. EVE is not fair at the moment. It was never intended to be fair either. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
941
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 14:48:00 -
[344] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:
I never said that shooting someone in empire unprovoked wasn't bad, i said stealing. If stealing was bad you'd get concorded. My issue is with CCP changing stealing which isn't currently bad to something that is. Being safe in highsec due to your own initiative is different to being safe in highsec because CCP are coding it to snuff out legitimate gameplay.
Following your line of logic there, "bad = concord", you make it sound like CCP will concord you for stealing in the future.
Obviously that's not the case. Allowing any player to shoot at a suspect is not the same as concordokken.
Right now, stealing is bad. It is bad to a lesser degree than shooting someone. It allows players to attempt to render their own justice.
CW2.0 stealing will still be bad, but will allow any player to attempt to render justice rather than just the hapless victim.
No, it isn't fair to the criminals.
This is by design for hisec, where crime is being frowned upon, disadvantaged, and made more challenging. It is after all, high security, and "You should be pretty safe in hisec".
But it's not being snuffed out. Here's your sign... |
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
25
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 15:01:00 -
[345] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:Rara Yariza wrote:
I never said that shooting someone in empire unprovoked wasn't bad, i said stealing. If stealing was bad you'd get concorded. My issue is with CCP changing stealing which isn't currently bad to something that is. Being safe in highsec due to your own initiative is different to being safe in highsec because CCP are coding it to snuff out legitimate gameplay.
Following your line of logic there, "bad = concord", you make it sound like CCP will concord you for stealing in the future. Obviously that's not the case. Allowing any player to shoot at a suspect is not the same as concordokken. Right now, stealing is bad. It is bad to a lesser degree than shooting someone. It allows players to attempt to render their own justice. CW2.0 stealing will still be bad, but will allow any player to attempt to render justice rather than just the hapless victim. No, it isn't fair to the criminals. This is by design for hisec, where crime is being frowned upon, disadvantaged, and made more challenging. It is after all, high security, and "You should be pretty safe in hisec". But it's not being snuffed out.
i was using your logic, you lumped stealing in with going global. stealing isn't currently bad, letting someone shoot you isn't bad, it's just an aggression flag, as is obvious.
In the post of CCP Greyscale you quoted he says they are making the distinction that something is 'bad' and punishing you for it, saying if you feel at a disadvantage it is probably by design. This new mechanic is there to snuff out can-flippng, that is a big change to EvE, where the hapless victim as you call him is being protected by the game mechanics rather than himself. Your hapless victim is only hapless because of himself, which can be changed if he wishes. If he dies it isn't a fault with the current game but with himself. That is what CCP are changing by adding this imbalanced situation.
Tippia wrote:Rara Yariza wrote:I never said that shooting someone in empire unprovoked wasn't bad, i said stealing. If stealing was bad you'd get concorded. No. Stealing was always bad, as shown by the fact that doing so lets people kill you. This is nothing new. Oh, and no. EVE is not fair at the moment. It was never intended to be fair either. It does not provide the same consequences for everyone. For minor crimes, it doesn't provide any consequences at all other than letting players mete out whatever punishment they deem fitting. For moderate crimes, it docks your standings. For severe crimes, the consequence is an automated loss of your ship. CW2.0 changes none of those things.
EvE is fair from a mechanics viewpoint, if a situation arises that is imbalanced it's down to player intiative, not CCP deliberately making it imbalanced. If you think CCP aren't doing that, re-read CCP Greyscales post where he says they are. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8586
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 15:03:00 -
[346] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:stealing isn't currently bad, letting someone shoot you isn't bad, it's just an aggression flag, as is obvious. Then guess what: it won't be bad under CW2.0 either. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
25
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 15:05:00 -
[347] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Rara Yariza wrote:stealing isn't currently bad, letting someone shoot you isn't bad, it's just an aggression flag, as is obvious. Then guess what: it won't be bad under CW2.0 either.
LOL, it is, as CCP are making it bad, re-read the post by CCP Greyscale. He says it is bad and you are being punished for it.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8586
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 15:10:00 -
[348] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote:LOL, it is No more than it currently is.
You see, you keep flip-flopping on what GÇ£badGÇ¥ means. Under the new system, GÇ£badGÇ¥ means something completely different than it does under the current system according to you, and you are hinging this entire distinction on an utterly meaningless description made by Greyscale that does not reflect the mechanics.
You state that GÇ£stealing isn't currently bad, letting someone shoot you isn't bad, it's just an aggression flagGÇ¥. Let's stick with that definition of GÇ£badGÇ¥ from now on, ok?
By your own definition stealing isn't bad under CW2.0. It is just an aggression flag. Whether CCP calls it bad or not is of zero relevance. The simple fact remains that by your view on what counts as bad, stealing is not bad under CW1.0, and it will not be bad under CW2.0.
Quote:EvE is fair from a mechanics viewpoint GǪand it sill will be. The imbalance you're complaining about is still down to player initiative. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Vilnius Zar
Ordo Ardish
83
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 15:14:00 -
[349] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:We allow one-time mappings but we don't make them transitive, ie if you're a suspect and someone shoots you then you can always fire back, but if that person has a third party repping them, you can't shoot the logi because we don't allow aggression transfer like that (for obvious reasons).
I must ask, do you actually play this game or is your main MMO Hello Kitty Online?
Apart from that, the whole "no personal aggression" and "we don't make them transitive" reeks of "we're unable to code it properly, it's too difficult to add such granularity so instead we'll keep it simple and state that meant it that way". All you've done so far is very much against what EVE is and stood for. Quit your job and apply at Blizzard. Amat victoria curam. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
941
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 15:14:00 -
[350] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote: i was using your logic, you lumped stealing in with going global. stealing isn't currently bad, letting someone shoot you isn't bad, it's just an aggression flag, as is obvious.
No, I didn't. I said they are both bad, and bad to different degrees of punishment.
You're the one lumping them all together.
Rara Yariza wrote: In the post of CCP Greyscale you quoted he says they are making the distinction that something is 'bad' and punishing you for it, saying if you feel at a disadvantage it is probably by design. This new mechanic is there to snuff out can-flippng, that is a big change to EvE, where the hapless victim as you call him is being protected by the game mechanics rather than himself. Your hapless victim is only hapless because of himself, which can be changed if he wishes. If he dies it isn't a fault with the current game but with himself. That is what CCP are changing by adding this imbalanced situation.
You're right. CCP is snuffing out the ignorance that leads to can-flipping deaths. The safety system is there to give those hapless victims the chance to make an informed decision. That "legitimate" form of gameplay, outwitting the ignorant, is being nerfed.
Rara Yariza wrote: EvE is fair from a mechanics viewpoint, if a situation arises that is imbalanced it's down to player intiative, not CCP deliberately making it imbalanced. If you think CCP aren't doing that, re-read CCP Greyscales post where he says they are.
This is also true. If a player takes the initiative to steal from another player in hisec, he will find himself in an imbalanced situation arising purely through his own initiative.
Here's your sign... |
|
Vol Arm'OOO
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
11
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 15:18:00 -
[351] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:Some seem to be missing the point of hi-sec and the design goals as stated by CCP. From the presentation: "You should be pretty safe in hi-sec" - "It may be controversial to some but that's the way it is." And from this thread: CCP Greyscale wrote: 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.
Arguing for changes that are contrary to the stated goals isn't likely to go very far. This *is* EVE, but there are places designed into the world that are supposed to have some semblance of law and order. Being a badguy in those places should not be easy or necessarily fair.
Then CCP should be honest - stop pretending that eve is an open world pvp game. But I guess CCP doesnt want to lose its street cred as a hardcore pvp game.
|
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
25
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 15:21:00 -
[352] - Quote
Tippia wrote:EvE is fair from a mechanics viewpoint GǪand it sill will be. The imbalance you're complaining about is still down to player initiative.[/quote]
If you are shot by the guy you stole from and he then became agressed to everyone in system, then it would be a fair mechanic.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8586
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 15:22:00 -
[353] - Quote
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:Then CCP should be honest - stop pretending that eve is an open world pvp game. Good news. It still will be.
Rara Yariza wrote:If you are shot by the guy you stole from and he then became agressed to everyone in system, then it would be a fair mechanic. By that standard, the current mechanic isn't fair either.
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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
25
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 15:24:00 -
[354] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:Rara Yariza wrote: i was using your logic, you lumped stealing in with going global. stealing isn't currently bad, letting someone shoot you isn't bad, it's just an aggression flag, as is obvious.
No, I didn't. I said they are both bad, and bad to different degrees of punishment. You're the one lumping them all together. Rara Yariza wrote: In the post of CCP Greyscale you quoted he says they are making the distinction that something is 'bad' and punishing you for it, saying if you feel at a disadvantage it is probably by design. This new mechanic is there to snuff out can-flippng, that is a big change to EvE, where the hapless victim as you call him is being protected by the game mechanics rather than himself. Your hapless victim is only hapless because of himself, which can be changed if he wishes. If he dies it isn't a fault with the current game but with himself. That is what CCP are changing by adding this imbalanced situation.
You're right. CCP is snuffing out the ignorance that leads to can-flipping deaths. The safety system is there to give those hapless victims the chance to make an informed decision. That "legitimate" form of gameplay, outwitting the ignorant, is being nerfed. Rara Yariza wrote: EvE is fair from a mechanics viewpoint, if a situation arises that is imbalanced it's down to player intiative, not CCP deliberately making it imbalanced. If you think CCP aren't doing that, re-read CCP Greyscales post where he says they are.
This is also true. If a player takes the initiative to steal from another player in hisec, he will find himself in an imbalanced situation arising purely through his own initiative.
If people are ignorant it is because they are willfully ignorant. If someone can't compete because they don't try then it's thier fault. This new change panders to them and it is no longer EvE.
|
Vol Arm'OOO
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
11
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 15:24:00 -
[355] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:Rara Yariza wrote: i was using your logic, you lumped stealing in with going global. stealing isn't currently bad, letting someone shoot you isn't bad, it's just an aggression flag, as is obvious.
No, I didn't. I said they are both bad, and bad to different degrees of punishment. You're the one lumping them all together. Rara Yariza wrote: In the post of CCP Greyscale you quoted he says they are making the distinction that something is 'bad' and punishing you for it, saying if you feel at a disadvantage it is probably by design. This new mechanic is there to snuff out can-flippng, that is a big change to EvE, where the hapless victim as you call him is being protected by the game mechanics rather than himself. Your hapless victim is only hapless because of himself, which can be changed if he wishes. If he dies it isn't a fault with the current game but with himself. That is what CCP are changing by adding this imbalanced situation.
You're right. CCP is snuffing out the ignorance that leads to can-flipping deaths. The safety system is there to give those hapless victims the chance to make an informed decision. That "legitimate" form of gameplay, outwitting the ignorant, is being nerfed.
Unfortunately - if you strip away the complexity of eve, you are left with the core eve game which is actually very boring and rudimentary - warp here, orbit that, press shoot, etc. . . For myself and i think for many others its the idea that you can learn more about the game then the other guy which gives you an advantage which keeps the game fresh as there is always more to learn. Hence ignorance has its place in the game -- in fact its an important component of game play and once everyone is on equal footing, I suspect that interest in the game will fast dwindle.
|
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
188
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 15:59:00 -
[356] - Quote
If using remote assistance on a party involved in a war triggers a suspect flag for the benefactor, someone please hand-wave these situations away and tell me they aren't easily abused:
1. I put war decs on every major incursion corporation/alliance. They can no longer have any mixed fleets. Every member of the fleet must be from the same alliance. Any remote repairs from one corp landing on another will result in suspect flags.
2. I am an industrial corporation who ends up in a war with Nightmarex. I use the new interface to hire several mercenaries. Despite his best posting efforts, Nightmarex doesn't have as much combined logi as my corp and my allies. All of our logi is in-corp to avoid suspect flagging from assisting corp members. My corp logistics cannot assist my allies in a fight without becoming suspect flagged, even though we have common war targets.
I'm sure there are other permutations of the same scenarios, and probably some clever tricks to get people killed that I haven't thought of yet. |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Exhale.
153
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 16:02:00 -
[357] - Quote
Maybe I'm just funny in the head, but I always thought a nice solution to the "can flipping problem" would be, rather than hacking away at the code like maniacs, to simply explain the mechanics clearly for the newbies. If they don't read it and die, tough *****. |
Andrew Ernaga
North Central Positronics LTD Solar Citizens
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 16:10:00 -
[358] - Quote
So ultimately what it comes down to is they are trying to limit PVP within high sec to only those who are actually at War with each other?
Just curious here but these safeties that people are talking about....is this basically removing the ability to steal from someone's can when they are mining or whatever?
Overall, i feel like this is a good step in the right direction. PVP shouldn't be in high sec (except for wars) and i'll be one to say that even sucide ganking shouldn't be allowed either. By creating this system they are essentially trying to lure more people out to low and nullsec and I think it will work. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8586
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 16:17:00 -
[359] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:If using remote assistance on a party involved in a war triggers a suspect flag for the benefactor, someone please hand-wave these situations away and tell me they aren't easily abused:
1. I put war decs on every major incursion corporation/alliance. That one pretty much hand-waves itself away through that sentence alone.
That said, the aggression timers still exist. I suppose it could be fixed by having the whole logi-suspect checking depend on who the assist-target is aggressed to: is the logi also at war with that aggressor? Y GåÆ no flag; N GåÆ suspect. After all, your scenarios go beyond just standard warfare. The same issue would arise from some numpty knowing that the griefdeccer corp is logged off for the night, so he takes on a mission and brings his NPC logi alt on for the rideGǪ since he's at war, that MR-support alt would be flagged suspect and fun would be had by allGǪ
It would mean that just repping someone who is at war toGǪ someoneGǪ anyoneGǪ isn't what triggers the flag GÇö it's repping someone who's in an active engagement against a WT that triggers it.
Andrew Ernaga wrote:Just curious here but these safeties that people are talking about....is this basically removing the ability to steal from someone's can when they are mining or whatever? The safeties are, from what I understand, just the GÇ£do you want to do this stupid act Y/N?GÇ¥ pop-ups collated, expanded on, made more explicit, and shown through a more immediately available interface.
So instead of getting that popup the first time you try to rep a rat or steal or gank a Hulk and then having to dig through your GÇ£reset settingsGÇ¥ page if you want to alter it at a later time, you just have a window full of GÇ£safety togglesGÇ¥.
Eg. GÇ£Felonious actions: [-á-á-á] Do not perform [-áG£ô-á] Warn [-á-á-á] Perform without warningGÇ¥ 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
188
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 16:17:00 -
[360] - Quote
Andrew Ernaga wrote:So ultimately what it comes down to is they are trying to limit PVP within high sec to only those who are actually at War with each other?
Just curious here but these safeties that people are talking about....is this basically removing the ability to steal from someone's can when they are mining or whatever?
Overall, i feel like this is a good step in the right direction. PVP shouldn't be in high sec (except for wars) and i'll be one to say that even sucide ganking shouldn't be allowed either. By creating this system they are essentially trying to lure more people out to low and nullsec and I think it will work.
The safeties are something that must be turned off in your options. They completely stop you from performing actions that would get you Concorded or flagged to other players. If you're a new player, and someone flips your can, rather than trying to steal it back and see "Hey if you do this, they can shoot you", you will have to go into your game options and turn off your stealing safety and acknowledge that you know you will get shot before the game will even let you flip the can back. Same for shooting people what have you. |
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
941
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 16:18:00 -
[361] - Quote
Rara Yariza wrote: If people are ignorant it is because they are willfully ignorant.
No, not always.
I'd wager there are things you don't even know you're ignorant of that you would choose to learn - if you knew they existed. Here's your sign... |
Price Check Aisle3
155
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 16:31:00 -
[362] - 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 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8586
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 16:40:00 -
[363] - Quote
Price Check Aisle3 wrote:Seems ganking will be a far safer form of crime... 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
I don't think I particularly share your view on relative safety.
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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Price Check Aisle3
155
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 16:55:00 -
[364] - 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 |
Guttripper
State War Academy Caldari State
160
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 17:00:00 -
[365] - Quote
Long ago, when I first started playing this game, I remember being proud of the one graph showing the steep learning curve to play this game (especially with the dead stick figures ). I felt that this game would offer a challenge - something to "work" towards instead of mindlessly grinding away. I experimented with different aspects to the game. I asked other players and read the forums to see what others discovered. But then the ~little~ changes started arriving over the years - some for good and many in my opinion for bad. The removal of the learning skills and freely gifting everyone while downsizing my maximum potential. Or limiting war declarations because players could not stand up to the Privateers back in the day. Lately the removal of "unique" names to substandard simple names for modules across the board for whatever jacked up reason. And now how high sec space should be totally safe because brand wet behind the ears and clueless about the world newbie got all excited at some ad that he can control the whole universe and getting smacked in the snot box might send him to go crying to his momma and leave with his brand new account, that steep learning curve has been bulldozed flat to be more "friendly".
I, of course, could be completely off my rocker... |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8586
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 17:02:00 -
[366] - Quote
Price Check Aisle3 wrote: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 ****. 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.
Quote: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". The whole GÇ£eventuallyGÇ¥ part means that there is no need to worry about any surprises (wellGǪ beyond being ganked for carrying to many goodies in your hauler). Even less so if you have an alt. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Price Check Aisle3
155
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 17:19:00 -
[367] - 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 |
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
882
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 17:27:00 -
[368] - Quote
Price Check Aisle3 wrote: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. 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. 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.
|
Price Check Aisle3
155
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 17:37:00 -
[369] - 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 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8586
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 17:38:00 -
[370] - Quote
Gogela wrote:Ganking for profit will likely be out. Nah. You just do what you do right now if you want to be really careful: have an Orca on standby (it blends in well in belts for one), and dump all ze lewt into the corp hangarGǪ 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
433
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 17:42:00 -
[371] - Quote
So here's a question: Since I still own my wreck when I die, how does someone Suicide ganking my freighter pick up my stuff? Especially since I'm gonna pack expensive stuff into ships (or at least use ships as cover so it appears that I'm doing so). Going suspect in a Freighter to loot stuff seems unwise to me.
Another Stealth nerf to Suicide Ganks? -RubyPorto
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
882
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 17:43:00 -
[372] - Quote
Price Check Aisle3 wrote: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. 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...
Price Check Aisle3 wrote: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. 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.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8586
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 17:44:00 -
[373] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Since I still own my wreck when I die, how does someone Suicide ganking my freighter pick up my stuff? Jump-freighter drive-by with web support? 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
882
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 17:45:00 -
[374] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Gogela wrote:Ganking for profit will likely be out. Nah. You just do what you do right now if you want to be really careful: have an Orca on standby (it blends in well in belts for one), and dump all ze lewt into the corp hangarGǪ Then those orcas become a profitable target for vigilantes. If it becomes possible to hit the loot ship, and not get flagged, than people will do it. When ganking becomes less profitable, people will stop ganking (with the exception of those doing it for lulz, of course)
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8586
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 18:02:00 -
[375] - Quote
Gogela wrote:Then those orcas become a profitable target for vigilantes. No. The Orca won't be flagged for anything (nor will it drop anything if someone decides to suicide-gank it). They'll be as unprofitable targets as ever.
Sure, you might lose the thief in his free Ibis, and depending on how the flagging works, you might even lose the thief's free clone. Oh myGǪ 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
188
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 18:06:00 -
[376] - Quote
Nobody answered my question before, so I'll post it again:
If using an out-of-corp character to remote repair someone at war triggers a suspect flag, will I be able to dump war decs on all of the major incursion alliances, ensuring that they can never fly mixed fleets due to unwanted suspect flags? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8586
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 18:09:00 -
[377] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:Nobody answered my question before I did. Well, kind of.
If you want an answer on how it works on CCP's planning whiteboards at the moment, then you should direct it to Greyscale, not the general public. It's an interesting problem, but it's far from unsolvable, and how it will work will depend on exactly how the suspect-flagging will be triggered, which we don't fully know yet. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
433
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 18:10:00 -
[378] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Since I still own my wreck when I die, how does someone Suicide ganking my freighter pick up my stuff? Jump-freighter drive-by with web support?
Suddenly, BUMP! Plus, you'd need 2-3 Jump Freighters ready to drive by (since the wreck's not gonna last 15m), for a 21b commitment to the "fight." -RubyPorto
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
882
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 18:10:00 -
[379] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Gogela wrote:Then those orcas become a profitable target for vigilantes. No. The Orca won't be flagged for anything (nor will it drop anything if someone decides to suicide-gank it). They'll be as unprofitable targets as ever. Sure, you might lose the thief in his free Ibis, and depending on how the flagging works, you might even lose the thief's free clone. Oh myGǪ Ah... I see how your deal works. I was thinking about freighter volumes of loot though. your primary "loot runner" would be the orca in that case... but yah I guess a handoff would work. Probably don't need an orca for that.
The corp hanger in an orca doesn't drop anything?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8586
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 18:11:00 -
[380] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Suddenly, BUMP! Well, yes. Hence the GÇ£jumpGÇ¥ part GÇö add in an emergency cyno and fuel cost to that 21bn commitment.
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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
882
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 18:16:00 -
[381] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Suddenly, BUMP! Well, yes. Hence the GÇ£jumpGÇ¥ part GÇö add in an emergency cyno and fuel cost to that 21bn commitment. Gogela wrote:Ah... I see how your deal works. I was thinking about freighter volumes of loot though. your primary "loot runner" would be the orca in that case... but yah I guess a handoff would work. Probably don't need an orca for that.
The corp hanger in an orca doesn't drop anything? No. Nothing in the Orca's special hangars drop on destruction. The other advantage is that the Orca can be largely passive in the whole deal since the thief can access the hangar on his own, which significantly simplifies (and secures) the hand-off: open Orca, open loot can, drag-drop-warp-failbecauseofscrams-die-beer. But yes, it's limited in what you can scoop up with that kind of setup. Hay... that would work!
Also did not know that about corp hangers on orcas. Learning is occurring...
|
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
709
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 18:18:00 -
[382] - Quote
The real question is what happens to NEUTRAL LOGISTICS Repping WAR TARGETS??
That is the only question that matters.
Neutral Logis repping someone that you committed a "Crime" against. Fine, whatever. I'll deal with it.
But WAR TARGET Neutral Logi's MUST have aggression transfer, OR be set as criminals for assisting in a WAR that they are not legitimately a part of, and this are fair game for everyone.
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
882
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 18:21:00 -
[383] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:The real question is what happens to NEUTRAL LOGISTICS Repping WAR TARGETS??
That is the only question that matters.
Neutral Logis repping someone that you committed a "Crime" against. Fine, whatever. I'll deal with it.
But WAR TARGET Neutral Logi's MUST have aggression transfer, OR be set as criminals for assisting in a WAR that they are not legitimately a part of, and this are fair game for everyone. I think nobody has answered this question because nobody but the devs know the answer. I sure don't know...
|
Suddenly Forums ForumKings
Republic University Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 18:22:00 -
[384] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:
We allow one-time mappings but we don't make them transitive, ie if you're a suspect and someone shoots you then you can always fire back, but if that person has a third party repping them, you can't shoot the logi because we don't allow aggression transfer like that (for obvious reasons).
Excuse me?
My god CCP, just remove all hi sec pvp and be done with it. That's clearly what you want to do. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8586
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 18:23:00 -
[385] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:The real question is what happens to NEUTRAL LOGISTICS Repping WAR TARGETS?? GǣIllegal intervention in CONCORD-sanction corporate dispute RP RP yaddayaddaGǪGǥ In other words: suspect flag + docking timer = free for all and nowhere to run.
The only issue is the one Ohh Yeah raised about mixed fleets sharing the same war target: will they be able to rep each other, or is each corp/alliance have limited to what they can bring to support themselves? 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
434
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 18:24:00 -
[386] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Suddenly, BUMP! Well, yes. Hence the GÇ£jumpGÇ¥ part GÇö add in an emergency cyno and fuel cost to that 21bn commitment.
Fair enough, but unless the Cyno's already lit, and the JF is really on the ball about jumping out, it's getting tackled by the insta-lock support (insta-lock for a JF is what, 0 SEBOs on a Frig?), and now we have a situation where that Frig escorting the freighter has to be suicided (or, for poops and giggles, the instalock Damnation). Who wants to try to Suicide a 720k EHP Damnation before he can shout "Free JF Kill" in Local?
[Damnation, HS Transport copy copy] (You lose about 100k EHP by dropping to T2, but that's still plenty)
Damage Control II Corelum C-Type Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Corelum C-Type Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
Domination Warp Disruptor (720k EHP, why not pimp?) Shadow Serpentis Sensor Booster, Scan Resolution Script (Ditto) Shadow Serpentis Sensor Booster, Scan Resolution Script Shadow Serpentis Sensor Booster, Scan Resolution Script
Armored Warfare Link - Damage Control II Armored Warfare Link - Passive Defense II [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot]
Medium Trimark Armor Pump II Medium Trimark Armor Pump II -RubyPorto
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
882
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 18:25:00 -
[387] - Quote
Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:
We allow one-time mappings but we don't make them transitive, ie if you're a suspect and someone shoots you then you can always fire back, but if that person has a third party repping them, you can't shoot the logi because we don't allow aggression transfer like that (for obvious reasons).
Excuse me? My god CCP, just remove all hi sec pvp and be done with it. That's clearly what you want to do.
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.
RTFT
|
Suddenly Forums ForumKings
Republic University Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 18:29:00 -
[388] - Quote
Gogela wrote:Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:
We allow one-time mappings but we don't make them transitive, ie if you're a suspect and someone shoots you then you can always fire back, but if that person has a third party repping them, you can't shoot the logi because we don't allow aggression transfer like that (for obvious reasons).
Excuse me? My god CCP, just remove all hi sec pvp and be done with it. That's clearly what you want to do. 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. RTFT
That dev post means nothing.
It's all vague ideas and was posted to calm you guys down. |
Price Check Aisle3
156
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 18:30:00 -
[389] - 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 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8586
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 18:30:00 -
[390] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:[Fair enough, but unless the Cyno's already lit, and the JF is really on the ball about jumping out, it's getting tackled by the insta-lock support (insta-lock for a JF is what, 0 SEBOs on a Frig?), and now we have a situation where that Frig escorting the freighter has to be suicided (or, for poops and giggles, the instalock Damnation). Who wants to try to Suicide a 720k EHP Damnation before he can shout "Free JF Kill" in Local?
(Oh, and as if the JF kill weren't enough, you get all the Logi trying to save it) Yes, it's a bit OTT for what should be a simple gank. I suppose that, if it's rich enough, you could just try a sacrifice-freighter kind of tactic.
Freighter 1 scoops everything, gets flaggad and (possibly) blown up. Freighter 2 swoops in, has legal rights to take the loot (being in the same corp or using high enough standing, should they retain that mechanic) and flies off without any flags. It brings the investment down from 21bn to just 1GÇô2, if that's any consolation.
But then we're looking at someone hauling 8bn+ just to break even (2bn in ship losses, requires 4bn to drop from the thief freighter, requires 8bn to drop from the gank target, and I probably underestimated that loss cost). 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
882
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 18:31:00 -
[391] - Quote
Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:Gogela wrote:Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:
We allow one-time mappings but we don't make them transitive, ie if you're a suspect and someone shoots you then you can always fire back, but if that person has a third party repping them, you can't shoot the logi because we don't allow aggression transfer like that (for obvious reasons).
Excuse me? My god CCP, just remove all hi sec pvp and be done with it. That's clearly what you want to do. 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. RTFT That dev post means nothing. It's all vague ideas and was posted to calm you guys down. From what I've gathered all of Crimewatch is pretty much vague ideas... hence the title of this thread.
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
882
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 18:35:00 -
[392] - Quote
Price Check Aisle3 wrote: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.
Try hanging out at the Nour gate in Tama sometime. I usually sit of the gate cloaked in a destroyer w/ a bunch of salvagers and stabs fit at about 200km... then when fights start I swoop in and out in half a heartbeat. Good times
|
Pere Madeleine
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
33
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 19:12:00 -
[393] - Quote
Final nail in the coffin for me, I'm afraid. With the recent wardec changes, and these highsec aggro changes, combined with zero real effort to make lowsec PVP good, it seems CCP are going down the road of making Eve as close as they can to every other MMO out there, with PVP zones and non PVP zones.
I don't WANT to be a pawn in big nullsec empire building exercises so some MMO pseudocelebrity everyone's heard of can have a bigger e-peen, I don't WANT to have to have 3 accounts just so I can financially support lowsec PVP, and I don't WANT to have to inform some bears in highsec that I intend to shoot at them so they can hide all their valuables and inform their bigger friends to come and blob me.
These seemt o be the only PVP options CCP want to leave open, so Eve is no longer for me. My 3 accounts are now unsubbed. I suggest everyone else who is disappointed in the directiont hey're taking this stuff do likewise. I used to love this game....
(PS, Dust is going to flop too, good luck getting the COD kiddies to plan 3 month skill queues) |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
943
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 19:33:00 -
[394] - Quote
Pere Madeleine wrote:Final nail in the coffin for me, I'm afraid. With the recent wardec changes, and these highsec aggro changes, combined with zero real effort to make lowsec PVP good, it seems CCP are going down the road of making Eve as close as they can to every other MMO out there, with PVP zones and non PVP zones.
I don't WANT to be a pawn in big nullsec empire building exercises so some MMO pseudocelebrity everyone's heard of can have a bigger e-peen, I don't WANT to have to have 3 accounts just so I can financially support lowsec PVP, and I don't WANT to have to inform some bears in highsec that I intend to shoot at them so they can hide all their valuables and inform their bigger friends to come and blob me.
These seemt o be the only PVP options CCP want to leave open, so Eve is no longer for me. My 3 accounts are now unsubbed. I suggest everyone else who is disappointed in the directiont hey're taking this stuff do likewise. I used to love this game....
(PS, Dust is going to flop too, good luck getting the COD kiddies to plan 3 month skill queues)
So really the pvp gameplay you enjoyed was the equivalent of hunting penned up cattle, not anything really challenging or dangerous, just picking off the slowest and weakest while the rest of the herd had to stand by and watch? And it took you 3 accounts to do it anyway?
At least in the CW2.0 future the rest of the herd can stampede your ass if they get up the urge.
(P.S. your stereotypes are overriding your imagination - there's more than one way to get pvp in null or lowsec) Here's your sign... |
Price Check Aisle3
156
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 20:03:00 -
[395] - 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 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8586
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 20:14:00 -
[396] - Quote
Pere Madeleine wrote:Final nail in the coffin for me, I'm afraid. With the recent wardec changes, and these highsec aggro changes, combined with zero real effort to make lowsec PVP good, it seems CCP are going down the road of making Eve as close as they can to every other MMO out there, with PVP zones and non PVP zones. Good thing, then, that PvP will still be readily available all over EVE. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tyranis Marcus
Bloody Heathens
4
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 20:29:00 -
[397] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: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.
Meh. Why not let vigilantes have safe remote reps? It's worth it for the griefer tears, alone. There's a difference between having a dangerous game world, and just plain coddling bullies and griefers. Also, anyone who left Eve over that would undoubtedly be improving the community by doing so.
Don't get me wrong, I've done a little can flipping and ganking here and there, but if you're going to break the law you shouldn't expect the result to be a fair fight. You should be expect to be out-manned, out-gunned and on the run, just like a real life criminal. Well, for 24 hours or so, at least.
The people crying here just want to shoot fish in a barrel. Well, they should be the fish... |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
196
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 20:37:00 -
[398] - Quote
Tyranis Marcus wrote: Meh. Why not let vigilantes have safe remote reps? It's worth it for the griefer tears, alone..
You seem to believe the notion that only suspects will be griefers. If you're looking to grief, being a vigilante and abusing invincible logi seems like the way to go.
They have since stated that they will resolve this problem by flagging anyone assisting a vigilante as a criminal. You helped a crimefighter fight crime? You're a criminal, enjoy getting shot by the rest of EVE. |
Disregard That
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
183
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 20:39:00 -
[399] - Quote
Tyranis Marcus wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: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. Meh. Why not let vigilantes have safe remote reps? It's worth it for the griefer tears, alone. There's a difference between having a dangerous game world, and just plain coddling bullies and griefers. Also, anyone who left Eve over that would undoubtedly be improving the community by doing so. Don't get me wrong, I've done a little can flipping and ganking here and there, but if you're going to break the law you shouldn't expect the result to be a fair fight. You should be expect to be out-manned, out-gunned and on the run, just like a real life criminal. Well, for 24 hours or so, at least. The people crying here just want to shoot fish in a barrel. Well, they should be the fish... Your arms are crossed smugly and only four people like you. Looks like you are the fish.
Also it kind of looks to me like you're qq'ing about a mean community and then posting how you, too, were a can-flipper and a ganker.
I think there are hotlines for identity crisis.
"You are not a fish, you are a man. You walk around on two legs.
Homo Erectus.
Did I say Homo?" -Kenny, Half Baked |
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
886
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 21:03:00 -
[400] - Quote
Tyranis Marcus wrote: Meh. Why not let vigilantes have safe remote reps? It's worth it for the griefer tears, alone. There's a difference between having a dangerous game world, and just plain coddling bullies and griefers. Also, anyone who left Eve over that would undoubtedly be improving the community by doing so.
Don't get me wrong, I've done a little can flipping and ganking here and there, but if you're going to break the law you shouldn't expect the result to be a fair fight. You should be expect to be out-manned, out-gunned and on the run, just like a real life criminal. Well, for 24 hours or so, at least.
The people crying here just want to shoot fish in a barrel. Well, they should be the fish...
Even with the flagging of neutral vigilante reppers as criminals, the balance is definitely against the criminals. Criminals will be outmanned and outgunned regardless since everyone can kill can flippers now. The only way it'll be fish in a barrel is if you are invincible as you lay down fire. Ganking is not fish in a barrel. I've floated nicely tanked ships loaded w/ goodies through empire only to have packs of BS blow up around me due to insufficient alpha. I don't think ganking is easy at all. I think the new crimewatch will make it a lot harder now.
|
|
Tyranis Marcus
Bloody Heathens
4
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 21:13:00 -
[401] - Quote
Disregard That wrote:Tyranis Marcus wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: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. Meh. Why not let vigilantes have safe remote reps? It's worth it for the griefer tears, alone. There's a difference between having a dangerous game world, and just plain coddling bullies and griefers. Also, anyone who left Eve over that would undoubtedly be improving the community by doing so. Don't get me wrong, I've done a little can flipping and ganking here and there, but if you're going to break the law you shouldn't expect the result to be a fair fight. You should be expect to be out-manned, out-gunned and on the run, just like a real life criminal. Well, for 24 hours or so, at least. The people crying here just want to shoot fish in a barrel. Well, they should be the fish... Your arms are crossed smugly and only four people like you. Looks like you are the fish. Also it kind of looks to me like you're qq'ing about a mean community and then posting how you, too, were a can-flipper and a ganker. I think there are hotlines for identity crisis. "You are not a fish, you are a man. You walk around on two legs. Homo Erectus. Did I say Homo?" -Kenny, Half Baked
Can't stand the thought of criminal activity actually being dangerous for the criminal can you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8586
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 21:19:00 -
[402] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:You seem to believe the notion that only suspects will be griefers. If you're looking to grief, being a vigilante and abusing invincible logi seems like the way to go. GǪtoo bad that there won't be any invincible logis.
Quote:They have since stated that they will resolve this problem by flagging anyone assisting a vigilante as a criminal. You helped a crimefighter fight crime? You're a criminal, enjoy getting shot by the rest of EVE. Good news: you'll be able to help a crimefighter fight crime without being flagged a suspect. People have already begun figuring out how to take advantage of this new system, just as predicted.
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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Solstice Project
I'm So Meta Even This Acronym
1623
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 21:37:00 -
[403] - Quote
Quote: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.
I feel insulted. Inappropriate signature removed. Spitfire |
Solstice Project
I'm So Meta Even This Acronym
1623
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 21:39:00 -
[404] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Good news: you'll be able to help a crimefighter fight crime without being flagged a suspect. People have already begun figuring out how to take advantage of this new system, just as predicted.
I don't see any change regarding how it is today ... Inappropriate signature removed. Spitfire |
Tyranis Marcus
Bloody Heathens
4
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 21:49:00 -
[405] - Quote
Price Check Aisle3 wrote: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".
Neither was the guy you got that cargohold full of **** from. That's kind of the point. |
Price Check Aisle3
157
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 21:55:00 -
[406] - 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 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8592
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 22:07:00 -
[407] - Quote
Price Check Aisle3 wrote:If I steal like a few little bits of mission goo I should potentially lose my ship? You already run that 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Price Check Aisle3
157
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 22:17:00 -
[408] - Quote
Tippia wrote:You already run that risk. From the person I stole the stuff from. - Karl Hobb IATS |
Disregard That
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
183
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 22:29:00 -
[409] - Quote
Price Check Aisle3 wrote:Tippia wrote:You already run that risk. From the person I stole the stuff from. I like how Greyscale's solution is to give the Crimewatch RR the same status as the criminal.
Not very many people are going to want to rep Crimewatchers now, either!
Yay criminals are really going to pay! Especially Crimewatch logi!
[Edit] It really doesn't pay to be the neighborhood watch! [/Edit] |
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
888
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 22:45:00 -
[410] - Quote
I really would not get too bent out of shape about anything being discussed right now. I mean, in one day CCP Greyscale went from 'remote neutral reppers can do so without consequence' to 'neut-Logis get flagged as criminals for repping anything with a flag'... I mean... that's kind of a big deal and nobody really thought about it apparently. MAYBE Crimewatch isn't vaporware. ...but it's not even in pre-alpha yet. I don't think they are very far along on this thing. I'm starting to think this isn't coming w/ the winter expansion. Maybe in a year or so. Que sera sera. I'd just take it down a notch before I started biomassing toons and shooting at monuments over a bar napkin with scribbles on it.
|
|
Price Check Aisle3
158
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 22:46:00 -
[411] - 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 |
Arienne Deveraux
Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
11
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 22:48:00 -
[412] - Quote
The entire classification of pilots into "criminal" and "vigilante" categories is wildly misguided and ill-fit in the EVE universe.
The mechanics of punishing transgressions (I am specifially not using the word "crime", as it carries certain implications) against an individual pilot, such as can-flipping or loot stealing, already exist. Thieves become valid targets for the victim's entire corporation. There is absolutely no need - or benefit - to allow a third party to become involved in what is essentially an ownership dispute between two parties.
Note that stealing from a player has absolutely no reason to flag the thief for aggression by anyone else other than the parties involved, that is the theft victim and their corporation (or perhaps extend retailation rights to the whole alliance).
Your corp won't help you fight thieves? Find one that will.
This whole concept of stealing being "bad" globally, as opposed to being "bad" only from the victim's perspective is a scary precedent to make for further development of high-sec gameplay.
Aggression propagation should continue being transferred as already in place with current aggression mechanics; assisting (through remote repair or remote boosts) should carry the same penalties as actually committing aggressive acts against another player, including inability to dock or jump 60 seconds after de-aggressing or ceasing assistance. In other words, assisting a shooter should carry identical consequences as actually shooting. I don't understand how anyone can believe that untouchable Logistic ships are a good idea.
Stealing is not, and never should be, a globally condemned action. EVE has always been about moral ambiguity. Changing this without a very compelling reason breaks one of the most applealing aspects of the game. |
Tyranis Marcus
Bloody Heathens
4
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 22:56:00 -
[413] - Quote
Guttripper wrote: because brand wet behind the ears and clueless about the world newbie got all excited at some ad that he can control the whole universe and getting smacked in the snot box might send him to go crying to his momma
Hahaha. Dude. That just made my day. |
Forum Foreplay
Gallente Federation
38
|
Posted - 2012.07.17 23:10:00 -
[414] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:First part of the rework shipped in Escalation, so no, not vaporware. That stage was all behind-the-scenes (as detailed in the presentation at Fanfest, which is on Youtube somewhere); the next step is to start implementing the redesign. Also, the current design explicitly allows you to return fire in all cases
Stand Your Ground is in effect Even a sandbox has borders to keep the sand inside...
|
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
436
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 00:37:00 -
[415] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:[Fair enough, but unless the Cyno's already lit, and the JF is really on the ball about jumping out, it's getting tackled by the insta-lock support (insta-lock for a JF is what, 0 SEBOs on a Frig?), and now we have a situation where that Frig escorting the freighter has to be suicided (or, for poops and giggles, the instalock Damnation). Who wants to try to Suicide a 720k EHP Damnation before he can shout "Free JF Kill" in Local?
(Oh, and as if the JF kill weren't enough, you get all the Logi trying to save it) Yes, it's a bit OTT for what should be a simple gank. I suppose that, if it's rich enough, you could just try a sacrifice-freighter kind of tactic. Freighter 1 scoops everything, gets flaggad and (possibly) blown up. Freighter 2 swoops in, has legal rights to take the loot (being in the same corp or using high enough standing, should they retain that mechanic) and flies off without any flags. It brings the investment down from 21bn to just 1GÇô2, if that's any consolation. But then we're looking at someone hauling 8bn+ just to break even (2bn in ship losses, requires 4bn to drop from the thief freighter, requires 8bn to drop from the gank target, and I probably underestimated that loss cost).
