Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 [44]:: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 81 post(s) |
Rutger Gist
Lords of Larceny
2
|
Posted - 2012.12.24 13:53:00 -
[1291] - Quote
Hope to get a Dev response on this...
1. Since Crimewatch, stealing from a yellow wreck gives a "Suspect" flag, but no security standing penalty. Working as intended?
2. Tthe problem with the system of having everyone able to attack a "Suspect" is that no one does. This is because they know that they too will be "Suspect" flagged and open to attack from everyone.
Solution: If I steal from individual / corp owned wreck "ABC", only individuals from ABC can attack me. Addtionally, there could be a skill book (Social) "Deputized" that would allow a capsuleer to freely attack anyone with a negative standing in High Sec space. However, the deputized skill book can not be used by anyone who has a negative standing themselves.
Level 1: Deputized in Systems 10.0 - 9.0
Level 2: Deputized in Systems 8.0
Level 3: Deputized in Systems 7.0
Level 4. Deputized in Systems 6.0
Level 5: Deputized in Systems 5.0
This way the supposed, more experienced deputies would patrol the lower security status systems.
3. We need more opportunities for crime in EVE (in general) and in High Sec more specifically.
Solutions: Advanced Hacking and Smuggling
Advanced Hacking would allow the user to unlock secured containers. Levels would match up with the size of the container (ie. Level 1 = Small secured Container, etc.)
Smuggling.... In every system there are drugs or dog tags or other commodities that are banned.
1. Create a system where these items can be sold in exchange for LPs in certain NPC faction corporations.
2. Add smuggling as an offense to the Crimewatch system (Suspect Flagged)
3. Add skill books and modules for Hiding Contraband and Detecting Contraband.
4. Allow those with Deputized Skill to also seek out Suspect Flagged Smugglers.
In the end, what I'm hoping for is a return to EVE, that sense that EVE is a cold, harsh place. I'm not calling for a return of the Hi Sec suicide ganker, I'm asking for a return for some of the criminal activity (and the creation of a new one) that will create a new element of play style and freedom.
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
869
|
Posted - 2012.12.24 14:25:00 -
[1292] - Quote
Rutger Gist wrote:2. Tthe problem with the system of having everyone able to attack a "Suspect" is that no one does. This is because they know that they too will be "Suspect" flagged and open to attack from everyone.
Nope. They're entered into a limited engagement with the suspect, so the suspect can fight back. But it doesn't open up the attacker to any other aggression.
FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities.As well as mysql and CSV/XLS conversions of the Static Data Extract. |
mossbit
Strategic Fighters Association Moose Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 15:03:00 -
[1293] - Quote
Are there any plans to increase the Limited Engagement timer (15 minutes p;ease)? As it stands 5 minutes is barely enough time to switch ships and warp back. |
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
1030
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 17:37:00 -
[1294] - 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 |
|
Bloodpetal
Sal's Waste Management and Pod Disposal The Mockers AO
1188
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 17:44:00 -
[1295] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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)
I find the LE timer is too short for me as a -10.
If someone shoots me, and I need to jump system and recoup and come to the fight, the timer expires and they have the initiative once again.
I think 1-2 minutes extra would greatly help the LE timer be what it needs to be without becoming detrimental to game play.
Keep in mind, by the time you disengage from a fight, you have 1-2 minutes to warp away and get docked or whatever. So you have 3 minutes to get back in the fight.
I find I always want an extra 1-2 minutes to get the fight going again with the LE timer. Where I am. |
mossbit
Strategic Fighters Association Moose Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 18:04:00 -
[1296] - Quote
1-2 minutes would be enough I think... I'm not saying let us camp but the timer should allow for enough time for example to switch system and ship and get back in time. 15 minutes was a bit long but 10 minutes would be about right :)
Eve pvp is largely based around advantages and the LE timer should really allow for a reversal to happen. |
Juniorama
State War Academy Caldari State
58
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 16:00:00 -
[1297] - Quote
So, if I understand this correctly, I can have an LE with 20 of my friends. Invite some random person to a dual and he will be none the wiser of the 20 other people he will be entering into a limited engagement with if he chooses to accept.
Sounds like a great way to have risk free "consensual" pvp. |
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
1030
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 16:05:00 -
[1298] - 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 |
|
Jiska Ensa
Unour Heavy Industries
132
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 23:26:00 -
[1299] - Quote
So, about this issue where a pirate attacks a neutral in low-sec, and the neutral doens't shoot back, and then another neutral remote-reps him and takes the suspect flag....
And for that matter, neutrals attacking suspects in low-sec can't be repped by logi withotu logi taking Suspect as well...
Working as intended? |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
704
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 13:42:00 -
[1300] - Quote
Concur that the 5 minute timer is too short, it should be longer, preferably equal in length to the 15 minute suspect flag, as it was before.
Once it was to explained to the DEVs why not allowing suspects to shoot back as a seriously bad idea, the proposed LE was advertised at a standard '15 minute' length, and that seemed fair.
Why was it changed to 5 minutes at the last minute?
Reminds me of the bait and switch they did with the miner buff, originally going way over the top - created an outcry and threadnaughts, pretended to backtrack a bit - but then just went with the original plan anyway, and we can see what a smashing 'success' that was. Yes, I'm being sarcastic.
Makes me wonder why they bother even asking for input in the first place, other than for appearances.
Is Masterplan seriously shedding public tears for the players who choose an LE by shooting at a suspect? Because they might have to wait a WHOLE fifteen minutes to avoid the consequences of engaging that suspect? Shouldn't engaging a suspect have a consequence as well?
Orca swaps were removed by PVP timers, forcing 'ninjas' to disengage and reship. Giving them 5 minutes to get a new ship, and run through up to 5 gates? (assuming the target doesn't simply dock up, as usual.)
Leaving aside the fact that a suspect now engages on highly uneven ground to begin with.
Carebear coddling at its worst. Its also clear Greyscale and Masterplan put a great deal of thought into how to destroy the 'mission runner baiting' profession.
|
|
MuraSaki Siki
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 01:48:00 -
[1301] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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.
just want to clarify for the last sentence ex : A attack a suspect B at low sec, and B start fight back. Both get weapon timer, PVP timer, and LE timer between each other. when C come to rep A, C would acquire what flag that A have; weapon , pvp and LE with B. is that right?
if it is right, how the third sentences would happen?? |
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
4
|
Posted - 2013.03.08 10:02:00 -
[1302] - Quote
There seems to be a bug with remote assistance.
When engaging a blinky , In corp logistics are getting suspect flags and are opened up to attack from anyone. From the OP post this was intended online to exculate on neautral logistics.
This basically makes logistics or spider tank setups pointless , You cant attack suspect flagged characters without opening yourself up to attack from the whole system. |
Leucy Kerastase
650BN
14
|
Posted - 2013.03.12 15:52:00 -
[1303] - Quote
Is there any up-to-date comprehensive document on Crimewatch? The Blog and its chart are already outdated :( |
mossbit
Aliastra Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.12 16:57:00 -
[1304] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Concur that the 5 minute timer is too short, it should be longer, preferably equal in length to the 15 minute suspect flag, as it was before.
After we had to patiently explain to the DEVs why 'not allowing suspects to shoot back' was a seriously bad idea, the proposed LE compromise was advertised at a standard '15 minute' length, and that seemed fair.
Why was it changed to 5 minutes at the last minute?
Would like an answer to this question as it makes me sad :( |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 [44]:: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |