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) |
|

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 |
|

Blake Halsted
Procyon Holdings
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 14:51:00 -
[4] - Quote
First.
Cheers to the UI team. |

Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
3134
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 14:52:00 -
[5] - Quote
Woot woot! Here comes the space police! Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|

Evet Morrel
Kadavr Black Guard Shadow Cartel
67
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 14:52:00 -
[6] - Quote
second err third |

Unforgiven Storm
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
144
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 14:52:00 -
[7] - Quote
And the tears begins...  Allow us to change characters of the same account without the need to logout and put the password again. |

Kelduum Revaan
EVE University Ivy League
1893
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 14:52:00 -
[8] - Quote
<3 CrimeWatch 2.0 and Team Five-O
For those who were saying that "crimewatch will highsec even safer than it already is", they clearly didn't think through what these changes actually mean... Kelduum Revaan CEO, EVE University |
|

CCP Explorer
C C P C C P Alliance
913

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 14:53:00 -
[9] - 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+ |
|

Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
2216
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 14:54:00 -
[10] - Quote
CCP Masterplan is, as always, the best plan CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
|
|

CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
3309

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 14:54:00 -
[11] - Quote
awesome dev blog Masterplan! Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|

DJWiggles
Eve Radio Corporation
23
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 14:54:00 -
[12] - Quote
SEXY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Also i love the Concordokken video :D Live on Eve Radio Wednesdays 19:00 GMT with me & friends blabbering on about Eve and stuff-á Follow me on twitter http://twitter.com/WigglesGRN-á
|

Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate
784
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 14:55:00 -
[13] - Quote
Time will tell  |
|

CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
974

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 14:57:00 -
[14] - Quote
Diggin the pictures. Good blog! CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|

Luc Chastot
Moira. Villore Accords
29
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 14:57:00 -
[15] - Quote
Ok, my first impression was this: CCP Masterplan has the best dev name so far.
Back to reading. |

Efraya
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
125
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:00:00 -
[16] - Quote
In on the ground floor. Pleased to play in w-space. That's for sure.
WSpace; Best space. |
|

CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1831

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:02:00 -
[17] - 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 |
|

Sentient Blade
Walk It Off LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
491
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:09:00 -
[18] - Quote
1. Not sure why you get 15 minutes for ratting. Seems a bit over the top.
2. No ejection? This would prevent people from ejecting from tier 3s, guaranteed skill point loss, which it's fair to say is one of the most hated aspects of the game. Also reduces probability of pod escaping by ejecting before hull hits zero. Doesn't bode well IMO.
Everything else looks fine. |

Bienator II
madmen of the skies
946
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:10:00 -
[19] - Quote
why can't i eject when i have a weapon timer? thats was a often used strategy in low sec to safe your pod if you know that a instant locker is around you.
eject short before you explode and warp while everyone is pointing your ship.
edit: but ohterwise.. good stuff! a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105
You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |

Dierdra Vaal
Koshaku Gentlemen's Agreement
192
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:11:00 -
[20] - Quote
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?
Veto #205 * * * Director Emeritus at EVE University * * * CSM1 delegate, CSM3 chairman and CSM5 vice-chairman |
|

Mizhir
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
115
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:12:00 -
[21] - Quote
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? |

Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4975
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:12:00 -
[22] - Quote
Sentient Blade wrote:Not sure why you get 15 minutes for ratting. Seems a bit over the top.
Simple, logging off in space when a hostile enters local isn't guaranteed to save you anymore.
Will shooting structures actually gain you an aggression flag now? please leave |

Jita Bloodtear
Bloodtear Labs
163
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:13:00 -
[23] - Quote
Just to clarify... this sounds like you're giving everyone the equivalent of a pvp logout timer for ratting. Does ratting count as NPC flagged aggression? Because if so that is a terrible decision, absolutely terrible, and you should feel bad.
Can non-offensive structures gain pvp aggression as a result of people shooting them? POCOs, stations, ihub, non-gunned towers? If we shoot them will we now gain pvp aggression or npc aggression? Will players repping them gain aggression for aiding them? This is relevant to a number of situations, such as carrier docking games on a station freshly out of reinforce (preventing them from redocking for X time), or tower defenses, etc |

Mizhir
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
115
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:14:00 -
[24] - Quote
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. |
|

CCP GingerDude
84

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:16:00 -
[25] - 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 |
|

SkyMeetFire
The Rising Stars The Volition Cult
7
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:17:00 -
[26] - Quote
Well this looks to be a massive change to how logistics works, not just in highsec wars, but also in null. Goodbye station games and hello logi dying in gate fights. Seems like you won't be able to half commit for a fight. In a way that feels like a stealth nerf to armor ships though, as kiting and the ability to just run away from your target via burning or warping is sorta the domain on shield ships. Still waiting on those armor tanking changes.... |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
634