Like I said, Stealth Nerf to Suicide Ganks (a big 'un, too). And if it only took me a day or two to notice this, what other not immediately obvious problems will crop up when this hits TQ?
My biggest problem with the Suspect flag is that it lacks finesse. I don't see why, for the first time, petty theft should brand you an outlaw. Afterall, you're stealing from someone's trash. And if it's such a big crime that it's worth stripping you of police protection from everyone, why doesn't it come with Sec status loss? Beyond that, I don't find the current system particularly confusing, and what confusion exists could be fixed with a couple popups.
I think that a Suspect flag for certain crimes is a good idea (though I'm not sure what crimes would be lumped where, maybe for Neut RR for wars?), just not for every crime. -RubyPorto
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
198
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 01:43:00 -
[416] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:[ I think that a Suspect flag for certain crimes is a good idea (though I'm not sure what crimes would be lumped where, maybe for Neut RR for wars?), just not for every crime.
Suspect flag is an effective solution for handling low-sec. Let people shoot neutrals in low-sec and only get suspect flags rather than tank their sec status. Only hit them with GCC for podding or something.
Might get more people to fight in low-sec |
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
436
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 02:27:00 -
[417] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:[ I think that a Suspect flag for certain crimes is a good idea (though I'm not sure what crimes would be lumped where, maybe for Neut RR for wars?), just not for every crime. Suspect flag is an effective solution for handling low-sec. Let people shoot neutrals in low-sec and only get suspect flags rather than tank their sec status. Only hit them with GCC for podding or something. Might get more people to fight in low-sec
A [-10.0] Member proposing to make it harder to go -10?
I think a Global Suspect flagging might be a good fit for Lowsec, and maybe Neut RR in Wardecs (maybe, I don't know), and maybe some other things.
It just really doesn't sit right with me for theft. I just think property crime should be handled by the involved parties. -RubyPorto
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Tysinger
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
14
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 04:07:00 -
[418] - Quote
Hey CCP Greyscale...
Might want to watch this and take the advice of your elders..
HTFU
This isnt a candycane, lollypop world where we all love each other. The only lollypops in this game are in the back of my Van *****. |
Tysinger
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
14
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 07:15:00 -
[419] - Quote
wow Tippia, you are a ******* moron lololol
My guess...Tippia is CCP Greyscales alt. Fuckin nub |
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
439
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 07:19:00 -
[420] - Quote
Tysinger wrote:Tippia wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:pretending that "if someone did something to you then you specifically are allowed to retaliate at your own risk" is the same as "If someone did something to you anyone in the game can retaliate against them with the odds artificially stacked in their favour" is dishonest. GǪexcept that you keep missing the point, and that the quotation marks bear meaning. Doing something GÇ£badGÇ¥ will get you GÇ£punishedGÇ¥. This holds true for both the old and the new system. You are trying to blow this very simple statement way out of proportion by saying that, suddenly, CCP are telling us that PvP is bad. They're not GÇö they're applying the exact same model of GÇ£Criminal Act GåÆ Criminal FlagGÇ¥ as the game has had for +ªons. They're just using GÇ£badGÇ¥ and GÇ£punishmentGÇ¥ to describe the two parts. The GÇ£bad thingsGÇ¥ and the GÇ£punishmentsGÇ¥ may change a bit, but so will the mechanics behind them and they will open up new fun ways of blowing people up (my list of scenarios above should provide you with a very obvious one). In fact, if you want to cry about something, you've missed the really annoying change with the new system GÇö the one that will actually make a difference for thieves and canflippers: the safety system. wow Tippia, you are a ******* moron lololol
I may disagree with most of what she's said in this thread, but did you have a point to make, or a counterargument to present? Or did you just wake up in the morning and decide "I'm going to use random abuse instead of arguments today!" -RubyPorto
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
|
Tysinger
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
14
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 07:30:00 -
[421] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Tysinger wrote:Tippia wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:pretending that "if someone did something to you then you specifically are allowed to retaliate at your own risk" is the same as "If someone did something to you anyone in the game can retaliate against them with the odds artificially stacked in their favour" is dishonest. GǪexcept that you keep missing the point, and that the quotation marks bear meaning. Doing something GÇ£badGÇ¥ will get you GÇ£punishedGÇ¥. This holds true for both the old and the new system. You are trying to blow this very simple statement way out of proportion by saying that, suddenly, CCP are telling us that PvP is bad. They're not GÇö they're applying the exact same model of GÇ£Criminal Act GåÆ Criminal FlagGÇ¥ as the game has had for +ªons. They're just using GÇ£badGÇ¥ and GÇ£punishmentGÇ¥ to describe the two parts. The GÇ£bad thingsGÇ¥ and the GÇ£punishmentsGÇ¥ may change a bit, but so will the mechanics behind them and they will open up new fun ways of blowing people up (my list of scenarios above should provide you with a very obvious one). In fact, if you want to cry about something, you've missed the really annoying change with the new system GÇö the one that will actually make a difference for thieves and canflippers: the safety system. wow Tippia, you are a ******* moron lololol I may disagree with most of what she's said in this thread, but did you have a point to make, or a counterargument to present? Or did you just wake up in the morning and decide "I'm going to use random abuse instead of arguments today!"
Mostly random abuse, though I am sure I will be banned again for saying something bad about someone on the interwebs. Oh well, I am sure when CCP sells EVE to Sony everything will be right once more in the world. :p |
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
439
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 07:50:00 -
[422] - Quote
Tysinger wrote:Mostly random abuse, though I am sure I will be banned again for saying something bad about someone on the interwebs. Oh well, I am sure when CCP sells EVE to Sony everything will be right once more in the world. :p
You realize that John Smedley, the President of Sony Online Entertainment, plays EVE and is in the CFC, right? -RubyPorto
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Tysinger
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
14
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 07:54:00 -
[423] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Tysinger wrote:Mostly random abuse, though I am sure I will be banned again for saying something bad about someone on the interwebs. Oh well, I am sure when CCP sells EVE to Sony everything will be right once more in the world. :p You realize that John Smedley, the President of Sony Online Entertainment, plays EVE and is in the CFC, right? Yup, And I realize CCP has been trying to clean the game up for a few months now as well, while working on there Smash Hit (hahahahaha) DUST with Sony watching them. Seems to me all the cleanup and banning ppl that speak out over the bullshit of this dying game has a purpose...oh like maybe a big sale deal with Sony ??
Jus sayin |
Crunchie Attuxors
Always Another Corporate Venture
154
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 07:57:00 -
[424] - Quote
I want to know how this thread became a lets bash CCP thread... Eve forums official anthem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pudOFG5X6uA-áReal men tank hull. Fake women shield-tank Gallente. |
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
439
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 08:03:00 -
[425] - Quote
Crunchie Attuxors wrote:I want to know how this thread became a lets bash CCP thread...
Tysinger likes doing that. -RubyPorto
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Tysinger
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
14
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 08:34:00 -
[426] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Crunchie Attuxors wrote:I want to know how this thread became a lets bash CCP thread... Tysinger likes doing that.
Must be another CCP alt. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
946
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 09:40:00 -
[427] - Quote
Arienne Deveraux wrote:
This whole concept of stealing being "bad" globally, as opposed to being "bad" only from the victim's perspective is a scary precedent to make for further development of high-sec gameplay.
A member of a professional criminal organization like Suddenly Ninjas is against being labeled a criminal for their criminal actions? Who would've thunk it!
I don't think there is anything scary about broadening the scope of retaliation for crimes for anyone but the criminals. HTFU?
Here's your sign... |
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
207
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 09:41:00 -
[428] - Quote
Tippia wrote:So a 100% chance of being blown up automatically
Risk denotes the chance of them not being destroyed. If there is a 100% chance of them being destroyed, there is NO RISK it is a certanty and the ship becomes a business expense. Like ammo for missioners. Especially as youre not getting your insurance paid out on it. http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
207
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 09:47:00 -
[429] - Quote
Price Check Aisle3 wrote: 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.
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... http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Price Check Aisle3
158
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 13:43:00 -
[430] - 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 |
|
Rordan D'Kherr
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
33
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 14:00:00 -
[431] - Quote
Crunchie Attuxors wrote:I want to know how this thread became a lets bash CCP thread...
this and I want to know how this micro issue can get an endless thread of 22+ pages.
|
JC Anderson
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
675
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 14:13:00 -
[432] - Quote
Well, sd's are now generating KM"s... And even though it doesn't seem like that would be related, it WAS a feature mentioned during the crimewatch discussion at fan fest. ;)
So if that is the case, then at least we are finally seeing some of it implemented. ;)
(Copied from one of the various crime watch recap threads that popped up during FF)
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 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 |
Tarsas Phage
Pain Delivery.
91
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 16:20:00 -
[433] - Quote
JC Anderson wrote:Well, sd's are now generating KM"s... And even though it doesn't seem like that would be related, it WAS a feature mentioned during the crimewatch discussion at fan fest. ;)
Just a minor FYI... I had a carrier SD on me yesterday that did not generate a killmail, so the KM-on-SD thing seems spotty, either applying to just certain classes of ships (supers, it may seem) or has been removed/disabled on the servers since we first saw it happening last week.
/T |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
163
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 16:39:00 -
[434] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:Tippia wrote:So a 100% chance of being blown up automatically
Risk denotes the chance of them not being destroyed. If there is a 100% chance of them being destroyed, there is NO RISK it is a certanty and the ship becomes a business expense. Like ammo for missioners. Especially as youre not getting your insurance paid out on it. any amount of risk is reducible to an isk cost and can be "written off as a business expense" my poorly educated friend
let us say i risk being blown up 50% of the time while slaughtering you and your sheep-like brethren
i decide i'll do it 100 times and assume it will cost me 50 ships, +- a minor amount to account for the vagaries of chance |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
163
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 16:41:00 -
[435] - Quote
why us lords of eve mock the cattle of eve as risk averse ninnies is that they cannot face the prospect of loss
to a highsec miner, the idea that something would be taken away from them is soul-wrenching and among the worst experiences of their life
the idea they could lose their ship is terrifying; being told they will lose their ship would not cause them to say "oh well then there's no risk" it would cause them to soil themselves in terror and sit in the corner gibbering about the bad man |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1070
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 16:45:00 -
[436] - Quote
Tysinger wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Crunchie Attuxors wrote:I want to know how this thread became a lets bash CCP thread... Tysinger likes doing that. Must be another CCP alt. The hilarity of this line is stunning. |
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
889
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 16:46:00 -
[437] - Quote
Rordan D'Kherr wrote:Crunchie Attuxors wrote:I want to know how this thread became a lets bash CCP thread... this and I want to know how this micro issue can get an endless thread of 22+ pages. I don't know why this became a let's bash CCP thread. Off topic posts? Where you at ISD? You take down cat pics but not rants? It's cool, essay.
That said, if you think Crimewatch is a micro issue you are not smart and should go back to mining in your battleship.
|
Arienne Deveraux
Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
11
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 18:55:00 -
[438] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:
A member of a professional criminal organization like Suddenly Ninjas is against being labeled a criminal for their criminal actions? Who would've thunk it!
I don't think there is anything scary about broadening the scope of retaliation for crimes for anyone but the criminals. HTFU?
My in-game occupation notwithstanding, how do you justify involving a third party into a simple theft dispute between thief and victim? What justifies the right for another pilot to open fire if they have not been wronged in any way?
Your argument deals in absolutes. My point is there should be no absolute right or absolute wrong in context of the game universe. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
947
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 19:21:00 -
[439] - Quote
Arienne Deveraux wrote: My in-game occupation notwithstanding, how do you justify involving a third party into a simple theft dispute between thief and victim? What justifies the right for another pilot to open fire if they have not been wronged in any way?
Your argument deals in absolutes. My point is there should be no absolute right or absolute wrong in context of the game universe.
If there are no absolute right and wrong actions, then there should be no hisec at all, nor any Concord. Instead, CCP chose to implement laws in hisec to protect law abiding citizens, and defined certain absolute wrong actions and their punishments.
Being that this is a computer simulation, and it simulates a future society where many actions can instantly be determined to be right or wrong, and the culprit identified, there can exist absolute wrong actions with no ambiguity. Ownership of a jetcan or wreck is established with certainty, as is the identity of anyone taking from these containers.
Taking items from a can or wreck that isn't specifically abandoned is a crime with a punishment up to and including the destruction of your ship. It has been absolutely defined as such for a long time.
The difference is that the little old lady that just had her purse snatched can now call for aid from anyone else nearby. This seems entirely more realistic to me than the one we have now where the criminal can stand amongst a crowd of citizens and taunt the little old lady with impunity. Here's your sign... |
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
890
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 19:36:00 -
[440] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:Arienne Deveraux wrote: My in-game occupation notwithstanding, how do you justify involving a third party into a simple theft dispute between thief and victim? What justifies the right for another pilot to open fire if they have not been wronged in any way?
Your argument deals in absolutes. My point is there should be no absolute right or absolute wrong in context of the game universe.
