|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 81 post(s) |
|
CCP Gargant
C C P C C P Alliance
92
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 14:48:00 -
[1] - Quote
Team Five-O have been slaving away at unraveling and tweaking the aggression system in EVE Online, generally known as Crimewatch, for almost a year. Now, CCP Masterplan has written a dev blog that goes into the details of the new and improved version of this system.
To read it, click this link.
This change will effect EVE as we know it. Please leave your comments and feedback in this thread. CCP Gargant | Community Representative |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
634
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 14:48:00 -
[2] - Quote
I hope you enjoy the latest blog from Five-0! I'll try to track any significant FAQ stuff in this post. "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P C C P Alliance
748
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 14:51:00 -
[3] - Quote
/high_five New crimewatch is awesome! The animated timers are so much fun! Content Designer | Team Five 0 @regnerBA |
|
|
CCP Explorer
C C P C C P Alliance
913
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 14:53:00 -
[4] - Quote
EVE is not a simple game, but at least there will now be charts describing how it behaves! Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson | Software Director | EVE Online, CCP Games | Follow on: Twitter / Google+ |
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
3309
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 14:54:00 -
[5] - Quote
awesome dev blog Masterplan! Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
974
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 14:57:00 -
[6] - Quote
Diggin the pictures. Good blog! CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1831
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:02:00 -
[7] - Quote
I've already been thinking about how this new system will have wonderful bloody results and I can't wait. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP GingerDude
84
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:16:00 -
[8] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:There is no character-to-character flagging any more..
I'm going to miss debugging the implicit cyclic graph of engagements so much ;(
Senior Server Programmer |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
634
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:17:00 -
[9] - Quote
Mizhir wrote:Dierdra Vaal wrote:Do I understand it correctly that if two players are in a Limited Engagement, and a third player reps one of the two, the third player becomes attackable by everyone and not just the people in the LE? Thats how I understand it. But one of the two players will be attackable by everyone aswell since he was already flagged for something in the first place. The LE just allows him to defend himself without committing more crimes. Exactly this. Interfering in an LE will get you a suspect flag "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
634
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:22:00 -
[10] - Quote
Mizhir wrote:Sounds like a great solution, but i got a question.
If I in lowsec attacks a player, who is an illegal target for me, and I destroy his ship I will get Suspect flag and the Sentry guns will shoot me during the combat. But if I warps out and warps back again (while still under the S flag) will they resume attacking me? No. They'll always shoot Criminals on-sight for as long as the Criminal has the flag, but for other acts they will only shoot you for as long as you stay in their vicinity after whatever action gave you a Suspect flag. "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
634
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:28:00 -
[11] - Quote
Mizhir wrote:But according to the first sheet I only get suspect flag for shooting a ship in lowsec. I only get criminal flag if I shoot his pod too. So if I only attacks his ship, can i warp out and warp back again without the sentries will resume shooting me? If you warp out and back in with only a Suspect flag, the sentries will leave you alone. "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
634
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:30:00 -
[12] - Quote
Jackie Fisher wrote:Will the charts of flags/consequences be updated and published when the final version of CW2 goes live? Yes, I'll try to make sure a finalised version is available for release. I have a crazy dream where one day EVE has (some) up-to-date user documentation. "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
634
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:38:00 -
[13] - Quote
Azrin Stella Oerndotte wrote:Very nice indeed, but I was wondering about the suspect flag and it legally allowing other players to attack the target, if so can we take the suspects container? "If I can legally attack the owner of a container, then I can legally take from the container." does this mean that a miner who got his can flipped will be able to take the ore back without any repercussion as well as any other player being able to take the ore? Also, how will you know that you can take from a can? Pretty much, yes, the miner will be able to take his stuff back from the suspect (thief) if it is the thief that jettisons it. If a container is white/blue, you can take from it without penalty. Yellow means you can't. That way you can decide to take the risk or not.
Azrin Stella Oerndotte wrote:A is can mining, B took ore from can to new can, flying for example a shuttle, C is in a hauler assisting B, and can legally take from his container without being flagged.
While pointless, it will allow people to take from cans without losing anything, even if B got a suspect flag (I suspect this could be done already if BC is in same corp), but it could also remove any real use of can flipping in the game.
This 'indirection' to avoid attack is basically unchanged. In the existing system, B would get flagged to A, but A could not do anything to C.
"This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
634
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:41:00 -
[14] - Quote
Kel hound wrote:YES! Blog from crimewatch! +5 points to Five-0 -5 points to Super Friends (note: This is what you get for being tard)
One thing that immediately caught my eye in this was that it looks like you will no longer be able to eject from a T3 just before death in-order to avoid skill loss. This seem's oddly intentional; will this fact be taken into consideration when tericide passes over Teir 3 cruisers? Is this the proverbial lambs blood on the door posts to ward off the angel of nerfs when she passes over the land of EVE?
Im trying to look for more loop holes but this largely seems solid.
Sun Win wrote:Quote:It is possible to be prevented from switching ships or ejecting (whilst in space) by your actions So does this mean that we can no longer strategically eject to prevent skill loss from our Tech 3 cruisers blowing up? This is not just oddly intentional, it is very intentional. If we didn't want to penalise T3 death, we simply wouldn't have the skillpoint-loss mechanic in the first place "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
634
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:43:00 -
[15] - Quote
Jita Bloodtear wrote:"Using assistance modules will pass on all flags to the assistor, possibly preventing them from docking/jumping for the same interval as their assistee"
Does jumping = gate jumping? Or jump = cyno jumping?
Will these flags finally apply to prevent people from pvping and then instantly vanishing through a wormhole? (Currently there is no timer on going through a WH while aggressing) It is specifically "Can not jump through stargate" only. Wormholes don't care about recent aggression. (Though high-sec ones still do their part to uphold the law and prevent criminals from jumping out of high-sec) "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
634
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:46:00 -
[16] - Quote
l0rd carlos wrote:Let me get this right, repping a -10 char that has no Criminal flag will not result in gateguns shooting at you? Confirmed (in low sec)
l0rd carlos wrote:Also: Hurray to the end of Gatecamps with Hotswapping Orca. I see you see what I did there
"This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
634
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:51:00 -
[17] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote:Mizhir wrote:Sounds like a great solution, but i got a question.
If I in lowsec attacks a player, who is an illegal target for me, and I destroy his ship I will get Suspect flag and the Sentry guns will shoot me during the combat. But if I warps out and warps back again (while still under the S flag) will they resume attacking me? No. They'll always shoot Criminals on-sight for as long as the Criminal has the flag, but for other acts they will only shoot you for as long as you stay in their vicinity after whatever action gave you a Suspect flag. I need a clarification on this example too. From reading the charts, I see that shooting at a player ship only generates the suspect flag. The suspect flag consequences do not include sentry gun fire. So will the sentry guns even fire at all if I shoot an illegal target player ship at a gatecamp in lowsec? I got the warp out and back thing... but why do I even need to warp out? All I have is Suspect, Weapons and PvP flags. That's the "Sec hit = Yes" and "Incurring Sec-status penalty" entries interact. If a sentry sees you do something bad, it will shoot you until you go away. After that, it will only shoot you again if you do something else bad, or are a Criminal "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
634
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:03:00 -
[18] - Quote
June Ting wrote:Do flags persist when jumping between systems, or are they system-specific? I know I've had multiple cases under the old system where someone gets PVP-flagged on one side of a gate, gatecrashes, and logoffskies, and disappears from space 1 minute later rather than 15 minutes since they're in a different system.