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:17:00 -
[27] - 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 |
|

Aethlyn
EVE University Ivy League
143
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:18:00 -
[28] - Quote
Really like the proposed changes, although I'd like to see some more details on the LE/assistance stuff. If you help the criminal, you get a suspect or criminal flag, okay. But why should you become attackable by everyone (not just the other party in the engagement) by helping, for example, a newbie that is being attacked/ganked by pirates? Looking for more thoughts? Read http://aethlyn.blogspot.com/ or follow me on http://twitter.com/Aethlyn. |

Onnen Mentar
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
19
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:20:00 -
[29] - Quote
Good changes overall, fixing a lot of issues.
One question remains: What about gang links? I would love to see neutral booster alts receive a suspects flag, or at the very least creating a special kind of limited engagement. |

Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4975
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:21:00 -
[30] - Quote
Aethlyn wrote:But why should you become attackable by everyone (not just the other party in the engagement) by helping, for example, a newbie that is being attacked/ganked by pirates?
A GCC event is not a limited engagement. A limited engagement is one where a suspect is engaged by another player. please leave |
|
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
634

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:22:00 -
[31] - 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 |
|

Mizhir
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
115
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:22:00 -
[32] - Quote
Aethlyn wrote:Really like the proposed changes, although I'd like to see some more details on the LE/assistance stuff. If you help the criminal, you get a suspect or criminal flag, okay. But why should you become attackable by everyone (not just the other party in the engagement) by helping, for example, a newbie that is being attacked/ganked by pirates?
If the pirate attacks the newbie (which is an illegal target for the pirate) the pirate will become flagged. Which means you are allowed to attack the pirate or help the newbie without being flagged yourself. However if you attack the pirate (or rep the newbie) the pirate may attack you due to the LE, but you will still not be attackable by everyone else. |

Simon Severasse
Los Marginales
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:24:00 -
[33] - Quote
What happens if a fleet of 5 ships attack a suspect? This counts as a LE? Would any of them get the suspect flag?  |

Burseg Sardaukar
Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance
171
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:24:00 -
[34] - Quote
OMG I love a lot about this, but I have some q's:
Do wars count as LE?
How big are the front-loaded sec hits for lowsec suspect flagging?
Is the sec status drop limited to -4.9 for non-podders as mentioned at fanfest?
Are the restrictions to hisec being lifted for people between -4.9 and -2.0 as mentioned at fanfest? Hey, as a dude that lives in lowsec, you should read my idea on how to "fix" it... in Blog format, complete with a spreadsheet! http://3xxxd.blogspot.com/2012/09/how-to-buff-lowsec.html |

Mynas Atoch
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
61
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:25:00 -
[35] - Quote
An aggression/pvp flag .. revolutionary!
Please make sure changes of state to these flags are logged .. never more should the logs show nothing. |

Mizhir
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
115
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:25:00 -
[36] - Quote
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.
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? |

Dirael Papier
Nevermined Inc
14
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:26:00 -
[37] - Quote
So for the criminal flag.
If you blow up a pod in lowsec and jump to highsec while the flag is still active, all the highsec restrictions to warping, jumping, etc. go into effect and you just sit there at the gate until Concord kills you, correct?
Can you have a criminal flag while in your pod? (Either you pod someone in lowsec and then have your ship destroyed and warp to highsec in your pod, or because Concord just blew up your ship and left you in your pod)
Will Concord pod you? (Not sure if they do already. I've never been Concorded)
Once Concord exacts Justice on a criminal, do they keep the criminal flag for the remainder of the 15 minute timer such that undocking/reshipping would cause Concord to kill them again? |

Dersen Lowery
Knavery Inc. StructureDamage
111
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:26:00 -
[38] - Quote
Generally, this looks great.
Just a possibility: What if webbing another player didn't count as weapon activation? The reason being that (just) webbing a slow-aligning ship is as much a favor as anything else. Webbing NPCs would still count as weapon activation as long as they're too stupid to take the hint and warp off. |

Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies Joint Venture Conglomerate
135
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:27:00 -
[39] - Quote
Will the charts of flags/consequences be updated and published when the final version of CW2 goes live? Fear God and Thread Nought |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
634

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:28:00 -
[40] - 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 |
|
|

Gimble Revo
Swift Wing Red Villore Accords
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:29:00 -
[41] - Quote
If I'm attacked by a pirate/war target and someone from my militia assists them, will I be penalized for killing my fellow militia member? |

Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
221
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:29:00 -
[42] - Quote
Is this the end of security status?
Also a very nice feature and a very nice dev blog - Looking forward to hear about the consequences of this we didn't hear about, however I expect most to be covered in the next dev blog...
Weapon Flag - How about "Aggression Flag" (like we call it now) or "Combat Flag"?
Pinky |