If there are no absolute right and wrong actions, then there should be no hisec at all, nor any Concord. Instead, CCP chose to implement laws in hisec to protect law abiding citizens, and defined certain absolute wrong actions and their punishments. Being that this is a computer simulation, and it simulates a future society where many actions can instantly be determined to be right or wrong, and the culprit identified, there can exist absolute wrong actions with no ambiguity. Ownership of a jetcan or wreck is established with certainty, as is the identity of anyone taking from these containers. Taking items from a can or wreck that isn't specifically abandoned is a crime with a punishment up to and including the destruction of your ship. It has been absolutely defined as such for a long time. The difference is that the little old lady that just had her purse snatched can now call for aid from anyone else nearby. This seems entirely more realistic to me than the one we have now where the criminal can stand amongst a crowd of citizens and taunt the little old lady with impunity. Silly argument. 1) This future society is not "a" society but many, with varying laws (high/low/null & local faction or alliance) and norms. Just ask a minmatar slave on amarr. 2) If you were in the middle of the pacific and a ship w/ an Indian flag claiming to be a Japanese ship fired on you, and in the ensuing battle you sunk it, would you have salvage rights when Iceland claimed it was stolen from them? Not so easy now. Who you are, who has your back, the law of the sea, the world court, every pacific nation, and who hates you would all be factors. Not telling what would happen or what would be "legal"...
|
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
424
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 19:43:00 -
[441] - Quote
War Kitten wrote: If there are no absolute right and wrong actions, then there should be no hisec at all, nor any Concord. Instead, CCP chose to implement laws in hisec to protect law abiding citizens, and defined certain absolute wrong actions and their punishments.
Being that this is a computer simulation, and it simulates a future society where many actions can instantly be determined to be right or wrong, and the culprit identified, there can exist absolute wrong actions with no ambiguity. Ownership of a jetcan or wreck is established with certainty, as is the identity of anyone taking from these containers.
Taking items from a can or wreck that isn't specifically abandoned is a crime with a punishment up to and including the destruction of your ship. It has been absolutely defined as such for a long time.
The difference is that the little old lady that just had her purse snatched can now call for aid from anyone else nearby. This seems entirely more realistic to me than the one we have now where the criminal can stand amongst a crowd of citizens and taunt the little old lady with impunity.
As a simulation none of Crimewatch/CONCORD makes the slightest bit of sense. Even in most heavily policed areas of our current real world being caught by the police for an illegal act is not 100%. Yet here in this future fantasy world set in the vastness of space where we play as powerful immortal space faring beings that are supposedly greatly superior to the general population (NPCs), a criminal act will be identified and attributed to us 100% of the time, and in the case of some crimes result 100% of the time in our destruction at the hands of CONCORD NPCs. The same CONCORD NPCs that fail 100% of time to catch thousands of NPC Pirates that seem to flood Highsec daily to linger around asteroids, mission sites, and make pointless Incursions. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
947
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 20:03:00 -
[442] - Quote
Gogela wrote: Silly argument. 1) This future society is not "a" society but many, with varying laws (high/low/null & local faction or alliance) and norms. Just ask a minmatar slave on amarr. 2) If you were in the middle of the pacific and a ship w/ an Indian flag claiming to be a Japanese ship fired on you, and in the ensuing battle you sunk it, would you have salvage rights when Iceland claimed it was stolen from them? Not so easy now. Who you are, who has your back, the law of the sea, the world court, every pacific nation, and who hates you would all be factors. Not telling what would happen or what would be "legal"...
1) We're only talking about hisec, and Concord's universal "Empire" laws that apply across all factions and alliances.
2) If I were in the middle of Amarr space and a ship with anyone's flag fired on me, Concord would sink it before I could, and I believe anyone would have loot and salvage rights on it since the wreck would be blue. Here's your sign... |
Arienne Deveraux
Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
11
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 20:09:00 -
[443] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:
If there are no absolute right and wrong actions, then there should be no hisec at all, nor any Concord. Instead, CCP chose to implement laws in hisec to protect law abiding citizens, and defined certain absolute wrong actions and their punishments.
CONCORD mandate is to ensure regional military and economic stability in controlled space, regulating and punishing those involved in non-sanctioned capsuleer combat. This is explicitly not done on ideological or moral grounds. They are not there to ensure your personal safety and prosperity or to police property right violations.
War Kitten wrote: Being that this is a computer simulation, and it simulates a future society where many actions can instantly be determined to be right or wrong, and the culprit identified, there can exist absolute wrong actions with no ambiguity. Ownership of a jetcan or wreck is established with certainty, as is the identity of anyone taking from these containers.
Taking items from a can or wreck that isn't specifically abandoned is a crime with a punishment up to and including the destruction of your ship. It has been absolutely defined as such for a long time.
Taking items merely allows the owner of said item and their associates to retaliate against the thief. Where are we getting this idea of a globally punishable "crime" taking place?
War Kitten wrote: The difference is that the little old lady that just had her purse snatched can now call for aid from anyone else nearby. This seems entirely more realistic to me than the one we have now where the criminal can stand amongst a crowd of citizens and taunt the little old lady with impunity.
I am not going to get bogged down in arguing erroneous real-life analogies. You are an immortal capsuleer capable of piloting combat vessels with staggering amount of destructive potential. You can defend yourself against petty theft. |
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
890
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 20:10:00 -
[444] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:Gogela wrote: Silly argument.
1) This future society is not "a" society but many, with varying laws (high/low/null & local faction or alliance) and norms. Just ask a minmatar slave on amarr.
2) If you were in the middle of the pacific and a ship w/ an Indian flag claiming to be a Japanese ship fired on you, and in the ensuing battle you sunk it, would you have salvage rights when Iceland claimed it was stolen from them? Not so easy now. Who you are, who has your back, the law of the sea, the world court, every pacific nation, and who hates you would all be factors. Not telling what would happen or what would be "legal"...
1) We're only talking about hisec, and Concord's universal "Empire" laws that apply across all factions and alliances. 2) If I were in the middle of Amarr space and a ship with anyone's flag fired on me, Concord would sink it before I could, and I believe anyone would have loot and salvage rights on it since the wreck would be blue.
1) Amarr is in empire. What did the minmatar slave say when you asked him/her?
2) Nobody is talking about ganking. What about people who have dec'ed you? You don't get salvage rights when you kill them, regardless of who agressed, do you? What if you take from someone's can, they agress you, and you kill them? Do you have salvage rights to their wreck then? Nope. If the can defender wins the brawl... he won't have salvage rights to the flipper's wreck either. What if the Amarr navy (not concord) killed a ship? What if someone kills an Amarr navy ship, who gets to salvage that wreck?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8594
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 23:34:00 -
[445] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:Risk denotes the chance of them not being destroyed. If there is a 100% chance of them being destroyed, there is NO RISK it is a certanty and the ship becomes a business expense. Like ammo for missioners. Especially as youre not getting your insurance paid out on it. No. Risk denotes probability of something happening multiplied with the cost, should it happen. If there's a 100% chance of being destroyed, then the risk is 1+ù the cost of the ship being lost.
That is pretty much the ISO standard definition of risk.
Conversely, just because something is a (lower-probability) risk doesn't mean it's not a cost of doing business. In fact, that's the entire business of insurance companies and financial institutions: you take a (usually less than 100%) risk on something and having to pay out every now and then is just how the business works. In fact, ammo for mission runners is quite similar in that regard: you pay for it, but there is no guarantee that it will actually kill anything GÇö the risk is [cost of ammo] +ù [chance of miss]. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
445
|
Posted - 2012.07.18 23:41:00 -
[446] - Quote
Tysinger wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Crunchie Attuxors wrote:I want to know how this thread became a lets bash CCP thread... Tysinger likes doing that. Must be another CCP alt.
If you so dislike CCP that you can't think of any reason for someone to dislike baseless attacks on the company besides being a CCP employee, why do you still pay them their $15 a month? -RubyPorto
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
336
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 00:33:00 -
[447] - Quote
CCP plan to fix wardecs:
Aggressor gets: Massively increased wardec costs, reduced flexibility in ending a war, plus some fluff. Defender gets: 'Unlimited' allies, retains the ability to instantly corp-switch at no cost. And the fluff.
---Net result: Large defender buff.
Plan to 'fix' petty crime: Aggressor gets: nothing. Defender gets 'unlimited' DPS and possibly 'invincible RR'. (Greyscale stated criminal flag for RR would be 'considered'. Sure.)
---Net result: Large defender buff.
And then people scratch their heads and wonder why there are so many suicide gankers these days.
Crimewatch will only further add to our ganking numbers. Traditional organized 'carebear baiting' professions die off, either due to 'safeties' - or getting dogpiled/jammed out. If the penalty for petty crime is eventual blob death anyway, criminals might as well just go for broke and go on a shooting spree.
Props to Ohh Yeah, for submitting a well thought out concept that would lead to some interesting fights. Pretty sad that it is simply dismissed out of hand....but that was quite predictable.
From the outset, it was pretty clear that Greyscale had two goals. 1) Simplify the system. 2) Punish 'suspect' - style play. ...and not necessarily in that order. One-to one flag 'complexity' is A-OK if it is there to limit the options of the suspect.
If CCP truly made simplicity a priority, they would make the 'suspect status' sticky. IE; you interact with a suspect, you become a suspect. You want to be a vigilante, you bring friends and accept the risk.
But in Grayscales' eyes, creating a dual flag system doesn't sufficiently punish 'suspects' enough - as it provides them with alternative PVP opportunities, especially if they are working as a team. To be a suspect means you must consent to the gangbang, as every neutral in the system flocks to get onto the KM.
TLDR; Crimewatch = more suicide ganking, as 'suspect' players take the path of least resistance. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8594
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 01:02:00 -
[448] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:And then people scratch their heads and wonder why there are so many suicide gankers these days. Are there? 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
891
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 01:10:00 -
[449] - Quote
Lotta flames, nottalotta ideas in this thread.
Maybe we should talk about avatar tattoos.
So how can we make a high sec brawl escalate a little better, not allow for neutral support to get off the hook, keep the escalation of hostilities in favor of the defender, but not pu55ify it so much that anyone w/ a suspect flag in instapoped for something as silly as flipping a can, without creating a complex set of aggression rules that get attached to each and every involved character that in turn needs to be updated globally anytime anyone else enters the frey or creates some other relative 'flag change', or someones status changes from vigilante to criminal relative to someone else? I'm all frickin ears. How would such a system work? I'm not a programmer, but I see the problem with maintaining complex dynamic relationships between objects that need to be constantly updated. It could be like getting into a fight while doing 100 market transactions, creating 50 bookmarks, and getting your whole inventory updated every second. Think it would cause lag?
I don't know. I was thinking maybe there could be more types of flags, and one flag control DB in each system all the clients access at some interval in HS but not in null. Maybe in that way you could create complex rules that interact relative to the other flag rules instead of each client, so that you stack flags... flag 1 + flag 2 = flag xyz where xyz is only true in the isolated context of that conflict and a criminal flag or GCC trumps all. Maybe that's a dumb idea because maybe there are too many possible combinations to code all of that... I don't know. I just see jita's node catching on fire.
How would your system work?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8595
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 01:37:00 -
[450] - Quote
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.
-+-áI commit a crime against you GÇö you are now now allowed to initiate an engagement with me. -+-áIf you do, two teams are set up, with a RoE copy-pasted from wardecs, just to keep things consistent.
-+-áAnyone supporting either side will be added to that side for the duration of the engagement (someone who aids a character that is involved in multiple engagements will be added to all those engagementsGǪ so choose carefully). -+-áGÇ£ImplicitGÇ¥ members (e.g. corp members in case of theft) will have the team pre-selected for them, but will not actually be a part of the engagement until they personally initiate hostilities and/or support acts. -+-áTeam assignment follows the old aggression timer logic: keeping up aggressive and/or support acts keeps the timer from counting down (or perhaps more accurately, repeated acts resets the team assignment timer). -+-áThe engagement as a whole ends when one team runs out of assigned members. -+-áFor the individual member, the engagement is over when their personal assignment timer runs out.
-+-áThe only graphs required is a single GÇ£can fightGÇ¥ between the teams; the teams themselves are just a list of characters with individual assignment timers. No inheritance is needed GÇö what was a messy graph of inheritance spaghetti now becomes GÇ£add name to team A in engagement YGÇ¥ and GÇ£if in team A, anyone in the list of B-team members is a legit target (and vice versa)GÇ¥.
-+-áBonus feature: closed limited engagements GÇö the same thing except support acts trigger the suspect flag proposed by CCP (same as for interfering with wardecs GÇö hell, wardecs could just be that with everyone pre-added to the team lists). Can be initiated through a contract between pre-determined partiesGǪ
GǪaaand I'm sure there are roughly a bajillion immediate bugs and exploits. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
446
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 01:41:00 -
[451] - 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. -+-áI commit a crime against you GÇö you are now now allowed to initiate an engagement with me. -+-áIf you do, two teams are set up, with a RoE copy-pasted from wardecs, just to keep things consistent. -+-áAnyone supporting either side will be added to that side for the duration of the engagement (someone who aids a character that is involved in multiple engagements will be added to all those engagementsGǪ so choose carefully). -+-áGÇ£ImplicitGÇ¥ members (e.g. corp members in case of theft) will have the team pre-selected for them, but will not actually be a part of the engagement until they personally initiate hostilities and/or support acts. -+-áTeam assignment follows the old aggression timer logic: keeping up aggressive and/or support acts keeps the timer from counting down (or perhaps more accurately, repeated acts resets the team assignment timer). -+-áThe engagement as a whole ends when one team runs out of assigned members. -+-áFor the individual member, the engagement is over when their personal assignment timer runs out. -+-áThe only graphs required is a single GÇ£can fightGÇ¥ between the teams; the teams themselves are just a list of characters with individual assignment timers. No inheritance is needed GÇö what was a messy graph of inheritance spaghetti now becomes GÇ£add name to team A in engagement YGÇ¥ and GÇ£if in team A, anyone in the list of B-team members is a legit target (and vice versa)GÇ¥. -+-áBonus feature: closed limited engagements GÇö the same thing except support acts trigger the suspect flag proposed by CCP (same as for interfering with wardecs GÇö hell, wardecs could just be that with everyone pre-added to the team lists). Can be initiated through a contract between pre-determined partiesGǪ GǪaaand I'm sure there are roughly a bajillion immediate bugs and exploits.
I like it, and I don't see anything immediately bad.
