If I can legally attack the owner of a container, then I can legally take from the container.

Limited Engagements [snip]

3. Probably, boosting a fleet (on grid or off) should count as remote assistance.

This is a bad idea. Example: I am in a fleet with logi and none of the fleet is -5. A single pirate attacks one member of the fleet, which requires the logi to rep that person. However, by repping that person the logi is suspect flagged so the logi starts taking gate guns and can be freely engaged by the rest of the pirate gang without them getting the suspect flag and getting gate guns? That is not cool.

I'll have to look in to this one

That's the compromise for letting you in to high-sec even after you've recently done something bad (killing the hauler). You won't be instakilled by CONCORD, but player justice is still something you have to deal with.

Cloak up and go make a sandwich 15 minutes saved.

When you've ejected from your expensive gatecamp ship, what's to stop a conveniently-placed alt-orca scooping it and insta-jumping to highsec, where it will be untouchable?

Personally I think to make things more exciting for experienced HABITUAL suspects (especially gate campers), CCP should add random but infrequent NPC Navy patrols of stations and gates. The objective would be to affect habitual suspects in a way very similar to how rats harass sustained mining especially in low sec. Not so frequently as to make gate camps uncommon but often enough to add NPC risk to gate camps and to prevent sustained embargoes within EMPIRE space.

It sure will! (As will all your flags)

So to clear something up, because **** going through 20 pages of **** posting.

What if I pod someone in Lowsec, will the penalties of criminal apply to me? I.e will I be unable to warp, jump dock for 15 minutes?

Tbh, I have no idea why I'm trying to save T3 SP as much, since that's really the only goal for that suggestion, but hey GÇö puzzles are fun.

Come on, somebody has to give a crap about the massive headache that is getting handed to mission runners with the NPC flag's introduction...

There is a couple line items that should be addressed here...

After reading the new Crime Watch bulletin, I was actually pleased with the new changes on the horizon. It is going to open a new dynamic to the game that might intrigue old players into combat in high-sec, and provide a level of balance to new players when they are flying with a team of people learning the ropes of the EVE universe.

Of course not all patches/updates can be perfect the first run through, and with proper discussion and brainstorming we can mitigate some of the most apparent issues in the preface.

In your screenshot spreadsheets, which you said weren't final, I noticed couple items that need to be addressed immediately.

1. "Criminal Flag 15 Minute Timer - Criminal cannot initiate warp." : Warping off grid is a valid defense in combat against an aggressor, good or bad. If they don't have you pointed, you are free to leave grid. Forcing people to stay on grid, with a global warp scram button is something that should be avoided at all cost.

2. "Criminal Flag 15 Minute Timer - Criminal cannot enter a Wormhole" : This to me a common sense issue here. Wormholes are a rift in space, and concord has no control over their entrances. To keep with the spirit of logic in space, I believe this will remove a realism feel to the game.

*Side Thought* - Think about criminal incursions that happen in high sec.
1. A wormhole opens in high-sec.
2. Criminals spill out to wreak havoc.
3. A battle ensues within system between high-sec corps and criminals.
4. High-sec corps push the criminals back to their void in space.

This could be a very cool dynamic, that is severely lacking in the actual incursion patch from months back. It will give high-sec corp scouts a purpose to keep an eye on wormholes in system, and at the same time give the criminals "PvP'ers" an opportunity to impose their will on the unsuspecting. And the best part, it's all driven by player motives. Win Win i think...

Thank you for your time.

If I understand the system correctly, this would have pretty serious consequences for suicide ganking, especially against larger targets that already require you to have use larger and slower ships to loot them. High sec is very active with constant traffic on most gates (and if a certain gate is an exception, that also means that there won't be any targets to gank there), so if I'm correct in assuming that having your alt hauler scoop up the loot after you kill someone will get that hauler flagged to EVERYONE, it will effectively be impossible to loot since you're almost guaranteed to have that hauler tackled and killed by a random passers by before it can get off the gate. You can try to use frigates or something to allow you to warp out in time, but larger items and courier contracts take too much to fit in them.
That's an especially big problem when it comes to freighter ganking since the only viable ship to use for looting them is an another freighter, a ship that will take ages to get off the gate and has absolutely no defenses, and freighter ganking is something that actually requires quite a bit of coordination to get a suicide ganking fleet large enough to pull it off.

Is that a change that you're comfortable with? It won't kill suicide ganking completely, it will still be possible to do it just to grief the target and for profit if you find someone running a mission with an expensive fit, but it would be a major nerf.

This will be MASSIVLY exploited by griefers. So I'm in a fleet - we all open fire on someone because they are a legal target. One of the fleet members gets damaged during the fight so I rep them because we are a Typhoon Spider gang. "Assisting someone who is engaged in an LE will cause the assistor to receive a Suspect flag." And bingo - I get shot at by everyone because now I'm suspect flagged - So is every other member of the spider tank - because we all assisted someone engaged in LE?

Or did I get this wrong?

So if the criminal flag is issued to a player in high-sec, then there will be concord intervention?

If so, then that makes perfect sense.

I illustrated a scenario where with the new drone-killing AI that BS gunboats are trapped in mission sites.
The vast majority of people that inhabit threads like this were gloating over the probability.

Bottom line, this winter release is a further devastation of high sec income, and the vast majority of players in high sec don't read these forums and have no clue about the ISK steamroller bearing down on them.

The only way anything will change is if the subs drop dramatically, and by then, it will be too late for high sec.
This NPC timer plus the drone killing AI, plus the 20% across the board damage nerf to heavy missiles is just another nail in the coffin for high sec income.

I have real problems with WARP DISABLE for Criminal flag. Its a sloppy GOD power in an otherwise great SciFI universe.

I know its rooted in reducing CONCORD CPU use but at this point....
WHY does CONCORD even SHOW UP??? Just BLOW ME UP REMOTELY instead of turning my warp off!!!!

Front-end loading of criminal flags should solve a lot of CONCORD goose chase issues. Hell CONCORD should actually stop me before I have a chance to finish blowing up some ships in hi sec.

[...]

Warping is essential to self-defense especially against a potential huge number of opponents.

(1) Without it I cannot even go get more ammo.

(2) Disabling warp makes no sense at all in terms of storyline. Unlimited range scramble weapon? BS not even CONCORD
Some criminals would find ways to disable that. And if not, then same control mechanism should prevent criminal actions in the first place.

(3) A big chase is more exciting. Allows more players involvement.

Not reading 23 pages, but is the first chart correct in that hitting illegal targets in 0.0 (like there are any others) with smartbomb/ECM burst does not give a pvp flag? And what about being hit by those modules?

You failed 3rd grade reading comprehension, didn't you? I never said I intended to quit over this. I never even said that people were likely to quit. I was calling Abdiel there an [insult redacted] for saying that the game would be better off if it lost 3/4 of its player base.