Yes, flags will follow you wherever you go. Let's just say that trying to fix the issue you talked about under the old system had some exploit issues preventing us from doing it. With the new system, things are much better in this regard.
June Ting wrote:Also, "The initiator of the action will get a PVP flag. If the recipient is a piloted ship, then the owner of this ship will also get a PVP flag." -- if a player is PVE flagged and logs off, and I scan them down under the new system, does putting a hit on their ship give them a fresh PVP timer, or do they disappear within 15 minutes of NPC aggression regardless of whether a player attacks them after they log off? (e.g. is their ship considered 'piloted' or not?) By this, I was distinguishing between ships that have been ejected from and left floating in space, and ones that have a pilot in them (regardless of that pilot being logged in or not) A PVP flag can only be created whilst logged on, but it can be extended whilst logged off (much like the current invisible logoff timer works today) "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
634
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:07:00 -
[19] - Quote
DJ FunkyBacon wrote:There really needs to be a way for 2 players to engage in a LE without the whole of eve getting involved.
As an example, at Eve Radio we do many tournaments (and I'm sure other entities hold competitions as well) using can flip mechanics to allow players to engage each other in highsec. With these new can flip mechanics, players will now be able to be attacked by anyone nearby.
I would like to see some sort of a challenge system where 2 players can agree to be flagged for an LE against each other without inviting the rest of Eve in on the fight. Tie it to the CSPA charge to prevent abuse if you must, but please don't kill 1v1s.
Aside from that, I think the changes are brilliant. Your king-of-the-hill radio contests were the specific example I used internally when I explained why we need to support this. I can't commit a solution at this time, but rest assured I really want to make sure a replacement mechanic happens (even if it has to wait until a .1 patch) "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
634
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:08:00 -
[20] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:How will outlaws (i.e. characters with a sec status below -5.0) without criminal flags be treated in highsec - will they continue to be valid targets for all players and also attacked by the faction navies/police but not CONCORD? Yes, this part will be generally unchanged. "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
634
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:10:00 -
[21] - Quote
DJWiggles wrote:DJ FunkyBacon wrote:There really needs to be a way for 2 players to engage in a LE without the whole of eve getting involved.
As an example, at Eve Radio we do many tournaments (and I'm sure other entities hold competitions as well) using can flip mechanics to allow players to engage each other in highsec. With these new can flip mechanics, players will now be able to be attacked by anyone nearby.
I would like to see some sort of a challenge system where 2 players can agree to be flagged for an LE against each other without inviting the rest of Eve in on the fight.
Aside from that, I think the changes are brilliant. Yep we do need something like that, a magic gauntlet you can slap people with, WE do need it, na WE MUST HAVE IT!!!!!!!!!!! That is worryingly similar to a glove-slapping conversation we had very recently in the office!
"This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
634
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:13:00 -
[22] - Quote
Ydnari wrote:There's a mention of kill rights, particularly that you get KR from a Criminal act being done against you, so according to the charts that's pod attacked in lowsec, assistants of a Criminal, or ship or pod attacked in highsec (whether it's destroyed or not). Apart from the assistance bit, you've correct.
Does this mean that kill rights for ship (not pod) destroyed in lowsec without aggressing back to the attacker have gone, or is that still in the new system?[/quote] Ship-ship aggression in low-sec will no longer generate a kill right. Super Friends have a blog coming along that goes in to this in more details about how this will work. "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
ISD TYPE40
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1428
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:14:00 -
[23] - Quote
TheBlueMonkey wrote:in before the circlejerk... maybe not
So you're killing off ninja salvaging and can flipping as a professions how is that not dumbing things down?
Since salvage is not covered by the same rules as everything else, I do not see how this will change. ISD Type40 Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
637
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:15:00 -
[24] - Quote
Shandir wrote:Oh - question:
I don't see a way to do it, but under these new rules, is there ANY way to extend/reset another player's timer while they're not present or docked? Or can you only affect your own?
Because unexpected timer-extension is bad. If you can find a way to do this, then I've missed something. You speak the truth about surprise-timers being bad "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
637
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:17:00 -
[25] - Quote
Sun Win wrote:That's unfortunate, given that when you guys announced Tech 3 on the Dev Blog, you said: Now you've made it so that Tech 3 pilots can't abandon ship. It's not a huge deal, most Tech 3 ships go down fighting. But this was something that you originally included as an interesting gameplay choice that you are now removing. "From time-to-time" is not the same as "In the middle of combat that isn't going your way" If you were suprise-ganked and weren't shooting, you can eject as you wish. But once you make an attack, you are committing yourself, for good or for bad. "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
640
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:33:00 -
[26] - Quote
Jita Bloodtear wrote:Just to clarify some scenarios that we encounter regularly:
1.) A nullsec mining fleet sees a hostile roam coming their direction, they crash the clients to prevent being seen. Right now, all the non-pvp aggressed ships would leave space after 60 seconds. With the changes the ones who had been shot by belt rats recently would remain in space for up to 15 mins where they'll easily be scanned down and killed?
2.) A supercarrier fleet is going around creating sov timers, reinforcing ihubs/stations unopposed, destroying offline towers, attacking POCOs. Their internet fails and their clients DC. Right now they would vanish in 60 seconds. With the changes they would persist in space for 15 mins where they can easily be scanned down and killed?
3.) A super capital fleet is involved in a pvp skirmish while out on operations but they're almost done. They cyno back to their staging system, warp off to their own towers, and log. Right now they'd vanish after 60 seconds. With the changes they'd persist for up to 15 mins with renewable pvp aggression?
Yes
I'm pretty sure we're going to make shooting structures owned by players give the attacker a PVP flag. So probably yes
They'd persist for 15 minutes after they were last involved in PVP, and that time can be extended after they log "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
642
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:34:00 -
[27] - Quote
Tarsas Phage wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: Kill rights
Performing an action against another player that gets you a Criminal flag will also award a kill-right to that person. This will happen regardless of whether or not the target ship was destroyed. This will feed in to the revamped bounty system that Team Super Friends will be talking about very shortly, so look for a dev blog coming from them soon.