Well, what happens if you steal from someone on a team? Are you put on the other team, or is it a new engagement? -RubyPorto
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8595
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 01:48:00 -
[452] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Well, what happens if you steal from someone on a team? Are you put on the other team, or is it a new engagement? Purely instinctively, I'd say new (potential) engagement that the victim can choose to initiate. That's a good point, though: one kind-of-1-to-1 flagging that is needed is to track all the potential engagements you can start. Still, since they're not inherited, it shouldn't be too messyGǪ I thinkGǪ maybeGǪ
The only GÇ£reuseGÇ¥ that I envision of existing engagements, and creating cross-over between teams like that, is if you choose to rep members of both teamsGǪ in which case you are added to both teams. Congrats GÇö you are now free-for-all to everyone in the field. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
446
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 01:49:00 -
[453] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Well, what happens if you steal from someone on a team? Are you put on the other team, or is it a new engagement? Purely instinctively, I'd say new (potential) engagement that the victim can choose to initiate. The only GÇ£reuseGÇ¥ that I envision of existing engagements, and creating cross-over between teams like that, is if you choose to rep members of both teamsGǪ in which case you are added to both teams. Congrats GÇö you are now free-for-all to everyone in the field.
And the whole field is an FFA to you... -RubyPorto
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
424
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 01:50:00 -
[454] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote: TLDR; Crimewatch = more suicide ganking, as 'suspect' players take the path of least resistance.
Isn't there plans for mining ships with bigger buffer tanks in exchange for lower yields? And it's not like mission ships etc are often the target for suicide gankers.
No, judging by their actions and plans, (and when I say plans I mean the actual details of what is planned not the hype) the goal is to transform Highsec into a PvE Themepark effectively free of non consensual PvP. |
|
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
87
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 01:51:00 -
[455] - Quote
Cleaned up the thread. Try to refrain from personal attacks and keep it on topic. Thank you.
-ISD Dorrim Barstorlode ISD Dorrim Barstorlode Ensign Community Communication Liasions (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8595
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 01:55:00 -
[456] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:And the whole field is an FFA to you... I supposeGǪ and some would doubtlessly try to have fun with that, but then I'd imagine (or at least hope) that both sides would simply say GÇ£ok, screw this guy GÇö let's blast him and then get back to fighting among ourselvesGÇ¥.
GǪstill, I can see one issue arising from that idea. Instigator #1 warps in and gets collects as many targets/teams as he likes and instantly gtfo:s; instigator #2GÇô#97 meet up with #1 at ze sekrit rendez-vous spot, tag him with their small remote reps, and then warp back to the main fight to blow everyone up.
So yesGǪ some kind if limitation on the ability to add yourself might be in order. Or maybe, that kind of double-teaming should just remove you from both teams and set a suspect flag instead.
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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
446
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 02:05:00 -
[457] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:And the whole field is an FFA to you... I supposeGǪ and some would doubtlessly try to have fun with that, but then I'd imagine (or at least hope) that both sides would simply say GÇ£ok, screw this guy GÇö let's blast him and then get back to fighting among ourselvesGÇ¥. GǪstill, I can see one issue arising from that idea. Instigator #1 warps in and gets collects as many targets/teams as he likes and instantly gtfo:s; instigator #2GÇô#97 meet up with #1 at ze sekrit rendez-vous spot, tag him with their small remote reps, and then warp back to the main fight to blow everyone up. So yesGǪ some kind if limitation on the ability to add yourself might be in order. Or maybe that kind of double-teaming should just remove you from both teams and set a suspect flag instead.
Or maybe repping gets you added to the team without letting you shoot anyone else until you get shot at (but then we're back at roughly current mechanics).
I think that the biggest problem with trying to do teams is that you want to avoid letting joining a team give you free targets (or people will abuse it. A Lot.). At the same time, trying to go with a Global tag is bad because it's disproportionate, and seems silly.
You steal My Stuff > Now I can shoot you. Makes perfect sense to me in the context of EvE. You steal My Stuff > Now that random guy over in the corner (well, him too, but I meant that guy over there, yeah, him in the hat) can shoot you. Doesn't make sense to me, especially in the light of another form of "stealing" that's explicitly allowed and unpunished; salvaging yellow wrecks.
The biggest problem with the team aggro suggestions (both yours and Oh Yeah's) that I can see is: You helped My Enemy > Now I can shoot you. Makes sense. You helped My Enemy > Now You can shoot me... uhmmm -RubyPorto
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8595
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 02:10:00 -
[458] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Or maybe repping gets you added to the team without letting you shoot anyone else until you get shot at (but then we're back at roughly current mechanics).
I think that the biggest problem with trying to do teams is that you want to avoid letting joining a team give you free targets (or people will abuse it. A Lot.). Yes. I also realised another thing: suspect flagging would simply be a blanket right for anyone and everyone to initiate an engagement against the perp. This could still be used by the co-instigators above, but at least others would have to actively choose to get involved, knowing the risks, rather than the instigators auto-inviting themselves to any fight they see.
That raises another issue, though (and not just in the suspect-flagging case but for normal engagments as well): multiple overlapping engagements where people with the same opponent start supporting each other could potentially create a huge amount of duplicate engagements that need to be tracked. It would be nice if (and even be necessary that) such situations could be detected and have those engagements collapse into one.
A team-based solution would get rid of a lot of the flagging kudzu, but the self-inclusion is indeed tricky to control. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Price Check Aisle3
158
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 02:29:00 -
[459] - 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 |
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
891
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 02:34:00 -
[460] - 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. -+-áI commit a crime against you GÇö you are now now allowed to initiate an engagement with me. -+-áIf you do, two teams are set up, with a RoE copy-pasted from wardecs, just to keep things consistent. -+-áAnyone supporting either side will be added to that side for the duration of the engagement (someone who aids a character that is involved in multiple engagements will be added to all those engagementsGǪ so choose carefully). -+-áGÇ£ImplicitGÇ¥ members (e.g. corp members in case of theft) will have the team pre-selected for them, but will not actually be a part of the engagement until they personally initiate hostilities and/or support acts. -+-áTeam assignment follows the old aggression timer logic: keeping up aggressive and/or support acts keeps the timer from counting down (or perhaps more accurately, repeated acts resets the team assignment timer). -+-áThe engagement as a whole ends when one team runs out of assigned members. -+-áFor the individual member, the engagement is over when their personal assignment timer runs out. -+-áThe only graphs required is a single GÇ£can fightGÇ¥ between the teams; the teams themselves are just a list of characters with individual assignment timers. No inheritance is needed GÇö what was a messy graph of inheritance spaghetti now becomes GÇ£add name to team A in engagement YGÇ¥ and GÇ£if in team A, anyone in the list of B-team members is a legit target (and vice versa)GÇ¥. -+-áBonus feature: closed limited engagements GÇö the same thing except support acts trigger the suspect flag proposed by CCP (same as for interfering with wardecs GÇö hell, wardecs could just be that with everyone pre-added to the team lists). Can be initiated through a contract between pre-determined partiesGǪ GǪaaand I'm sure there are roughly a bajillion immediate bugs and exploits. Now we're getting somewhere... hell yah Tippia.
So let's say this happens... there are two sides of this limited engagement, and just for the sake of argument let's call them "criminal team 1" and "vigilante team 2". So 2 new unaffiliated players come into the system... they both can flip someone, and then one of them engages w/ vigilante team 2 and the other w/ criminal team 1. Are both teams now criminals and able to be attacked by the randoms in local? What if a member of vigilante team one commits a criminal act like flipping a can, does everyone inherit the criminal flag? What if a member of either party pulls a GCC?
It's these random instances that keep sinking anything I come up with. If we can find a better solution I'm sure CCP would listen... I just keep finding loopholes in everything else I consider.
Price Check Aisle3 wrote: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. Lets refrain from massaging crotches until we iron it out. One f*** up and the whole mechanic crumbles.
|
|
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
446
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 02:50:00 -
[461] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Or maybe repping gets you added to the team without letting you shoot anyone else until you get shot at (but then we're back at roughly current mechanics).
I think that the biggest problem with trying to do teams is that you want to avoid letting joining a team give you free targets (or people will abuse it. A Lot.). Yes. I also realised another thing: suspect flagging would simply be a blanket right for anyone and everyone to initiate an engagement against the perp. This could still be used by the co-instigators above, but at least others would have to actively choose to get involved, knowing the risks, rather than the instigators auto-inviting themselves to any fight they see. That raises another issue, though (and not just in the suspect-flagging case but for normal engagments as well): multiple overlapping engagements where people with the same opponent start supporting each other could potentially create a huge amount of duplicate engagements that need to be tracked. It would be nice if (and even be necessary that) such situations could be detected and have those engagements collapse into one. A team-based solution would get rid of a lot of the flagging kudzu, but the self-inclusion is indeed tricky to control. On the other hand, that's just your average bar brawl, which kind of goes nicely with the kind of wild-west style law-making that permeates EVE.
TBH, I don't really mind a lot of the adverse consequences of the self inclusion into team engagements. It lets people can flip and ninja in groups. It's Incursions for HS PvPers .
The thing is that I think that CCP's suspect flagging is overbroad (and the fact that they keep having to add exceptions [or strange flagging] to avoid weirdness like invulnerable logi is evidence of that).
CCP doesn't seem to like teams (at least Greyscale doesn't) because of the problem of self inclusion into the conflict.
I don't think that Individual Flagging really isn't as hard for players to understand as people make it out to be.
The following principles are pretty simple and reasonably comprehensive (I think):
If you shoot someone, they can shoot you and your stuff. If you steal from someone, they can shoot you and your stuff. If you help your friend whom someone else can shoot, the people who can shoot your friend can shoot you and your stuff.
(If I'm forgetting something, please tell me)
And yeah, keeping track of who can shoot whom is going to make some ugly charts on the server. Laws are like that, unfortunately.
Figuring out how long a timer lasts used to be harder because of the "and your stuff part." Now, instead, we have Suddenly CONCORD, which is a silly mechanic.
Here's an idea for fixing the timer issue. Make it like Logoffs. If you have legally shot an object in the last 15m, you can legally shoot it (but not necessarily its owner). Maybe make that work for pilots too. Would put a 15m damper on dropping corp to escape a station camp. -RubyPorto
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8597
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 02:57:00 -
[462] - Quote
Gogela wrote:So let's say this happens... there are two sides of this limited engagement, and just for the sake of argument let's call them "criminal team 1" and "vigilante team 2". So 2 new unaffiliated players come into the system... they both can flip someone, and then one of them engages w/ vigilante team 2 and the other w/ criminal team 1. Depends on what you mean by GÇ£engage withGÇ¥GǪ if they attack them, CONCORD comes and sorts them out because they aren't party to that first fight GÇö they only have outstanding engagements with whomever they canflipped, and only those who got canflipped can actually initiate those separate engagements.
If you by Gǣengage withGǥ you mean Gǣremote-repGǥ, then they'd be added to the respective teams (at least as described aboveGǪ), and the outstanding engagement with the canflip victims is still a separate engagement.
The whole idea is that under this scheme, it's not about any global GÇ£vigilanteGÇ¥ or GÇ£criminalGÇ¥ teams GÇö it's about very specific teams built around a single transgression. Each transgression creates a new set of teams.
Quote:What if a member of vigilante team one commits a criminal act like flipping a can, does everyone inherit the criminal flag? No, because there is no engagement yet. If the canflippee (yes, that's a word nowGǪ so there!) decides to act on the crime, then a new engagement is initiated, and only then can people assisting that vigilante be added to the (new) team in this separate engagement.
Quote:What if a member of either party pulls a GCC? Then CONCORD blows them up. Other people will inherit the felon flag as per CCP's plan and gets blown up as well (or, more likely, they will not since they've set their safeties to not allow them to perform any felonious acts). This is really no different than pulling a GCC in an Incursion fleet or some such.
As for the self-invite problemGǪ idea #2:
What if supporting a team member did not automatically add you to the team. Instead, you get a GÇ£inviteGÇ¥ flag (for the lack of a better term) for the team you picked and it's up to the other team to act on this and choose whether or not to officially add you to the brawl by attacking you. Thus we have an RR parallel to how the victim of the crime is the one who has to respond to the engagement proposal (hah!) to begin with and start the actual engagement. Thus, while you can still choose to warp in and RR people, this does not give you any free targets GÇö the (potential) targets themselves have to choose to actually fully draw you into the fight before you're allowed to shoot anyone.
GǪof course, new exploit: a mole join the GǣvigilanteGǥ team, and when the GǣcriminalGǥ support (suspiciously still consisting of gank battleships with small RR mods) warps in, he juuuust so happens to be a trigger-happy newbie who GǣaccidentallyGǥ pulls those guys into the fight. It's not quite self-invite any more, but it's still very easy to work around to get free targets.
I'm beginning to think that, yes, any kind of group solution will inevitably have this problem, but on the other hand, I can't quite see how to get rid of the inheritance mess without doing a group or global-based solution. 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¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Price Check Aisle3
158
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 03:14:00 -
[463] - 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 |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
949
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 11:49:00 -
[464] - Quote
I like where that idea is going too, Tippia. I'd started to think along those lines, but read somewhere (or heard in the presentation maybe?) where Greyscale said he wanted to avoid temporary wars where you're constantly adding and removing people.
However, it does seem a better solution both than what we've got now and where we're headed. Perhaps Greyscale will reconsider?
I think there will always be some way to work around the system with plants on the other side or through deception. As long as the rules and implementation are reasonably straight forward and easy to understand, it stands a chance.
Alternately:
What would be the drawbacks of simplifying the system even further... instead of calling it a suspect flag, just make it a "I give up my concord protection" flag?
- If you steal from someone, you get the flag you can be attacked by anyone. - If anyone attacks you, they get the flag and they can be attacked by anyone. - If another person shoots or reps either of you, they get the same flag.