Tsubutai
The Tuskers
124
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:30:00 -
[43] - Quote
never mind, must read things more closely before posting |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
634

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:30:00 -
[44] - 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 |
|

Dirael Papier
Nevermined Inc
14
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:31:00 -
[45] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:Generally, this looks great.
Just a possibility: What if webbing another player didn't count as weapon activation? The reason being that (just) webbing a slow-aligning ship is as much a favor as anything else. Webbing NPCs would still count as weapon activation as long as they're too stupid to take the hint and warp off. Well, if there's a way to setup an LE on request such that neither player is suspect flagged (like an option in the right click menu of a character to request an LE) then that could be used to safely web someone else without becoming a suspect. |

Azrin Stella Oerndotte
The Nommo
5
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:31:00 -
[46] - Quote
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?
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. |

Kel hound
Lycosa Syndicate Surely You're Joking
19
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:32:00 -
[47] - Quote
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. |

Mizhir
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
115
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:32:00 -
[48] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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.
Ohh sweet. That was exactly what I wanted to hear. Thanks :)
|

Jita Bloodtear
Bloodtear Labs
163
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:34:00 -
[49] - Quote
"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) |

EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
302
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:35:00 -
[50] - Quote
So this expansion is called "Retribution"? Technetium Lord |
|

Jita Bloodtear
Bloodtear Labs
163
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:36:00 -
[51] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:So this expansion is called "Retribution"? Ha, retribution against ratters
"NPC Flag: This flag is activated when a player uses offensive modules against an NPC (or vice-versa). Having this flag will prevent a ship from being removed from space if the pilot logs off. This flag functions in all areas of space." |

Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4975
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:37:00 -
[52] - Quote
Jita Bloodtear wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:So this expansion is called "Retribution"? Ha, retribution against ratters "NPC Flag: This flag is activated when a player uses offensive modules against an NPC (or vice-versa). Having this flag will prevent a ship from being removed from space if the pilot logs off. This flag functions in all areas of space."
A mission runner crashes in a shiny faction BS~ please leave |

Sun Win
Lead Farmers Kill It With Fire
131
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:37:00 -
[53] - Quote
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? |

Alua Oresson
Demon-War-Lords Fatal Ascension
141
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:37:00 -
[54] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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.
Pirates everywhere just had a nerdgasm. http://pvpwannabe.blogspot.com/ |

Bienator II
madmen of the skies
946
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:38:00 -
[55] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:So this expansion is called "Retribution"? nope. don't believe your wrong intel a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105
You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |

Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4975
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:38:00 -
[56] - Quote
Sun Win wrote:So does this mean that we can no longer strategically eject to prevent skill loss from our Tech 3 cruisers blowing up?
one would hope so! please leave |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
634

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:38:00 -
[57] - 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 |
|

Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies Joint Venture Conglomerate
135
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:38:00 -
[58] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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. Thanks. Eve with accurate documentation - Eve really must be dying this time. 
How are -10 sec status guys handled in high sec?
Fear God and Thread Nought |

Unforgiven Storm
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
144
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:39:00 -
[59] - Quote
now that I read it, my comments...
1 - Ejection should be allowed even with any timer, Im thinking t3 ships, Im thinking saving my pod while everybody is looking at my ship - I used this tecnique before and should be legal, I can't remember any reason not to allow it. Why this was changed?
2 - NPC timer, I'm fine with it. I'm not fine with the time it uses. It should have a diferent time than player aggro. NPC aggro is less important than player aggro and the flag timer should reflect this fact. Do you agree?
3 - "Target offensive Module Againts Illegal Player Target (ship) -> Low-sec -> sec status penalty = yes"... do you want more people living in low sec and shooting each other more? Then change this value from "yes" to "no". This small change will shake up things positively for everybody. Allow us to change characters of the same account without the need to logout and put the password again. |

Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
1020
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:39:00 -
[60] - Quote
All we're missing now is a 'paused' local where you don't show up until you de-cloak and this will be a beautiful EVE Online. Dual Pane idea: Click!
CCP Please Implement |
|