Currently, Kill Rights are granted under the following conditions: * As an aggressor, if you attack a ship (Go GCC) and aggression is not returned upon you by the ship you are attacking, the other party gains kill rights on you upon their destruction. * As above, if the attacked ship does return aggression on you, they do not gain kill rights on you if they are destroyed. Will this continue to be the case, or is just the mere act of attacking a ship will grant kill rights on you, regardless of the outcome? No it won't work like that any more. Just the act of a criminal attack will create the kill right. What happens after that (victim fights back or not, victim dies or not) won't change anything "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
642
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:42:00 -
[28] - Quote
Rayemmi B'tes wrote:Masterplan, any comment on our bit about offgrid boosters getting agression? Fleet boosters and ganglinks won't be getting touched by any of this. It's not that we don't want to do something about them (we do) it is just that there is only so many things we can commit to changing at once. Revamping ganglinks is a larger issue that needs some dedicated attention. "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1831
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:52:00 -
[29] - Quote
Kel hound wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: This is not just oddly intentional, it is very intentional. If we didn't want to penalise T3 death, we simply wouldn't have the skillpoint-loss mechanic in the first place
Then bravo for closing that one, but I'd still like to know if the guys working on tericide will take this into account.
We'll be taking that into account when we get to T3s. Not gonna promise it will have a huge impact on our adjustments though. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
653
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:54:00 -
[30] - Quote
Odin Shadow wrote:Tippia wrote:Odin Shadow wrote:when running a mission, you are scrammed. ccp have one of the network issue that have happened of late, so you D/C and cant reconnect. you ship just sits there and dies now? If it does now, it will in the future, only for a longer time. if the npc's are shooting you, that time will never expire? No flags can be created after log-off. The only flag that can be extended after log-off is the PVP flag. "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1831
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:08:00 -
[31] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote: Also, am I right in reading that if I attack someone in space in low sec and don't pod them, there might not be any sentry guns involved at all, if it doesn't happen at a gate? I might have read wrong, and I'm way too lazy to check other people's posts to see if they answer my question.
This is correct. No more having to sit in a safespot for 15 minutes after shooting someone in a lowsec belt/FW plex. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1831
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:12:00 -
[32] - Quote
Karl Planck wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote: Also, am I right in reading that if I attack someone in space in low sec and don't pod them, there might not be any sentry guns involved at all, if it doesn't happen at a gate? I might have read wrong, and I'm way too lazy to check other people's posts to see if they answer my question.
This is correct. No more having to sit in a safespot for 15 minutes after shooting someone in a lowsec belt/FW plex. woa woa woa woa, that is NOT what master plan said here
If you shoot an innocent ship (as long as you don't shoot the pod) in a lowsec belt you will be flagged as a suspect, not a criminal, and you will have not received your sec status hit while within sight of the sentries. Therefore the sentries don't care even a little bit. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1835
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:14:00 -
[33] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote: Also, am I right in reading that if I attack someone in space in low sec and don't pod them, there might not be any sentry guns involved at all, if it doesn't happen at a gate? I might have read wrong, and I'm way too lazy to check other people's posts to see if they answer my question.
This is correct. No more having to sit in a safespot for 15 minutes after shooting someone in a lowsec belt/FW plex. Ok, you've redeemed yourself somewhat for those combat cruiser changes and not fixing lasers. Thanks.
Receive credit for other team's work 'erryday. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1835
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:22:00 -
[34] - Quote
Jaangel wrote:IF i'm a -10 pirate.
I shoot someone = on a gate in lowsec what does this mean to me?
This blog is really poor at explaining how the mechanics work for pirates. You know the people it affects the most.
The sentry guns will shoot you just as they do now, except once you leave grid they'll forget about you and won't shoot you when you return. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1838
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:32:00 -
[35] - Quote
Burseg Sardaukar wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Jaangel wrote:IF i'm a -10 pirate.
I shoot someone = on a gate in lowsec what does this mean to me?
This blog is really poor at explaining how the mechanics work for pirates. You know the people it affects the most.
The sentry guns will shoot you just as they do now, except once you leave grid they'll forget about you and won't shoot you when you return. Now for us that aren't -10, how quickly will shooting/killing these people on the gates make us -10?
Same rate as it currently does. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
666
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:58:00 -
[36] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote: Also, am I right in reading that if I attack someone in space in low sec and don't pod them, there might not be any sentry guns involved at all, if it doesn't happen at a gate? I might have read wrong, and I'm way too lazy to check other people's posts to see if they answer my question.
This is correct. No more having to sit in a safespot for 15 minutes after shooting someone in a lowsec belt/FW plex. Ok, you've redeemed yourself somewhat for those combat cruiser changes and not fixing lasers. Thanks. Receive credit for other team's work 'erryday. Get back to your fitting spreadsheets "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
666
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:59:00 -
[37] - Quote
Manssell wrote:Sorry If I got this all wrong, but I'm on the road today and don't have time to read the thread.
If I read this blog right, suspect and criminal flagging will take the place of the old criminal flags we see in local correct? If so I have one huge concern about the suspect flagging in crimewatch that I can't seem to find out about.
It's been a long known bug that local does not update GCC on MACs as is. (SOME PCs apparently have this, but from what I have found ALL Macs do). My first bug report on this was filed under "known bug" (report # 136669) and the last one I filled has sat "unfiltered" (report #143082) for months.
Since it seems there will be some new gameplay added with Crimwatch with the introduction with this idea of "suspect" flagging and player enforcement, am I to understand that this will be the first gameplay features that are introduced in EVE that will be PC only since Mac users will never know if someone gets suspect flagging in their system? Or is the CCP finally addressing the Mac bug with criminal flagging at the same time as the re-write of the code?
Thanks I know the bug you mean. It happens to me too on my PC when I'm playing. Hopefully that will die along with the rest of the dodgy old crimewatch code. "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
666
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:03:00 -
[38] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:I note that "Targeted offensive module against illegal target" grants P flag in null, but hitting those same targets with a smartbomb does not. Why? Hitting a legal target in Null grants a P flag, but not an illegal target?
And are there illegal targets in Null? If there are none (and that is why the table is empty for that case) then why are there entries for "Targeted offensive module against illegal target" in Null? You're right in that it is because there's no such thing as illegal targets null/WH. The W/P entries for "Targetted offensive module against illegal ..." under "Other-sec" are effectively redundant. I should tidy that up. "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
667
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:09:00 -
[39] - Quote
scimichar wrote:I searched the thread, but couldn't find an answer. Since logi will inherit aggression flags from someone aggressed, does that mean they will now get on the kill mail from the pilots they are assisting if the original aggressor gets a kill?
Or put less convoluted: Will logi now inherit kill mails from assisting aggressed pilots? Logistics on killmails will not be happening in this release, sorry. "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
667
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:11:00 -
[40] - Quote
Arec Bardwin wrote:Overall, great changes!