A PVP-bar brawl. You can choose to stay out of it entirely, or just cut loose and everyone runs the risk of there being too much to handle. Here's your sign... |
Zedrik Cayne
Durendal Ascending Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
153
|
Posted - 2012.07.20 19:08:00 -
[465] - Quote
I'm pretty sure we can simply rename the 'suspect' flag to the 'buttinski' flag and have a really simple set of rules.
1) Am I interfering with someone upon whom I don't have some sort of timer? (War declaration or aggression for example) Then I get the buttinski flag. 2) Actively helping anyone with the buttinski flag gives you the buttinski flag. 3) Shooting someone with a buttinski will get you a buttinski unless you have another reason (corporate aggresssion timer, personal aggression timer, war declaration) 4) RRing or otherwise supporting a pilot engaged with a buttinski will get you the flag unless you have some other timer with the buttinski. (So, if you were in the corporation that a pilot stole from, you have a corporate wide aggression timer you may act on, so your RR activities are not butting in. You will still get an individual aggression flag to the buttinski'd pilot, but no global buttinski)
So, two different corporations at war with a third corporation may rr each other since neither side is 'butting in'. At least if no other third party is involved. (ie: If corporation a and corp b are at war with corp c... and corp a guy is shooting corp c...then corp b can rr corp a and not get a buttinski. If corp a guy is shooting a suspect and corp b RR's him...he is butting into something he has no timer with and gets a buttinski.)
How does this sound? (Other than the stupid name of 'buttinski') Individual aggression does not extend beyond one level of pilots. It still allows corpmates to help their stricken bretheren (Even if the 15 minute corporation timer for a can theft has expired) at the expense of having 'butted in' to a fight. You are the internet equivalent of a Mars bar filled with stupid. |
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
453
|
Posted - 2012.07.20 19:30:00 -
[466] - Quote
Zedrik Cayne wrote:I'm pretty sure we can simply rename the 'suspect' flag to the 'buttinski' flag and have a really simple set of rules.
1) Am I interfering with someone upon whom I don't have some sort of timer? (War declaration or aggression for example) Then I get the buttinski flag. 2) Actively helping anyone with the buttinski flag gives you the buttinski flag. 3) Shooting someone with a buttinski will get you a buttinski unless you have another reason (corporate aggresssion timer, personal aggression timer, war declaration) 4) RRing or otherwise supporting a pilot engaged with a buttinski will get you the flag unless you have some other timer with the buttinski. (So, if you were in the corporation that a pilot stole from, you have a corporate wide aggression timer you may act on, so your RR activities are not butting in. You will still get an individual aggression flag to the buttinski'd pilot, but no global buttinski)
So, two different corporations at war with a third corporation may rr each other since neither side is 'butting in'. At least if no other third party is involved. (ie: If corporation a and corp b are at war with corp c... and corp a guy is shooting corp c...then corp b can rr corp a and not get a buttinski. If corp a guy is shooting a suspect and corp b RR's him...he is butting into something he has no timer with and gets a buttinski.)
How does this sound? (Other than the stupid name of 'buttinski') Individual aggression does not extend beyond one level of pilots. It still allows corpmates to help their stricken bretheren (Even if the 15 minute corporation timer for a can theft has expired) at the expense of having 'butted in' to a fight.
Who's allowed to shoot those with the buttinski flag? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Zedrik Cayne
Durendal Ascending Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
153
|
Posted - 2012.07.20 20:06:00 -
[467] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Zedrik Cayne wrote:I'm pretty sure we can simply rename the 'suspect' flag to the 'buttinski' flag and have a really simple set of rules.
1) Am I interfering with someone upon whom I don't have some sort of timer? (War declaration or aggression for example) Then I get the buttinski flag. 2) Actively helping anyone with the buttinski flag gives you the buttinski flag. 3) Shooting someone with a buttinski will get you a buttinski unless you have another reason (corporate aggresssion timer, personal aggression timer, war declaration) 4) RRing or otherwise supporting a pilot engaged with a buttinski will get you the flag unless you have some other timer with the buttinski. (So, if you were in the corporation that a pilot stole from, you have a corporate wide aggression timer you may act on, so your RR activities are not butting in. You will still get an individual aggression flag to the buttinski'd pilot, but no global buttinski)
So, two different corporations at war with a third corporation may rr each other since neither side is 'butting in'. At least if no other third party is involved. (ie: If corporation a and corp b are at war with corp c... and corp a guy is shooting corp c...then corp b can rr corp a and not get a buttinski. If corp a guy is shooting a suspect and corp b RR's him...he is butting into something he has no timer with and gets a buttinski.)
How does this sound? (Other than the stupid name of 'buttinski') Individual aggression does not extend beyond one level of pilots. It still allows corpmates to help their stricken bretheren (Even if the 15 minute corporation timer for a can theft has expired) at the expense of having 'butted in' to a fight. Who's allowed to shoot those with the buttinski flag?
Anybody. Whether or not they get a buttinski flag themselves depends on whether or not they have a good reason. Like 'Dude stole my milkshake!' or 'Dude is already at war with me' means that you aren't butting in. So no flag for you. If you wanna be a white knight and butt in...you get a buttinski flag.
You are the internet equivalent of a Mars bar filled with stupid. |
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
453
|
Posted - 2012.07.20 20:09:00 -
[468] - Quote
Zedrik Cayne wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Zedrik Cayne wrote:I'm pretty sure we can simply rename the 'suspect' flag to the 'buttinski' flag and have a really simple set of rules.
1) Am I interfering with someone upon whom I don't have some sort of timer? (War declaration or aggression for example) Then I get the buttinski flag. 2) Actively helping anyone with the buttinski flag gives you the buttinski flag. 3) Shooting someone with a buttinski will get you a buttinski unless you have another reason (corporate aggresssion timer, personal aggression timer, war declaration) 4) RRing or otherwise supporting a pilot engaged with a buttinski will get you the flag unless you have some other timer with the buttinski. (So, if you were in the corporation that a pilot stole from, you have a corporate wide aggression timer you may act on, so your RR activities are not butting in. You will still get an individual aggression flag to the buttinski'd pilot, but no global buttinski)
So, two different corporations at war with a third corporation may rr each other since neither side is 'butting in'. At least if no other third party is involved. (ie: If corporation a and corp b are at war with corp c... and corp a guy is shooting corp c...then corp b can rr corp a and not get a buttinski. If corp a guy is shooting a suspect and corp b RR's him...he is butting into something he has no timer with and gets a buttinski.)
How does this sound? (Other than the stupid name of 'buttinski') Individual aggression does not extend beyond one level of pilots. It still allows corpmates to help their stricken bretheren (Even if the 15 minute corporation timer for a can theft has expired) at the expense of having 'butted in' to a fight. Who's allowed to shoot those with the buttinski flag? Anybody. Whether or not they get a buttinski flag themselves depends on whether or not they have a good reason. Like 'Dude stole my milkshake!' or 'Dude is already at war with me' means that you aren't butting in. So no flag for you. If you wanna be a white knight and butt in...you get a buttinski flag.
So it's the suspect flag. Except that shooting suspects will also make you a suspect.
EDIT: Did not notice the first line of your post where you said exactly that.
I think we've been over why the global flags aren't a great idea. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
841
|
Posted - 2012.07.20 20:18:00 -
[469] - 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. -+-áI commit a crime against you GÇö you are now now allowed to initiate an engagement with me. -+-áIf you do, two teams are set up, with a RoE copy-pasted from wardecs, just to keep things consistent. -+-áAnyone supporting either side will be added to that side for the duration of the engagement (someone who aids a character that is involved in multiple engagements will be added to all those engagementsGǪ so choose carefully). -+-áGÇ£ImplicitGÇ¥ members (e.g. corp members in case of theft) will have the team pre-selected for them, but will not actually be a part of the engagement until they personally initiate hostilities and/or support acts. -+-áTeam assignment follows the old aggression timer logic: keeping up aggressive and/or support acts keeps the timer from counting down (or perhaps more accurately, repeated acts resets the team assignment timer). -+-áThe engagement as a whole ends when one team runs out of assigned members. -+-áFor the individual member, the engagement is over when their personal assignment timer runs out. -+-áThe only graphs required is a single GÇ£can fightGÇ¥ between the teams; the teams themselves are just a list of characters with individual assignment timers. No inheritance is needed GÇö what was a messy graph of inheritance spaghetti now becomes GÇ£add name to team A in engagement YGÇ¥ and GÇ£if in team A, anyone in the list of B-team members is a legit target (and vice versa)GÇ¥. -+-áBonus feature: closed limited engagements GÇö the same thing except support acts trigger the suspect flag proposed by CCP (same as for interfering with wardecs GÇö hell, wardecs could just be that with everyone pre-added to the team lists). Can be initiated through a contract between pre-determined partiesGǪ GǪaaand I'm sure there are roughly a bajillion immediate bugs and exploits.
It initally sounds great, but there is a big issue, one of those exploits you mention.
A group of people who are working together can get individual members on both sides, and new new player joining in will not know this. Example:
A drops a can. B, C, D, and E steal from it. We have a limited engagement with 1 person on one side and 4 on the other. B warps someplace where the Mark (the intended victim of the operation) is. The Mark shoots B. This adds him to the limited engagement on A's side. C, D, E now have rights to shoot the Mark, even though the Mark never agressed C, D or E.
This, and other "edge cases" need be ironed out. Once that is all done, will we have a simpler system, and a better one, than what we have now?
http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Zedrik Cayne
Durendal Ascending Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
153
|
Posted - 2012.07.20 20:30:00 -
[470] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:So it's the suspect flag. Except that shooting suspects will also make you a suspect.
EDIT: Did not notice the first line of your post where you said exactly that.
I think we've been over why the global flags aren't a great idea.
Yup. But it is more descriptive of 'why' you are getting the flag. Rather neatly covers most of the surprise aggression the suspect/vigilante flag system would have involved. (You really want to shoot at that buttinski you buttinski?) And removes the proliferation of aggression timers that is the real reason they have been wanting to change the system in the first place so their servers can be happier.
That and you could call folks 'buttinski' in game. Because they would be buttinski. You are the internet equivalent of a Mars bar filled with stupid. |
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
841
|
Posted - 2012.07.20 20:31:00 -
[471] - Quote
Zedrik Cayne wrote:I'm pretty sure we can simply rename the 'suspect' flag to the 'buttinski' flag and have a really simple set of rules.
1) Am I interfering with someone upon whom I don't have some sort of timer? (War declaration or aggression for example) Then I get the buttinski flag. 2) Actively helping anyone with the buttinski flag gives you the buttinski flag. 3) Shooting someone with a buttinski will get you a buttinski unless you have another reason (corporate aggresssion timer, personal aggression timer, war declaration) 4) RRing or otherwise supporting a pilot engaged with a buttinski will get you the flag unless you have some other timer with the buttinski. (So, if you were in the corporation that a pilot stole from, you have a corporate wide aggression timer you may act on, so your RR activities are not butting in. You will still get an individual aggression flag to the buttinski'd pilot, but no global buttinski)
So, two different corporations at war with a third corporation may rr each other since neither side is 'butting in'. At least if no other third party is involved. (ie: If corporation a and corp b are at war with corp c... and corp a guy is shooting corp c...then corp b can rr corp a and not get a buttinski. If corp a guy is shooting a suspect and corp b RR's him...he is butting into something he has no timer with and gets a buttinski.)
How does this sound? (Other than the stupid name of 'buttinski') Individual aggression does not extend beyond one level of pilots. It still allows corpmates to help their stricken bretheren (Even if the 15 minute corporation timer for a can theft has expired) at the expense of having 'butted in' to a fight. For this to work the game still needs to maintain a list of pilot vs pilot rights. That is it needs to have a list of which pilots can shoot which other pilots without getting the flag.
The entire idea of the new system is to eliminate the need to track pilot vs pilot rights of any sort. That's not to say its a bad idea, it may be to get a workable system a list of pilot vs pilot rights of some sort is needed. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
454
|
Posted - 2012.07.20 20:39:00 -
[472] - Quote
Zedrik Cayne wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:So it's the suspect flag. Except that shooting suspects will also make you a suspect.
EDIT: Did not notice the first line of your post where you said exactly that.
I think we've been over why the global flags aren't a great idea. Yup. But it is more descriptive of 'why' you are getting the flag. Rather neatly covers most of the surprise aggression the suspect/vigilante flag system would have involved. (You really want to shoot at that buttinski you buttinski?) And removes the proliferation of aggression timers that is the real reason they have been wanting to change the system in the first place so their servers can be happier. That and you could call folks 'buttinski' in game. Because they would be buttinski.
The problem with the suspect flag is that there really isn't a sensible reason for everyone to be able to shoot someone to steal something.
In addition there are several bad trail on effects that'll come from it. Suicide Ganking Freighters will take a giant nerf, since all it takes is a bump to get a free freighter kill from the Freighter coming around to loot the wreck.
If they need to fix something on the server's side, optimization is the place to go. Mucking with mechanics without considering the effects (they weren't bothered about the idea of invulnerable logis until we made a fuss) is not the way to fix server-side issues. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Zedrik Cayne
Durendal Ascending Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
153
|
Posted - 2012.07.20 20:49:00 -
[473] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:For this to work the game still needs to maintain a list of pilot vs pilot rights. That is it needs to have a list of which pilots can shoot which other pilots without getting the flag.
The entire idea of the new system is to eliminate the need to track pilot vs pilot rights of any sort. That's not to say its a bad idea, it may be to get a workable system a list of pilot vs pilot rights of some sort is needed.