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9711
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:40:00 -
[61] - Quote
Seems good. Limited engagements making it in is especially nice since it solves a whole slew of problems and might work as a platform for future mechanism that do the same thing. That said, I'd also like to see the clarification someone else mentioned above: does this GÇ£interfere with an LEGÇ¥ extend to wardecs as well?
My only slight eye-raise is that you've managed to create a reward scheme for PvP
CCP GingerDude wrote: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 ;( I think you might be lying to yourself hereGǪ 
Unforgiven Storm wrote:1 - Ejection should be allowed even with any timer, Im thinking t3 ships, Im thinking saving my pod while everybody is looking at my ship - I used this tecnique before and should be legal, I can't remember any reason not to allow it. Why this was changed? To plug the GÇ£switch ships to avoid destructionGÇ¥ tactic? But yes, the session timer efter an ejection might be enough to dissuade it GÇö you'd still have 20s of sitting still in a pod before you can get a new ship, which should make it a less than ideal tacticGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|

l0rd carlos
Friends Of Harassment
48
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:40:00 -
[62] - Quote
Let me get this right, repping a -10 char that has no Criminal flag will not result in gateguns shooting at you?
Also: Hurray to the end of Gatecamps with Hotswapping Orca. |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
634

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:41:00 -
[63] - 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 |
|

War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1268
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:41:00 -
[64] - Quote
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.
EDIT: Nevermind, I missed the part at the bottom about incurring a sec status penalty.
Carry on!
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |

Sheynan
Lighting the blight
71
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:41:00 -
[65] - Quote
wait.... so I can shoot everyone else in lowsec without sentry gun interference as long as I don't pod them ? |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
634

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:43:00 -
[66] - 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 |
|

Goonspiracy
Hedion University Amarr Empire
113
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:43:00 -
[67] - Quote
Are you seriously giving ratters 15 min "keep their ships in space" aggression timers? Do you not see anything wrong with this? This is a very simple question |

Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
1020
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:45:00 -
[68] - Quote
Unforgiven Storm wrote:now that I read it, my comments...
1 - Ejection should be allowed even with any timer, Im thinking t3 ships, Im thinking saving my pod while everybody is looking at my ship - I used this tecnique before and should be legal, I can't remember any reason not to allow it. Why this was changed?
2 - NPC timer, I'm fine with it. I'm not fine with the time it uses. It should have a diferent time than player aggro. NPC aggro is less important than player aggro and the flag timer should reflect this fact. Do you agree?
3 - "Target offensive Module Againts Illegal Player Target (ship) -> Low-sec -> sec status penalty = yes"... do you want more people living in low sec and shooting each other more? Then change this value from "yes" to "no". This small change will shake up things positively for everybody.
1. I agree. This also effectively nerfs ghost riding which I don't think I'm entirely a fan of as it takes some skill to master.
2. Part of the issue is people using log-off mechanics to avoid combat in null sec. My hunters and I are actually very excited about this change and I'm on board with it. 15 minutes seems like a pretty long timer but I think it's sufficient.
3. Agreed. Low sec is supposed to be the wild wild west. Podding should cause the penalty, not the initial flagging. Dual Pane idea: Click!
CCP Please Implement |

Mizhir
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
115
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:46:00 -
[69] - Quote
Sheynan wrote:wait.... so I can shoot everyone else in lowsec without sentry gun interference as long as I don't pod them ? The Sentries will shoot you during the fight and as long as you stay on grid. But if you warp out and back again you wouldn't be attacked by them. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9711
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:46:00 -
[70] - Quote
Goonspiracy wrote:Are you seriously giving ratters 15 min "keep their ships in space" aggression timers? Do you not see anything wrong with this? This is a very simple question Fit a cloak? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
|

Sentient Blade
Walk It Off LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
491
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:46:00 -
[71] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:If we didn't want to penalise T3 death, we simply wouldn't have the skillpoint-loss mechanic in the first place
Everyone knows that having to train the same skills over and over again at the expense of training other skills to open up new ships, modules etc makes for awesome gameplay. |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
634

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:46:00 -
[72] - 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 |
|

DJWiggles
Eve Radio Corporation
23
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:47:00 -
[73] - Quote
Zagdul wrote:All we're missing now is a 'paused' local where you don't show up until you de-cloak and this will be a beautiful EVE Online.
Sorry go live in W/H if you want a "paused" local the game HAS lore behind it all (high/low/null) systems have gates and are run by concord and have fluid routers that track everyone Live on Eve Radio Wednesdays 19:00 GMT with me & friends blabbering on about Eve and stuff-á Follow me on twitter http://twitter.com/WigglesGRN-á
|

Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
100
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:47:00 -
[74] - Quote
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
I really don't get why losing a 800mil ship is not enough of a penalization. |

Kel hound
Lycosa Syndicate Surely You're Joking
19
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:47:00 -
[75] - Quote
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. |

Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
1020
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:47:00 -
[76] - Quote
@Masterplan
Please release "paused" local where you don't show up until you decloak for this change...
and a pony Dual Pane idea: Click!
CCP Please Implement |