A few questions though:
- how is the transporting of illegal goods handled? - Pods, are they legal targets if the player is criminal, suspect, LE flagged? - criminally flagged pod cannot initiate warp? Unchanged Yes Criminal pods are excepted from the "can't dock/warp in high-sec" restriction "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
|
ISD Suvetar
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
186
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:13:00 -
[41] - Quote
Very welcome changes, thanks so much CCP! ISD Suvetar Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
683
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:28:00 -
[42] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:If me and a corpmate are roaming in low sec and we are both outlaws, is it still possible for people to attack one of us without getting 'aggression' to the corp of the person they are attacking? It's really annoying because a small gang of little ships that cannot survive combat under sentry guns can basically be picked apart by fast lockers and cannot respond at all, with no risk at all to the neutrals who do it. For example if we're in two cruisers and one gets tackled by a condor, all he can do is go back to the gate and jump out. The other cruiser will die if it does anything, basically, and all this is no risk to the neutral guy in the frigate (unless he's really bad). Could i get a response to this question since its something we run into quite often and its really hard to deal with. Also i love these changes.. I might just walk down to CCP hq, break in and start hugging people. That's the penalty you have to live with for being an outlaw. Consequences and all that... "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
683
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:33:00 -
[43] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:Looking pretty good! Three comments: Quote:If I can legally attack the owner of a container, then I can legally take from the container. Does this mean we can finally use a tractor beam on any and all wrecks in 0.0 space? (Specifically player wrecks - it's not that easy to ask everyone in a 150 man fleet to abandon their wrecks after a battle!) I'll have to look in to this one
Abdiel Kavash wrote:Looking pretty good! Quote:Limited Engagements [snip] Let's say a corp A is passing through lowsec with a small fleet of dudes. They spot a random hauler on a gate and kill it. Now they can freely continue on their way without having to worry about gateguns or even Concord if they happen to pass through highsec (which is beyond awesome). However, let's say that a corp B intercepts them in highsec while corp A pilots still have a Suspect flag. (Corp B pilots have no flags in this scenario.) Can the fleet of corp B simply pick off targets from corp A's fleet one by one, while everyone else in corp A other than the one person being targeted can do nothing about it? 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. "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
683
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:34:00 -
[44] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote:Mizhir wrote:Sounds like a great solution, but i got a question.
If I in lowsec attacks a player, who is an illegal target for me, and I destroy his ship I will get Suspect flag and the Sentry guns will shoot me during the combat. But if I warps out and warps back again (while still under the S flag) will they resume attacking me? No. They'll always shoot Criminals on-sight for as long as the Criminal has the flag, but for other acts they will only shoot you for as long as you stay in their vicinity after whatever action gave you a Suspect flag. That seems fine ... in low-sec, shooting an illegal ship will get me a SUSPECT flag. But, shooting an illegal ship will get me a secstatus penalty, and another chart states that sentry guns will fire on anyone who receives a secstatus penalty, in highsec or lowsec. So, we get a suspect flag in lowsec for shooting an illegal ship, but sentry guns will still fire on us due to the secstatus penalty we incur. You got it! "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
690
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:41:00 -
[45] - Quote
Malcom Dax wrote:Nice blog. I have one situation that I'm curious about regarding containers and fleets when someone disconnects or leaves fleet (apologies if it has already come up - I don't have time to read the whole thread). The entry for container access legality says Quote:The existing rules for what constitutes 'legal access' to a container are the same (I am the owner of the container, I am in the corp registered to the container, I am in the fleet registered to the container, The container is Abandoned) According to this, if I am in a fleet with someone who is not in my corp (but maybe in my alliance) and they drop a can I can access it. If they then leave fleet I cannot access the can - if I do I get a suspect flag and can be shot by everyone. As I understand it, the access is based on the current situation of the owner of the can, not the situation when the can was placed in space. If the above is the case, this creates an issue where someone in fleet (who is not a member of my corp) can drop a can for me to open and then leave fleet for whatever reason. I then take from the can because it has been dropped for me and I can now get shot by everyone. Under the old system I could only be shot by the owner and their corp. This could be creatively misused to trick people into flagging themselves. In addition it creates an issue for mining fleets when someone drops a can and leaves or disconnects. The hauler/orca can no longer grab the ore in the can without being a target for everyone. Under the old system this was far less of an issue (I'm thinking alliance mining ops here) but under the new system it is. As a potential solution to this, could the 'legal access' rules be changed to reflect the situation of the owner at the time the can is created, rather than their ongoing situation. Or make alliance members have legal access too, but this seems like a weaker solution. This used to be an issue, but it got fixed over the summer as part of the first phase of the crimewatch work. Now the can is tagged with the owner, corp and fleet at the time it is jettisoned. From then on, anyone who is in the tagged corp, or in the tagged fleet, can legally access the can. What the owner does after the can is created doesn't matter any more - He can dock, jump out, log off, join another fleet, even join another corp. The can still remembers which corp/fleet it was originally assigned to and this will never change.
Notice that it says "In the fleet registered to the container" and "in the corp registered to the container". Specifically not "in the same fleet as the owner at the time you try to take from it". Your suggested potential solution is in fact exactly what I did back in the summer! "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
696
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:47:00 -
[46] - Quote
Absocold wrote:Giving light interdictors a 'W' flag just for activating an interdiction sphere launcher will make them unable to jump through a gate after doing so. Dics are supposed to be able to jump after launching a bubble as long as no one tries to warp in it, this was broken for a while and was only recently fixed, you're about to break it again. Nope. It was always intended to work this way, but never did. Then it got fixed so that it would prevent you from jumping after launching. Then it got broken again recently. "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
696
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:50:00 -
[47] - Quote
T RAYRAY wrote:Regarding the eject discussion, please ensure that it is only the Weapon flag that prevents eject. If the PVP flag prevents eject it will be used the grief people caught at belts by perma-pointing a ship until downtime, the pointed pilot could not eject but would be bound to the ship even while logged off until DT kicks off the tackler. Confirming that ONLY the Weapon flag will impose restrictions on ejecting. "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
700
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:58:00 -
[48] - Quote
Tippia wrote:@-áCCP Masterplan
In regards to the T3 SP loss situation, could you care to comment on the thinking and on the possibility (or downsides) of a solution to that change in mechanics. I made a short remark on it earlier but it was kind of buried in a different post.
Right now, you list GÇ£WeaponsGÇ¥-flagging as causing a 60-second inability to dock, jump, abandon ship (by ejecting or storing the ship), and board ships (be it in space or from a corp hangar) unless it's done from a capsule. This is to remove the whole GÇ£ship-swapping to avoid destructionGÇ¥, I presume, and the capsule exception is hidden behind the rule that makes it impossible to enter a capsule without being destroyed?
What if you adjusted the weapons-flagging rules so that: -+ It does not have that capsule exception: in other words, you cannot board ships while you have a weapons flag, period. -+ You are allowed to eject from (but not store) a ship while weapon-flagged. -+ Ejecting resets your weapon flag timer to the full 60 seconds. -+ Getting blown up clears your weapon flag timer to 0.
As far as I can see, this would maintain the ban on ship-swapping: you can't swap ships mid-battle GÇö yes, you can eject, but it will take 60 seconds for your weapons flag to clear out, and before that, you're not allowed to board a new ship. Have fun orbiting ye olde Orca in a pod for a minute while everyone around you is allowed to shoot you. If you are destroyed, you can board a new shipGǪ but then, that was possible under the suggested rule set as well and you have to lose a ship to get there, so this is no different than what you're proposing. If you are destroyed, you can also (almost) immediately jump through a gate or dock up, but those are still restricted by the session timer that triggers on destruction so the exploitation potential from those (re)added abilities should be minimal. Finally, this means you once again can get out of your T3 to save your SP, but you have all the weapons-flag restrictions for the next 60 seconds so the only possible thing to do is warp off and hope for the best.
Is there anything I've missed in this that would go against what your goals are? Are there any obvious loop-holes? 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? "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
700
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:03:00 -
[49] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Being a low sec outlaw isn't something you should be punished for, this is a game after all.
I'd think it would be enough that gate guns are never ever on our side rather than actively set it up so that outlaws roaming in small gangs are helpless against fast tackling neutrals..
I think there are quite enough cons against being an outlaw (with absolutely no benefits i might add,) being an outlaw is the least rewarding career choice in eve game mechanic wise. All it really does is stack the odds against you without giving you any benefit what so ever.
Being an outlaw should have an effect like gate guns not helping us for the sake of immersion and such and because it makes sense. A lot of the time however it seems like CCP are intentionally trying discourage people from going down the outlaw path instead of accepting it as a legit career path that should have its own perks/game content the same as FW or anything else instead of just having flaws and difficulties stacked upon them...... Gate guns will always be on the side of the innocent party. If a pair of -10s or suspects start fighting on a gate, the guns will happily ignore them, since neither is innocent. "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
702
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:11:00 -
[50] - Quote
Tippia wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: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? Good point. Darn. GǪunless you want to go the evil route and somehow transfer the flags to the actual ship and then onto anyone who tries to scoop it. Which is something we thought about, but want to avoid. Having to track flags per character and flags per item, and then deal with merging/splitting those is going to lead to even more bugs and exploits. "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
705
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:16:00 -
[51] - Quote
Erik Finnegan wrote:Must be quite a party to finally throw out that ancient code and replace it. From all the Q&A, the system appears to be thought through and a very good start. Each time I delete a bit of the old code that has become redundant, I do a happy dance in my chair "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
705
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:20:00 -
[52] - Quote
Dern Morrow wrote:Hi CCP!
First, I love the changes so far. I'm a 0.0 fleet PvPer, and I often fly logistics ships and interdictors. It was always tacky that we logi could sit on the gates and jump through risk-free, so I'm glad that's being fixed.
One thing I haven't seen talked about, and would like you to say something on:
Presently, you can sit on a station in your carrier and repair it. Risk free, since you can just dock if anything happens. Given that some stations have very large dock radiuses, this means we can just chill on the station no matter how many hostiles are in local and repair it up while our fleet keeps the hostiles occupied so they aren't shooting the station down.
It would be interesting to me if perhaps the Crimewatch mechanics extended to allow for flagging logistics against stations that are hurt. This would prevent the abuse above, but it would also expose carriers sitting on stations to attack -- particularly from titans and dreads who might want to come in and gamble that 60 seconds is enough to blow one of the targets up.
Thoughts? This will indeed require some thoughts. Interesting suggestion. "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
705
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:21:00 -
[53] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote:Arec Bardwin wrote:Overall, great changes!
A few questions though:
- how is the transporting of illegal goods handled? - Pods, are they legal targets if the player is criminal, suspect, LE flagged? - criminally flagged pod cannot initiate warp? Unchanged YesCriminal pods are excepted from the "can't dock/warp in high-sec" restriction Am I to read this that Suspect, LE, and Criminal players will ALL have legally-shootable pods (in the case of LE, to the players involved)? Yes. So far we've not seen a good reason why it should be any other way. "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
705
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:22:00 -
[54] - Quote
TheMaster42 wrote:PvP flag will carry between systems like all the other flags, correct? (This would be a change from the current behavior.) It sure will! (As will all your flags) "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
705
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:22:00 -
[55] - Quote
Jeas Imerius wrote:I like how this sounds so far! I have an idea of how the new 1v1 system could work though.. Call it Dueling: Right click players portrait or ship and click 'Challenge player to Duel' (must be in a ship and in space). A window pops up were both parties either accept or decline. 'Insert Name has challenged you to a Duel, do you wish to defend your honor?' If both accept, a 10 second timer begins during which time both players assume their positions (take 10 paces). After the countdown they are free to fire on each other without incurring any flags. Once a ship is destroyed the duel is over. Stop reading my email! "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
811
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 22:16:00 -
[56] - Quote
Kitsune io wrote:Greetings I may have missed a post about this or I am just pedantic. I have a concern about the wording "Targeting and offensive module against an illegal player target". Should it not read "Activating an offensive module against an illegal player target"? If one has the 'Auto target back', x targets ticked, just being targeted by another player will cause your ship to target theirs, apparently incurring the same criminal flag? Great ideas though, should ruffle a few gangster feathers Kit I've think you've misread something (since I can't find that exact quote in the blog). "Targeted offensive module" means a module that performs an offensive action against a single item that you have targeted when you activate it. (As oppose to a non-targeted offensive module such as a smartbomb) The simple act of just locking someone is never considered an offensive action.
Noslen Nosilla wrote:What happens between members of the same corp doing inter corp duels for fun? Do they get concorded? Shot at by gate guns? No penalties for shooting your own corp mates (excluding NPC corps obviously) apart from whatever consequence your corp mates will provide.
Marrano Cardosa wrote:Great job. While it doesn't make the system simple it does allow me to see clearly what consequences there are for my actions. It should make low sec fights at gates interesting.
I also like the changes to logi mechanics. No more insta-dock at station when the logi gets in trouble (and I like that even thought I do fly logi upon occasion).
But I do have one question about logi that isn't clear from either the blog or the posts I have read so far. This involves high-sec wars and neutral logi. Its clear that the neutral logi won't be able to dock at will, but will have a weapon and pvp flag that could have a timer of as long as 1 minute (for the weapon) and 15 minutes (for the pvp).
What's unclear is if and when the neutral logi become legal targets for the WTs of the ships they are aiding. Right now (or rather the last time I was involved in a high sec war which was some months ago), neutral logis only became valid targets when they had repped a ship I had already done damage to. This was less than desirable as various ships were only valid targets to a subset of the fleet (and did on at least one occasion result in Concord getting involved). Our current thinking on this is something like:
Assisting your own corp mates* in a Limited Engagement is always legally allowed (it won't be punished per se, but you'll still inherit any W/P/S/C flags they have)
But this is still something we're discussing * Excluding NPC corps, and assisting Outlaws in high-sec
Kumbu Valley wrote:To be honest, I dont expect CCP to make it easier for gankers but also that they dont make it impossible from now on. Ganking was always a part of the game (remember the days when BPO and BPC became visible within cargo scan, combined with "Yarr" by CCP). If it is not intended anymore then pls announce openly and does not leave it to the mechanics.
Secondly and more important looting wrecks needs to be possible! How the ninjas shall feed their families? Just kidding but really, what about wrecks in faction warfare, in official war declaration? What is the mechanics here? You cant go suspect with looting the wreck! Without making them blue for the aggressor/killer/war oppnent whatsoever, it is not possible to loot them anymore from what I read. That cant be the intention. Therefore I would appreciate clarification and leave it not to find out in December. Thanks. From the dev blog: "If I can legally attack the owner of a container, then I can legally take from the container." If you kill a war target (including an FW target), since you are legally allowed to attack them you are also legally allowed to take their stuff.