They have already stated that they want some folks to be able to shoot at suspects without getting flags themselves. So there has to be some sort of pilot vs pilot rights. But they don't want the pilot timers transferable which is what the actual problem is (the whole chaining of timers means replicating timers everywhere and updating a whole lot of stuff on multiple pilots all the time)
Examples that have been given include can flipping. They don't want the people who were stolen from to get omgsurpriseexploded if they steal their stuff back or shoot the buttinski. At the same time the buttinski should be able to defend himself. So they need the pilot vs pilot rights. As well as corp vs pilot timers. (If you stole from a corporation can, my whole corp should be able to shoot at you without being considered 'buttinskis')
At the same time... Anyone who does butt in; the white knight, the 'paid security', or even another pirate-y player, runs a very real risk of getting shot into pieces by other white knights, paid security or pirate-y players.
At the very least it can add the whole new profession of 'private security' in highsec. As well as 'the guy who wanders around flagged all the time with backup following 2 jumps behind' in an attempt to get some cheap ganks going. As well as making stealing from cans and wrecks on a gate way more dangerous.
Risk is more balanced. Sure, stealing from a can is dangerous. But not much more dangerous than it was before. Chances are folks aren't going to white knight for fear of the guy can flipping having friends. Unless they think they have enough friends to deal with the situation. You are the internet equivalent of a Mars bar filled with stupid. |
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
901
|
Posted - 2012.07.20 20:53:00 -
[474] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Zedrik Cayne wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:So it's the suspect flag. Except that shooting suspects will also make you a suspect.
EDIT: Did not notice the first line of your post where you said exactly that.
I think we've been over why the global flags aren't a great idea. Yup. But it is more descriptive of 'why' you are getting the flag. Rather neatly covers most of the surprise aggression the suspect/vigilante flag system would have involved. (You really want to shoot at that buttinski you buttinski?) And removes the proliferation of aggression timers that is the real reason they have been wanting to change the system in the first place so their servers can be happier. That and you could call folks 'buttinski' in game. Because they would be buttinski. The problem with the suspect flag is that there really isn't a sensible reason for everyone to be able to shoot someone to steal something. In addition there are several bad trail on effects that'll come from it. Suicide Ganking Freighters will take a giant nerf, since all it takes is a bump to get a free freighter kill from the Freighter coming around to loot the wreck. If they need to fix something on the server's side, optimization is the place to go. Mucking with mechanics without considering the effects (they weren't bothered about the idea of invulnerable logis until we made a fuss) is not the way to fix server-side issues. Back to square one, eh? It seems like options are being exhausted. I still haven't seen anything not riddled with loopholes. I just think now that empire is going to be SO safe that there will be no reason not to faction or officer fit everything, because nobody can do anything about it. The rewards will be good in empire and the safety will increase... kinda makes me mad. Empire needs a value nerf stat. I'm over it.
~fin
|
Zedrik Cayne
Durendal Ascending Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
153
|
Posted - 2012.07.20 21:39:00 -
[475] - Quote
Gogela wrote:Back to square one, eh? It seems like options are being exhausted. I still haven't seen anything not riddled with loopholes. I just think now that empire is going to be SO safe that there will be no reason not to faction or officer fit everything, because nobody can do anything about it. The rewards will be good in empire and the safety will increase... kinda makes me mad. Empire needs a value nerf stat. I'm over it.
~fin
Thing is, we're not back to square one. We have some...interesting side effects already of the changes they are making to crimewatch. The refactoring is introducing subtle changes to the mechanics already. It is just stuff you don't normally see because you don't ride the edges of the game mechanics hard enough during normal play.
I've seen enough odd stuff that I will probably try out on SiSi later now. Just to see if the changes I think they are making are in the same ball park.
They are trying to untie the gordian knot by using scissors and glue to cut a piece out..and glue the ends back together in a more convenient spot. Creating something under a new system that works like the old one. Stuff they don't announce in patch notes suddenly acting subtly differently. (Have you noticed that you can no longer keep looking at objects over 100km away?) Now, I doubt that is because of the crimewatch refactoring. But who knows why it suddenly started to behave as it probably should have for years with nary a peep about the fix.
We're well beyond where we could even think about going back to square one. Now to see if we cannot get CCP to implement something reasonably good that also satisfies their stated goals. You are the internet equivalent of a Mars bar filled with stupid. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
950
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 11:09:00 -
[476] - Quote
Gogela wrote:Back to square one, eh? It seems like options are being exhausted. I still haven't seen anything not riddled with loopholes. I just think now that empire is going to be SO safe that there will be no reason not to faction or officer fit everything, because nobody can do anything about it. The rewards will be good in empire and the safety will increase... kinda makes me mad. Empire needs a value nerf stat. I'm over it.
~fin
What are the loopholes and problems with the "buttinski" flag? (I like your name better Zedrik, run with it. My "I give up my concord protection flag" was way too wordy :) )
How is safety increased if joining the fight uninvited makes you open to be shot by everyone?
What makes officer fitted ships in hisec safer with this idea, or CW2.0 than currently? The mark always has to make the mistake of choosing to engage (or get ganked).
Here's your sign... |
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
459
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 19:51:00 -
[477] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:Gogela wrote:Back to square one, eh? It seems like options are being exhausted. I still haven't seen anything not riddled with loopholes. I just think now that empire is going to be SO safe that there will be no reason not to faction or officer fit everything, because nobody can do anything about it. The rewards will be good in empire and the safety will increase... kinda makes me mad. Empire needs a value nerf stat. I'm over it.
~fin What are the loopholes and problems with the "buttinski" flag? (I like your name better Zedrik, run with it. My "I give up my concord protection flag" was way too wordy :) ) How is safety increased if joining the fight uninvited makes you open to be shot by everyone? What makes officer fitted ships in hisec safer with this idea, or CW2.0 than currently? The mark always has to make the mistake of choosing to engage (or get ganked).
A global flag upon theft makes Suicide Ganking Freighters prohibitively dangerous (especially if you wrap your cargo up in something bigger than anything a non-freighter can carry). The looting freighter will almost certainly get tackled and killed. (So the new Freighter safe cargo limit would be something like 5-8b to compensate for the risk of freighter loss).
A global flag essentially kills canflipping as a mini-profession (If CCP wants to do this, they should come out and say it), since canflipping is all about getting into a limited engagement.
A global flag kills HS 1v1s, since now everybody can come shoot you because you stole.
A global flag makes HS safer for carebears. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Zedrik Cayne
Durendal Ascending Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
155
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 22:57:00 -
[478] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:A global flag upon theft makes Suicide Ganking Freighters prohibitively dangerous (especially if you wrap your cargo up in something bigger than anything a non-freighter can carry). The looting freighter will almost certainly get tackled and killed. (So the new Freighter safe cargo limit would be something like 5-8b to compensate for the risk of freighter loss).
A global flag essentially kills canflipping as a mini-profession (If CCP wants to do this, they should come out and say it), since canflipping is all about getting into a limited engagement.
A global flag kills HS 1v1s, since now everybody can come shoot you because you stole.
A global flag makes HS safer for carebears.
Heh.. I'd say HTFU. Whatever CCP decides to do. I'll take a look at the rules. And then decide what to do with myself. Right now I'm just making a suggestion. The best I can come up with given the limited resources of stated design goals. And some assumptions about what they think is easy/best to implement (aka: The suspect flag) and just change it enough to make it usable and less unbalanced towards the 'victims' (ie: The buttinski flag)
Yes, it makes you folks suicide ganking freighters have to think twice about it. But then again, you can have enough falcons/blackbirds handy to get your freighter off the hook.
This isn't going to kill the canflipper.. It is going to kill the *solo* canflipper. Who is me. That doesn't mean I won't be able to bend whatever new system is into a pretzel should I need it. I'm just not going to be able to do it the same way I used to. You are the internet equivalent of a Mars bar filled with stupid. |
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
459
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 23:43:00 -
[479] - Quote
Zedrik Cayne wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:A global flag upon theft makes Suicide Ganking Freighters prohibitively dangerous (especially if you wrap your cargo up in something bigger than anything a non-freighter can carry). The looting freighter will almost certainly get tackled and killed. (So the new Freighter safe cargo limit would be something like 5-8b to compensate for the risk of freighter loss).
A global flag essentially kills canflipping as a mini-profession (If CCP wants to do this, they should come out and say it), since canflipping is all about getting into a limited engagement.
A global flag kills HS 1v1s, since now everybody can come shoot you because you stole.
A global flag makes HS safer for carebears. Heh.. I'd say HTFU. Whatever CCP decides to do. I'll take a look at the rules. And then decide what to do with myself. Right now I'm just making a suggestion. The best I can come up with given the limited resources of stated design goals. And some assumptions about what they think is easy/best to implement (aka: The suspect flag) and just change it enough to make it usable and less unbalanced towards the 'victims' (ie: The buttinski flag) Yes, it makes you folks suicide ganking freighters have to think twice about it. But then again, you can have enough falcons/blackbirds handy to get your freighter off the hook. This isn't going to kill the canflipper.. It is going to kill the *solo* canflipper. Who is me. That doesn't mean I won't be able to bend whatever new system is into a pretzel should I need it. I'm just not going to be able to do it the same way I used to.
So now we've changed Freighter ganking from something hard but doable (25ish people in Nados, 1 alt in a freighter) to something that takes that plus a ton of BBs/Falcons who're also going to die because they've been flagged to everyone, plus the freighter who's still going to die, because EVERYONE can shoot at him. Maybe in the backwaters, there might be few enough people for you to get a freighter into warp, but in the main trade lanes, Suicide Ganking will die an ignominious death. Jamming, after all, doesn't do much against a bump ship.
Here's a thought, let the wreck of a dead PC ship be owned by whoever struck the killing blow, and give someone who's can is flipped a choice between a 1v1 flag and a Global flag (or No flag vs a Global flag). Downside is that people looting their own wrecks after whatever embarrassing NPC loss will get a buttinski flag, but hey, HTFU, right?
Arguing against a stupid and massive rule change (with a bunch of repercussions that CCP clearly hasn't thought about*) isn't something that implies that I need to HTFU. Of course people will adapt to this if it happens. And then the carebears will whine more, just like they did after the Insurance nerf to suicide ganking (hailed as the end of Suicide ganking by most carebear circles at the time). A five to eightfold increase in the cost of Suicide ganking a freighter is the biggest increase that we've seen since CONCORD stopped being tankable, and that's just the first thing that came to mind when I sat down to figure out what the global flag would break.
*They were going to let people use Logi without being shootable by the opposing side. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Lady Spank
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
2365
|
Posted - 2012.07.22 00:18:00 -
[480] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:The inevitable end result will be that the new system will be more difficult to understand than the old system, even if what is happening serverside is simpler. Yes, Eve is far too hard. Please make it so simpletons can join in. (a¦á_a¦â) ~ http://getoutnastyface.blogspot.com/ ~ (a¦á_a¦â) |
|
Zedrik Cayne
Durendal Ascending Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
155
|
Posted - 2012.07.23 14:16:00 -
[481] - Quote
Lady Spank wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:The inevitable end result will be that the new system will be more difficult to understand than the old system, even if what is happening serverside is simpler. Yes, Eve is far too hard. Please make it so simpletons can join in.
Simpletons with fat wallets and bad senses of judgement? You are the internet equivalent of a Mars bar filled with stupid. |
Tetsel
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
29
|
Posted - 2012.07.23 15:33:00 -
[482] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Ok, so.
[...]BLA BLA BLA[...]
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.
I thought there were a pop-up message when you try to steal item from a can that's not yours... Why high-sec people should be protected from being stupid and do not read messages ? You could just make the message crystal clear that the pilot will be a criminal if he grab those items, instead of assuming people need assistance for being ********... And I'm sure changing a simple text is easier and less time consuming than remove a flag mechanic.... |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
1097
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 00:43:00 -
[483] - Quote
Wonder how Crimewatch is looking now... been a while since we got an update...
|
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
114
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 00:55:00 -
[484] - Quote
Zedrik Cayne wrote:Lady Spank wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:The inevitable end result will be that the new system will be more difficult to understand than the old system, even if what is happening serverside is simpler. Yes, Eve is far too hard. Please make it so simpletons can join in. Simpletons with fat wallets and bad senses of judgement?
I think there are already plenty of these around.
I hope Crimewatch dies a lonely death and is buried at sea.
Of course, I rarely get what I want - so it will likely be implemented 3x as stupid, sooner than I expect. |
Pipa Porto
978
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 03:16:00 -
[485] - Quote
Gogela wrote:Wonder how Crimewatch is looking now... been a while since we got an update...
Seriously, enough with the necrotrolling. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Denidil
Evocations of Shadow Eternal Evocations
524
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 03:28:00 -
[486] - Quote
*edit*
nevermind, didn't notice dates.. damn necrothread Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design. |
Caviar Liberta
Moira. Villore Accords
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 04:00:00 -
[487] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:
It wouldn't really be a huge issue if it was just going to be the case that everyone can shoot you, but you can shoot back just like normal and if you bring logi they can shoot your logi, but if they bring logi you can shoot it too
Why the hell arent we doing this? This sounds great Like an ever expanding mini war That sounds like itd be fun... cause you could recruit military types into it... you know, warriors for hire... oh crap theres a word for them...
What you are thinking of is mercenaries.
|
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 09:34:00 -
[488] - Quote
Wild guessing:
Probably CCP wanted to make crime watch player-driven to an extent too, and so the idea of CW2.0 was born. Then things like Burn Jita happened and so the idea was set to be massively thought out and improved before any attempts of implementation/testing. |
Crunchie Attuxors
Always Another Corporate Venture
173
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 04:33:00 -
[489] - Quote
Barrogh Habalu wrote:Wild guessing:
Probably CCP wanted to make crime watch player-driven to an extent too, and so the idea of CW2.0 was born. Then things like Burn Jita happened and so the idea was set to be massively thought out and improved before any attempts of implementation/testing.
Why is this thread still alive? Eve forums official anthem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pudOFG5X6uA-áReal men tank hull. Fake women shield-tank Gallente. |
|
ISD TYPE40
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1095
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 04:47:00 -
[490] - Quote
No more thread necro's please - ISD Type40. ISD Type40 Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: [one page] |