Alua Oresson
Demon-War-Lords Fatal Ascension
141
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:51:00 -
[77] - 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.
You missed the part at the bottom where doing something that results in a sec status loss will have the gate guns shoot you. If you shoot a non outlaw person then you get a sec status loss. Therefore the guns will shoot at you until you warp out. http://pvpwannabe.blogspot.com/ |

Dirael Papier
Nevermined Inc
14
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:51:00 -
[78] - 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. All of the actions that trigger a suspect flag except can stealing and assisting someone in an LE also have a sec status penalty.
When you take that sec status penalty, any gate guns that are in the area will start shooting at you until you leave. |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
634

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:51:00 -
[79] - 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 |
|

Mizhir
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
115
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:51:00 -
[80] - Quote
My fellow RVBer had a great suggestion
Quote:No kidding. I wish that ganglinks would be treated the same way... it would make a good difference in high sec. That and I would love to see all the flashy T3's start popping up in local. |
|

June Ting
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:52:00 -
[81] - Quote
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.
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?)
What about if someone jumps into a non-bubbled lowsec gatecamp, holds gatecloak, and logs off before the campers can get a pvp flag on them? Do they disappear from space within 1 minute, or can someone with *no flags* at the time they hit logoff gain a PVP flag from being hit as they're emergency warping off from their gatecloak? |

Lialem
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:53:00 -
[82] - Quote
What happens if you shoot a container (not yours) in empire and/or low sec and/or null sec space?
Also what about all those structures in missions that you are not allowed to shoot? |

DJ FunkyBacon
Eve Radio Corporation
105
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:55:00 -
[83] - Quote
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.
EDIT: Somehow I must have missed the sentence near the end about a planned substitute for the can flip fight, looking forward to seeing what that is. |

Matt Grav
Wrath of the Pea
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:56:00 -
[84] - Quote
So anything that results in a sec status loss still triggers the gate guns, but you can leave and come back and they no longer shoot (as long as you're only a suspect.) |

Bienator II
madmen of the skies
946
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:57:00 -
[85] - Quote
whats the point of having a not working eject button? a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105
You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |

War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1268
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:57:00 -
[86] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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
Thanks! I just noticed I missed that line too and editted.
Changes look great to me so far.
I do notice that interdictors can no longer bubble a gate and jump. Seems ok.
But Heavy Interdictors now have to wait for the bubble cycle to end, AND THEN finally wait for the weapons timer to end before they can jump or dock. This certainly puts them at risk for longer than before - 90 seconds guaranteed from the time you turn on the bubble. Any chance the duration of the bubble generator can be shortened? (with matching adjustment to activation cost to match)
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |

Lialem
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:57:00 -
[87] - 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.
Aside from that, I think the changes are brilliant.
You mean like a.... duel?.... maybe you want some arenas also.... maybe a battleground?.. Please no.... |

Tsubutai
The Tuskers
124
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:58:00 -
[88] - Quote
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? |

Shandir
Indigo Archive
168
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:58:00 -
[89] - Quote
1) You still have a (slightly less efficient) method of Orca-swapping in PvP.
You cannot swap while in a ship, but if your ship is destroyed, you can then swap.
Alice harasses/steals from Bob in a frigate (as before) Bob retaliates, expecting an easy kill (as before, because he's dumb) Bob destroys Alice's frigate, Alice's alt-orca warps in. Alice hotswaps to a pwn-boat. Alice applies pwn to Bob.
Not sure if this is a *problem* as such, but the no-eject, no-swap rules seem to imply CCP is trying to nerf Orca-swapping in combat. It probably shouldn't be possible while Weapon Timer is active.
2) Strategic Cruisers got nerfed with the no-eject rule - intended? EDIT: Question answered. Intended.
3) There doesn't seem to be any way to voluntarily flag yourself to another player, without flagging yourself to every player. I am all for high-sec 1v1s becoming suddenly 1vLOTS as before, but allowing any random passerby to get involved is not good - because neither party can control that, so it's not clever backstabbing, it's just random. |

Rayemmi B'tes
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:59:00 -
[90] - Quote
Mizhir wrote:My fellow RVBer had a great suggestion Quote:No kidding. I wish that ganglinks would be treated the same way... it would make a good difference in high sec. That and I would love to see all the flashy T3's start popping up in local.
+1 to shen's idea. I'm guessing other hisec entities besides RvB have the same issue, where the wardeccers get a massive advantage from their boosts, but we can't do anything about their neutral boosters.
Perhaps similar to logis, do a check like this
Pilot A is in a legion and has a neutral boosting Pilot B in a damnation.
It seems like neutral boosters should receive the same penalties as logistics (or 'assist module' using ships, as you called them) for assisting an agressed ship. |
|

tayjor
Regional Building Company
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:59:00 -
[91] - Quote
So you can steal from corp wallet and hangers with impunity, but take 1 trit from a can and the whole universe is on your ass? |