"This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
811
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 22:16:00 -
[57] - Quote
Komen wrote:I just want to say if I ever meet you Masterplan, I'm buying you a beer. I like the 'no logging off if you're ratting to save your ship's ass from PvP gank squads. I like the 'no ejecting if you have fired weapons to save skill points/pod' thing. Of course this means many people are going to be even more hesitant about committing to combat, but that's Eve for ya.
I'm sure we'll all adjust.
See you at Fanfest '13? "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
811
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 22:17:00 -
[58] - Quote
McDarila wrote:My big question is are wreaks containers? If so the next burn jita event will be truely epic. Not from the concord responce but from the players as they all start turning killable with out concord responce. As far as Crimewatch is concerned, yes, wrecks and containers are basically the same thing "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
811
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 22:22:00 -
[59] - Quote
Dierdra Vaal wrote:Question:
At fanfest you guys said that ship killing (but not pod killing) in low sec would only drop your sec status to -5, not -10, and that you'd change high sec so that you can still go anywhere at -5, unlike the gradual system of exclusion that currently exists. Essentially, this would allow people to be low sec pirates without locking themselves out of high sec, provided they don't podkill.
Is this still happening? (please say yes!) We planned out a large amount of changes to how sec-status is gained and lost, but unfortunately it didn't fit within the available development times for Winter. We still have all these plans ready to go, but need to the badnwidth to make it happen. That all depends on how Retribution 1.0 goes and what we decide to work on afterwards. "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
811
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 22:23:00 -
[60] - Quote
Reticle wrote:I haven't seen an answer to this yet:
Are in corp ganks still retribution-less? See 3 posts up. (Yes, except for the retribution supplied by your corpmates themselves) "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
811
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 22:24:00 -
[61] - Quote
Empress Shadowfox Ordo wrote:There's something I noticed that I wanted to ask a question about.
We've been talking about the NPC timer a lot and it's possible effects on Mission Runners. But, I've noticed that already in the game, there is a significant difference between Mission NPC's and say Belt NPC's, specifically in the Aggression timer. Right now, you can shoot at Mission NPC's with no drawbacks at all, including aggression timers. If you are shot at by a Belt NPC, then there is an aggression timer.
So, my question is pretty much this. When we're talking about the NPC flag, does this only apply to NPC's that currently would give us an Aggression timer, or does it apply to all NPC's, including Mission NPC's that currently don't give us a timer? This would solve a lot of the fears for Mission runners that sudden log offs would kill them in missions, since they wouldn't have an NPC timer from Mission NPC's, but only from any other type of NPC that would currently give an Aggression timer. As a guideline, the NPC flag will apply to anything that isn't owned by players or player corps. "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
812
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 22:38:00 -
[62] - Quote
Looks like I forgot to include the other, inverse rule, which goes something like this: Assisting a non-corp/alliance/miliitia-mate with a PVP flag would get you a Suspect flag Again, this one is still under discussion "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
812
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 22:41:00 -
[63] - Quote
Salpun wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote:Dierdra Vaal wrote:Question:
At fanfest you guys said that ship killing (but not pod killing) in low sec would only drop your sec status to -5, not -10, and that you'd change high sec so that you can still go anywhere at -5, unlike the gradual system of exclusion that currently exists. Essentially, this would allow people to be low sec pirates without locking themselves out of high sec, provided they don't podkill.
Is this still happening? (please say yes!) We planned out a large amount of changes to how sec-status is gained and lost, but unfortunately it didn't fit within the available development times for Winter. We still have all these plans ready to go, but need to the badnwidth to make it happen. That all depends on how Retribution 1.0 goes and what we decide to work on afterwards. So none of it got in? It was tweeted or posted some where that the -5 sec status was in. Just asking for clearification. Correct. The front-loaded penalties for illegal aggression will still be happening, but the big shake-up won't be. Where did you see anything mentioned otherwise? Did it have a big "plans are subject to change" disclaimer? "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
813
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 10:28:00 -
[64] - Quote
Bubanni wrote:you should try to make it happen soon after the expansion then... also, I wanted to know if everyone gets on the killmail if a target is shot at on one side of a gate, but killed on the other side by a different player... (asked twice now without answere... player B shoots player A in on gate... and player A jumps out and gets killed by player C... does player B also get on the killmail then?) This is something I'd like to do, but has technical implications. If I can make it work, I will, but no promises. "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
815
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 17:57:00 -
[65] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:Shandir wrote:Oh - question:
I don't see a way to do it, but under these new rules, is there ANY way to extend/reset another player's timer while they're not present or docked? Or can you only affect your own?
Because unexpected timer-extension is bad. If you can find a way to do this, then I've missed something. You speak the truth about surprise-timers being bad Someone was asking me for more details about this. By "If you can find a way to do this..." I meant in the proposed new system, not the old one. I'm well aware of certain current issues on TQ, but these aren't easily fixable under the old code. With the new flagging rules, I'm aiming to eliminate this happening altogether.
Another player should only be able to modify your timers by interacting with your own piloted ship, nothing else. "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
815
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 18:32:00 -
[66] - Quote
Zandalar Catari wrote:so is it true that in Retribution that if someone is out mining and has to kill some belt rats for survival sake, that they will get this stupid flag that let's anyone and their mother's brother come kill them??? and if they do manage to find a station to sit in they won't be able to dock at it until the damned timer expires anyway... that...I can't even find the words to describe how ridiculous this is going to get. Hi there. You appear to have missed the very first post in this thread and the dev blog that it links to.
"This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
823
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 10:29:00 -
[67] - Quote
Che Biko wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote:Assisting a non-corp/alliance/miliitia-mate with a PVP flag would get you a Suspect flag Again, this one is still under discussion Ah, so is that why my "question" about the possibility of extending LEs to the assisting player was not answered yet? Can I assume then that it's technicaly feasable and could be implemented without too much work If we start propating LEs, we basically end up back with the old aggression-graph, where assisting a single target can end up flagging you to an un-knowable set of people. That is what we're trying to avoid with the flag system. "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
823
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 10:31:00 -
[68] - Quote
Singulis Pacifica wrote:After reading some answers by Masterplan, namely: CCP Masterplan wrote:Looks like I forgot to include the other, inverse rule, which goes something like this: Assisting a non-corp/alliance/miliitia-mate with a PVP flag would get you a Suspect flag Again, this one is still under discussion I found myself confused. This is not what it says here: Please note: "targetted assistance against a player with a PVP flag" The flag the assistor would get is the one the assistee has: the pvp flag. This will not add a suspect flag to the assistor, provided he does not have one to begin with (as that would mean he could erase his suspect flag by assisting a player that just has a pvp or weapons flag) So as example. Player A (in a dessie) attacks Player B (in a Skiff) with both being wardecced with each other (neither is a suspect, criminal, or outlaw) Player A gets a weapons and PVP flag. B has no weapons so he just gets a PVP flag (assuming he doesn't have combat drones with him). It takes A time to truly destroy B. However, player C (who is in an NPC corp) is also found in the asteroid belt and decides to aid player B by repping him. This gives C a PvP flag, but nothing else. C commits no crime, there is no LE between A and B, thus C will not get a suspect flag. This is not the same as what is mentioned in the quote by Masterplan. The main problem with the forums like this is that, because of the enormous amount of feedback any regulation that is originally described becomes a blur. Players answer questions of others and some answer corrrectly, others do not. I am not blaming anyone, but now even Masterplan contradicts himself here, adding to the confusion. From what I understand about the blog, a suspect flag to a new player that supports another (through modules or drones) is only given if : The assistee already has a suspect flag. or The assistee has an LE with someone else. The task for CCP is to make sure that if players engage in an LE, a specific icon needs to be created to identify that supporting this player will result in being flagged as a suspect. Please be aware that we're evolving the design based on internal developments, and external feedback (such as this thread). This is exactly why I have to put a disclaimer on every post that these rules are subject to changes and additions. "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
823
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 10:36:00 -
[69] - Quote
Etribas Taranogas wrote:Not trying to accuse anyone of ducking the question, but I've seen it asked multiple times with no DEV response (although I've seen multiple responses from players, with both answers).