Goonspiracy
Hedion University Amarr Empire
113
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:59:00 -
[92] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Goonspiracy wrote:Are you seriously giving ratters 15 min "keep their ships in space" aggression timers? Do you not see anything wrong with this? This is a very simple question Fit a cloak? That's a brilliant way to defend your logged out ship |

DJWiggles
Eve Radio Corporation
23
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:59:00 -
[93] - 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.
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!!!!!!!!!!! Live on Eve Radio Wednesdays 19:00 GMT with me & friends blabbering on about Eve and stuff-á Follow me on twitter http://twitter.com/WigglesGRN-á
|

DJWiggles
Eve Radio Corporation
23
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:00:00 -
[94] - Quote
tayjor wrote:So you can steal from corp wallet and hangers with impunity, but take 1 trit from a can and the whole universe is on your ass?
Well you were GRANTED the roles in good faith ... space is a cold harsh place, where noone can hear you scream when the lube is cold Live on Eve Radio Wednesdays 19:00 GMT with me & friends blabbering on about Eve and stuff-á Follow me on twitter http://twitter.com/WigglesGRN-á
|

Reid Ardorei
The Scope Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:01:00 -
[95] - Quote
That would be just neato. |

Ydnari
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
124
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:01:00 -
[96] - Quote
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).
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? |

Mizhir
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
115
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:02:00 -
[97] - Quote
Lialem 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. You mean like a.... duel?.... maybe you want some arenas also.... maybe a battleground?.. Please no....
All we need is a way for 2 players to have a 1v1 in highsec without having to agress the entire universe. It wouldn't change the way EVE is, but it will just make life easier for ppl who just want to have a 1v1 with one of their friends for fun or training. |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
634

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:03:00 -
[98] - 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 |
|

Shandir
Indigo Archive
168
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:03:00 -
[99] - Quote
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. |

Sun Win
Lead Farmers Kill It With Fire
131
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:03:00 -
[100] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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
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. |
|

darmwand
Repo.
75
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:04:00 -
[101] - Quote
Nice, this sounds pretty interesting.
Quote:Illegal attacks on ships (not capsules) in low-sec only incur a Suspect flag. No CONCORD response if the attacker subsequently jumps in to high-sec.
and
Quote:Assisting an outlaw in low-sec (outside of a combat situation) will not be penalized
are my personal favourites. Thanks! darmwand Repossession Agent http://www.repo-corp.net/
Recruitment is OPEN |

Aiden Mourn
Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:04:00 -
[102] - Quote
First, a congratulations are in order for taking the time to actually address the absurd complexity of the aggression system in Eve and iron out some of the wrinkles. Granted, I myself and other like me have based a solid chunk of their entire play-style on exploiting peoples inability or refusal to understand the rules, but I can at least accept that its a messy situation that needed looking at.
That said however, I've got some major concerns about where this takes us. I understand that Eve needs to be, at a ground level, more accessible to a new player. Retention after all, means this game continues to grow and thrive. What worries me though is that the path we seem to be on now equates "accessibility" with "easiness". Historically (and I know its been said a million times), "Eve is hard", and that's actually been its draw to most people who play it. Now, that mentality might be changing as CCP ramps up for the big leagues with the DUST release, but its definitely what drew most of us to this game in the first place; lets now forget that. Eve is a harsh, cruel learning curve, and everyone really is out to get you. There are no "pvp shards" or do-overs, and when you lose your stuff, that stuff is gone, not back in your castle/dungeon/magic toadstool manor.
So why dumb it down? Sure, people should be aware of the consequences of their actions, but that's called "learning the rules", and it does not and should not involve a giant neon blinker in your face yelling "WARNING YOU ARE ABOUT TO DO SOMETHING DUMB". Eve has always been about trial and error, and learning from your mistakes. This just seems like we're diluting it down to make room for some squishy new players. What ever happened to HTFU?
Conversely, the new Crimewatch 2.0 in some ways actually makes being a fresh new player even harder. Lets look at can-flipping, which has been pretty much every budding PvPers first foray into fighting other players. In the past, feisty new guy steals from a can and either A.) kills the common-sense-deprived retriever that actually shoots back or B.) retriever runs off and comes back in a PvP ship to stomp on him. Anybody with an IQ north of 70 would typically go with B and either go get a PvP ship or more commonly, request help from another corpmate nearby. Whatever the outcome though, our feisty new guy learned a lot about fighting a real person, got his adrenaline pumping, and went out looking for more.
That, it seems, all goes out the window with CW2, because now when you steal from a can that isn't yours, everybody pretty much anywhere can now shoot at you. In our brave new world, when our new guy grabs a can, he no longer gets a 1v1 and a valuable lesson, he gets a 1v30 and says "**** this". The lesson learned here now is that large blob mentality wins, and he should probably go off and join one of the biggest null alliances in the game and join rank with thousands of others who now realize that doing anything without at least a fleet behind them is a waste of their time and ship. So much for encouraging solo and small gang work.
There are other points of the new Crimewatch that I think are a great addition to the game; the new logging off mechanics for instance, or killrights for even an attempted gank (and I say that as a suicider). But again, I hope CCP keeps in mind that we love this sandbox because it is what we make it, not because it came with pre-made sandcastles and someone to hold our hand as we play in it.
http://aidenmourn.wordpress.com/ |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9711
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:05:00 -
[103] - Quote
Goonspiracy wrote:Tippia wrote:Goonspiracy wrote:Are you seriously giving ratters 15 min "keep their ships in space" aggression timers? Do you not see anything wrong with this? This is a very simple question Fit a cloak? That's a brilliant way to defend your logged out ship No, it's a brilliant way to defend your ship wile you wait for it to be safe to log out.
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. Read under GÇ£Next time, from Five-0...GÇ¥ GÇö it looks like it's coming, and I would boldly guess that it will build on the LE mechanics. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|

Syn Fatelyng
Redanni
47
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:07:00 -
[104] - Quote
Mizhir wrote:All we need is a way for 2 players to have a 1v1 in highsec without having to agress the entire universe. It wouldn't change the way EVE is, but it will just make life easier for ppl who just want to have a 1v1 with one of their friends for fun or training. Having a World of Warcraft /duel feature is not the answer.
Holding the duel in a remote area, perhaps even in a safespot, makes far more sense in a sandbox game where you take control over existing mechanics.
|
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
634

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:07:00 -
[105] - 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 -
[106] - 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 |
|

June Ting
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:08:00 -
[107] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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. Fantastic.
CCP Masterplan wrote: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 means that if someone logs off a carrier after getting PVE aggression, I have a 15 minute DPS race timer to scan and kill them before they disappear. This seems to not actually carry out the intent of having PVE be risky if you get scanned down, as there is nothing I can do to add a PVP flag to your ship after you've logged out, and if you can survive 5 min for me to switch to a helios, scan you, plus tank my fleet for ~10 minutes, you're scot-free. Mostly an issue for big ships, not as big a deal for small ships which can be blapped easily within 10 minutes.
I still think there's an exploit here that happened to my fleet a few months ago. An orca jumped through into my lowsec gatecamp, held cloak, and logged off. We pointed him as he was about to ewarp off, but he disappeared from space 1 min later because he had no PVP aggression on him at the time he logged off, even though we had point, web, scram, and gobs of DPS being applied to him. Petition ID 2976870 if you want to read the gory details. |

l0rd carlos
Friends Of Harassment
48
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:10:00 -
[108] - Quote
Make a turnement at a remote place somewhere. Does not matter if it's high/low or 0.0 sec. There are sooooo many empty systems. Be creativ.
(And do it on a savespot.) |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
634

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:10:00 -
[109] - 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 |
|

Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
323
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:10:00 -
[110] - Quote
Goonspiracy wrote:Tippia wrote:Goonspiracy wrote:Are you seriously giving ratters 15 min "keep their ships in space" aggression timers? Do you not see anything wrong with this? This is a very simple question Fit a cloak? That's a brilliant way to defend your logged out ship
Tippia always comes up with flippiant answers that have very little basis in reality. This 15 minute NPC timer means death for any ratter who has an internet outage.
|
|

Dirael Papier
Nevermined Inc
14
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:11:00 -
[111] - Quote
So, for the low sec gate guns, warp out and back in thing,
* Player A shoots player B on a gate and becomes a suspect and takes a sec status penalty and the guns start firing. * Player A warps away, while player B decides to just sit there without doing anything. (He left to go make a sandwich or something and won't be back for a while. It's complicated.) * Player A warps back in and sits there for a bit. Nothing happens. (He's still a suspect, but the guns leave him alone and B is still AFK) * Suddenly player A starts shooting player B again, so A's suspect flag is updated and he takes another sec status hit and the gate guns go back to firing at him.
So the suspect flag will keep updating while the weapons are firing, but the sec status will only occur on module activation, right? (or at the initiation of whatever action caused the sec status hit).
And the sec status hit will occur each time an offensive module is activated on a ship, or only for the first time an offensive action is taken against another ship? Will leaving the grid and coming back in (but not doing any session changes) and resuming offensive action against the same ship count as a "first time offensive action" against that ship?
Basically, I want to know if I activate a web on a ship, I take a standings hit. If I then activate a gun on the same ship I won't take another standings hit in addition to the web one? If I break target and re-lock and start attacking again is that a separate standings hit? If I warp out and back in and resume attacking is that a separate standings hit? If no to the last question, what can stop someone from attacking someone in low sec on a gate, then warping out and back in to resume attacking without gate gun interference? |