When I get an NPC flag, which should last for 15 minutes from the last shot fired, will a ship still "safety warp" 100,000 km from the current spot after a period of time? Specifically when missioning, will non-permatank ships all be destroyed by the in-mission rats, regardless of whether we are scanned down or not? Or will our "safety warp" location be scannable by other players.
I can't say I have a problem with still being visible to scanners, as that is expected, and does avoid the logoff exploit for avoiding PvP. But if a risk-averse, L4 mission runner is going to start losing multiple ships to rats due to poor internet connection, I'm not sure what their new outlet will be. Will losses due to disconnect (that don't involve another player) be petitionable, then?
Also, what if you have drones out on Aggressive? Although they shouldn't keep the NPC flag past the server timeout (i.e., the server recognizes you as disconnected), has this been confirmed?
One person mentioned that the timer might be reduced below 15 minutes. Any possible truth to that? If you are not warp-scrambled, your ship will always attempt to do a 1-million km emergency-warp if you disconnect (outside of a forcefield). It will then wait out any log-off timers at this position. Whilst here, you can be scanned down as normal. Having nothing but an NPC flag at the moment you log-off will keep you in space for a non-extendible 15 minutes. (Numbers subject to change) "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
823
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 10:41:00 -
[70] - Quote
Echo Mande wrote:Why should setting off a smartbomb in highsec, even if nothing gets hit, net you a suspect flag?
There are actually legitimate uses for smartbombs in PVE situations. Scraping close-orbitting NPC frigs off your battleship rather than waiting for your drones to do it comes to mind.
Also, please make the icon area used for crimewatch moveable like the target icons are. Not everyone wants these icons in the top left of the screen. Activating a smartbomb only gives you a Weapons flag. It is only when your smart bomb hits another player that other flags can be triggered. "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
836
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 16:39:00 -
[71] - Quote
We've been reviewing the feedback since we released the crimewatch dev blog (all 53 pages and counting), and now have planned some revisions that I'll outline below:
Interdictor bubbles: We've looked at the concerns about Weapons flags excessively penalising Interdictor pilots, and also about flags potentially propagating intel that is otherwise not available. With these in mind, the following alterations are planned:
The act of launching a Warp Disrupt Probe from an Interdictor will not give any flags.
If someone CURRENTLY INSIDE a dictor bubble attempts to warp then: * Both the (failed) warper and the bubble owner will get a PVP flag * The bubble owner will get a Weapons flag.
When someone's incoming warp is altered by a bubble at the destination, no flaggings will occur.
This should allow dictor pilots to more easily keep moving with their fleet. It also prevents free intel via flaggings when someone starts a warp to a distant bubble from the other side of the system.
NPC and PVP timers: Firstly I want to emphasise the following will remain unchanged: If a player disconnects from the game, his ship will make an attempt to perform an emergency warp. This warp will be prevented by the regular forms of disruption as normal. The presence of any flag will not prevent this emergency warp from being attempted. There was some confusion about this, so I wanted to make sure everyone is clear this was never planned to change. If you disconnect whilst engaging NPCs, your ship will still make a single attempt to e-warp as normal at the moment of disconnect, provided you aren't tackled.
With that out of the way, here are the updated changes/clarifications: * NPC flag timeout will be lowered to 5 minutes. NPC flags are not further extended after log-off. * PVP flags CAN be created and further extended after log-off even if the owner did not have a PVP flag at the time of disconnect.. If Char A logs off in space (with or without a PVP flag), and then char B attacks A, then A will get a PVP flag. Char A's ship will then remain in space for as long as that PVP flag exists. These changes should ensure that unavoidable disconnects (eg caused by network problems) aren't massively penalising, whilst ensuring that manually killing the client to avoid PVP is never a viable strategy. * We are adding a 'Safe Log-off' ability, where you can go through the process of removing your ship from space BEFORE closing the client, rather than after. This will let you confirm that your ship is truly hidden, by getting it to a safe location and then going through a timer. Before anyone panics about this become the new ALT-F4 to avoid combat or that we're making the game too safe, this does come with a number of restrictions. For example, the timer cannot be started whilst you have modules running, have incoming/outgoing target locks, have a Weapons/PVP flag, are in a fleet, etc. Should any of these required conditions change whilst the timer is running, it will be aborted. We'll be putting a dev blog out with more details on this feature in the near future.
Please keep the constructive feedback coming! "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
838
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 17:09:00 -
[72] - Quote
Grideris wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: ... * We are adding a 'Safe Log-off' ability, where you can go through the process of removing your ship from space BEFORE closing the client, rather than after. This will let you confirm that your ship is truly hidden, by getting it to a safe location and then going through a timer. Before anyone panics about this become the new ALT-F4 to avoid combat or that we're making the game too safe, this does come with a number of restrictions. For example, the timer cannot be started whilst you have modules running, have incoming/outgoing target locks, have a Weapons/PVP flag, are in a fleet, etc. Should any of these required conditions change whilst the timer is running, it will be aborted. We'll be putting a dev blog out with more details on this feature in the near future.
Please keep the constructive feedback coming!
For safe logoff, what effect does a gate cloak have, if any? (Cloaking isn't specifically listed as preventing the timer) Yes, you won't be able to initiate Safe Log-off whilst under gate cloak. (Edited my post to include this) "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
851
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 00:27:00 -
[73] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:I may just be reading it wrong, but I don't think it specifically says that you can inherit a PvP flag while sitting in space with your PvE timer running. I want to believe that you can, but who knows! If you can apply PvP flags to people who DCed under PvE flags, then :toot: there's nothing to fix there. That's certainly what it sounds like it's saying to me: 1) NPC flag timeout is 5 minutes, non-extendable. 2) PVP flag can be created after logoff and; 3) extended after logoff. So if a ratter logs off with an NPC flag, that's active for 5 minutes, during which time their ship sits there (1). During that 5 minutes, someone can come along and apply a PVP flag to their ship (2). They don't even have to have an optimal ship for the task, because the PVP flag can be extended--it counts from the last shot fired in either direction. So if you want, you can plink at the ratting ship with the covops frigate you happened to be flying in order to give the ship a PVP flag, and then either call in reinforcements or reship to something with more DPS. You have 15 minutes, after all. If reinforcements don't come within 15 minutes, plink at the ship again to extend the timer. This is correct. You'll get a PVP flag for attacking another player or having another player attack your ship (even if you've logged off, but the ship hasn't yet been removed from space). Having an NPC flag at the time of disconnect simply means you'll hang around in space for a little longer, giving someone more time to find you and attack you, which then gives you a PVP flag,.
This part is on Duality right now btw, so you should head over there and test it for yourselves to see how it behaves. "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
851
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 14:25:00 -
[74] - Quote
The build on Duality is several days old already. I made the 5 minute NPC and PVP flag change a few days ago, so it definitely exists, but not yet in the public build. "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
869
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 00:13:00 -
[75] - Quote
Iwant Urstuff wrote:The progammers CCP hires are just that programmers. They write code, they probably for the most part do not understand games.
Just two things:
PVE players specifically mission runners are going to HATE this. Some will hate it enough to quit the game. Less accounts equals less dollars.
I can't wait till the roaming fleets in null sec after this encounter gate rats. Gate rats are now the invincible GODS of the PVP world of EVE. This is freaking hilarious. Confirming that my main wasn't born around the time of EVE's first ever expansion, that I never attended any fanfests as a player, that I have never set a 4AM alarm clock just so I could switch a vital skill before the skill queue existed, that I never spent an entire weekend making instas for my corp before WTZ, that I never enjoyed life as a pirate or that I've ever ratted myself back up from -10, that I was never involved in 'legitimate' banking and investment schemes, that I've never driven hundreds of miles just to attend a player meet, that I never bought the original boxed version of EVE in a games store 9 years ago, that I never spent hours sniping at a POS in a tempest before dreadnoughts had been conceived, that I never missed on out winning two T2 BPOs at once because I was working away from home for a few weeks without the ability to log in and the agents then decided to give them to someone else instead because I didn't respond to their 'I've had a breakthrough' memos in time.
Nope, I definitely didn't do any of this before CCP hired me. And I'm definitely not still bitter about those agent offers. "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
877
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 18:17:00 -
[76] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Gneeznow wrote:If the sec hit is front loaded, does that mean each time I attack someone in low sec, I get the full -2% ~ sec hit (the one you get now for 'ganking' someone who doesn't fire back at you) instead of the roughly 10x smaller sec hit you get when they fire back at you?
Also with killirights, someone now gets killrights on you if you attack their SHIP in low sec? Excellent question about the sec hits.... CCP needs to answer that....
The way this works is that for as long as you have a criminal/suspect timer, or are in a limited engagement, the system will remember which offenses you have been punished for. Once your criminal/suspect timer has cleared and you are no longer in any limited engagements, this record is cleared, and you will once again incur sec-status punishments. The memory tracks who you've offended against, and the level of the offense (ship vs pod). Repeating an offense - ie attacking the same person, perhaps after your guns have reloaded or you've chased him to another location - will not incur a repeated sec-hit.
The history is also passed across jumps, so if you attack someone in one system (and suffer a sec hit), then jump through a gate and attack him again (as long as your timers haven't expired), then you'll be able to continue fighting the same target in a different without another sec hit.
Attacking a pod is a more severe offense than attacking a ship, so you'll still get two sec hits if you shoot his ship and then his pod.
Make sense? "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
892
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 13:32:00 -
[77] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:CCP Masterplan: There are still several key points brought up in this thread that should be addressed: 1.) Reducing the unflagged despawn timer from 60 seconds to about 15 seconds. 60 seconds is enough time to scan down a ship and aggress them, giving them a PvP flag and allowing everyone to gank them. A major caveat to this, the despawn timer should NOT start until your ship attempts it's emergency warp. Otherwise capital ships can despawn in warp. Link to a thorough post on it. 2.) The "Assisting a non-corp/alliance/miliitia-mate with a PVP flag would get you a Suspect flag" comment is wonderful, but extremely problematic. Example 1: I can warp a noobship into an incursion and GCC it on a BS (ideally one with sleeper aggro). This will give that BS a PvP flag, leaving his OOC logies in a difficult position: Rep that BS and gain a suspect flag (opening them up to a gank), or let it die. Example 2: Imagine a freighter with a logi escort. When suicide ganking the freighter, the logi's are in a conundrum: If they rep the freighter, they go suspect meaning my backup can gank them. Have you thought about changing it from PvP flag to a weapons flag? 3.) The "Assisting your own corp mates* in a Limited Engagement is always legally allowed (it won't be punished per se, but you'll still inherit any W/P/S/C flags they have)" generates untouchable logistics ships. Essentially, if Pilot A attacks a suspect B, it reads like Pilot A can have his corp mates come rep him.... and really sounds like Suspect B will NOT gain any permissions to legally attack those logis. Am I missing something, or is this how you intend it? 1) Using Safe-Logoff (dev blog coming shortly with more details) should let you get your ship out of space quicker than disconnecting, AND let you keep an eye on dscan for incoming probes/attackers in case you need to get to another (safer) spot
2) This has been modified: Assisting a non-corpmate with a PVP flag who is at war will get you a Suspect flag
3) This has been changed: Assisting anyone who is in an LE will get you a Suspect flag if the other parties in the LE can't already shoot you back. "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
897
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 13:12:00 -
[78] - Quote
Dultas wrote:Looked though and didn't see anything about this but if you go suspect on a station in lowsec now the guns will shoot you, that is expected. However if you dock up and undock they will resume shooting you. Is that expected behavior, is docking up treated differently than simply warping off and the guns don't continue to shoot you when you get back. Seems like both of those actions should result in the guns not shooting you on your return. This is a defect and I'm fixing it at the moment. Docking and undocking should indeed clear your sentry aggro. "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
903
|
Posted - 2012.11.29 10:52:00 -
[79] - Quote
It's not really redundant. We've removed the penalties for assisting an outlaw outside of PVP combat. (On TQ it would give you a GCC right now). But if the outlaw does something bad (and so gets a Suspect flag), only at that point does anyone assisting him also get a penalty (inheriting the Suspect flag) "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
1030
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 17:37:00 -
[80] - Quote
The 5 minute length is somewhat designed around exactly that. It should be long enough to give people time to chase each other down, get in range, and initiate a fight, but not too long that you can shut someone down for too long by camping them.
Remember that the countdown is restarted every time one party attacks the other, so as long as you're fighting each other somewhat frequently, the LE can last almost as long as you like.
(And if your 1v1s are timing out too easily, remember that next week we're adding a duel challenge, so you can set up an LE as easy as starting a convo) "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
1030
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 16:05:00 -
[81] - Quote
No, you don't understand this correctly. Each LE is between exactly two people. One person can be in multiple LEs. Entering in to a duel with someone means that ONLY that person gets rights to attack you (Of course anyone else who could normally attack you anyway like corpmates, wartargets etc is not unaffected by this) "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
|
|
|