TheBlueMonkey
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
173
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:11:00 -
[112] - Quote
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? |

Shandir
Indigo Archive
168
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:11:00 -
[113] - Quote
June Ting wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: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. Fantastic. CCP Masterplan wrote: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 means that if someone logs off a carrier after getting PVE aggression, I have a 15 minute DPS race timer to scan and kill them before they disappear. This seems to not actually carry out the intent of having PVE be risky if you get scanned down, as there is nothing I can do to add a PVP flag to your ship after you've logged out, and if you can survive 5 min for me to switch to a helios, scan you, plus tank my fleet for ~10 minutes, you're scot-free. Mostly an issue for big ships, not as big a deal for small ships which can be blapped easily within 10 minutes. I still think there's an exploit here that happened to my fleet a few months ago. An orca jumped through into my lowsec gatecamp, held cloak, and logged off. We pointed him as he was about to ewarp off, but he disappeared from space 1 min later because he had no PVP aggression on him at the time he logged off, even though we had point, web, scram, and gobs of DPS being applied to him. Petition ID 2976870 if you want to read the gory details.
Yes, there really should be a 5-30 second LogOff timer that allows a PvP flag to be created.
|

Mark726
Project Compass Holdings
78
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:11:00 -
[114] - Quote
I'll leave prognistications on the general merits to others who have far more experience with it (anyone who knows me knows that I'm a carebear at heart). However, I'm in help chat enough to know that there's no particularly easy to mutually agree to a 1v1 or some such in high sec (dropping one piece of ammo and stealing from each other seems to be going by the wayside under the proposed changes). Are there any plans to implement an ability for pilots (either 1v1 or in larger numbers) to duel without invoking the broader criminal flags and/or CONCORD in high sec (or, to a lesser extent, low sec/null sec)? Did I miss something in the dev blog? Author, [url]http://evetravel.wordpress.com/[/url] Author, [url]http://freebooted.blogspot.com/p/fiction.html[/url] |

DJWiggles
Eve Radio Corporation
23
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:12:00 -
[115] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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!
PICS OR GTFO Live on Eve Radio Wednesdays 19:00 GMT with me & friends blabbering on about Eve and stuff-á Follow me on twitter http://twitter.com/WigglesGRN-á
|

Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
683
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:12:00 -
[116] - Quote
Might have been asked already, but if I have an NPC flag, activate a cloak module, and then log off, will the cloak remain active until the ship disappears the same way it does now? Nothing Found |

The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal Dec Shield
231
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:13:00 -
[117] - Quote
What was the rationale behind the 15 min logout timer for NPC aggression? Burn Highsec Griefers |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
634

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:13:00 -
[118] - 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 |
|

DJWiggles
Eve Radio Corporation
23
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:14:00 -
[119] - 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?
Ninja salvaging is NOT affected ... salvage is FFA Live on Eve Radio Wednesdays 19:00 GMT with me & friends blabbering on about Eve and stuff-á Follow me on twitter http://twitter.com/WigglesGRN-á
|

DJ FunkyBacon
Eve Radio Corporation
105
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:14:00 -
[120] - Quote
Lialem 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. You mean like a.... duel?.... maybe you want some arenas also.... maybe a battleground?.. Please no....
Not asking for anything we don't have already. |
|
|

ISD TYPE40
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1428

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:14:00 -
[121] - 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 |
|

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9711
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:15:00 -
[122] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:This 15 minute NPC timer means death for any ratter who has an internet outage. You can't balance a game around the assumption that people have awful ISPs because that only ever opens the door for new and fun exploits. If you have an outage, do what you would normally do: get back online ASAP. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|

Alx Warlord
Security Task Force
171
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:15:00 -
[123] - Quote
Awesome job Team Five-0 !!!! o7
Although I still think that salvage should have the same rules as taking things from other people cans... Since it takes parts from the loot. Only because it have "no value" it doesn't means that it is not a crime. You can get arrested in RL for stealing a coin... [Discussion] - New POS system ( Construction Block Built - Starbasecraft) <<< Please CCP read this! |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
637

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:15:00 -
[124] - 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 -
[125] - 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 |
|

Mizhir
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
115
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:18:00 -
[126] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Tippia always comes up with flippiant answers that have very little basis in reality. This 15 minute NPC timer means death for any ratter who has an internet outage.
If I remember correctly ships will warp out to a "safe area" if you disconnect, unless you are already pointed. |

Aiden Mourn
Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:18:00 -
[127] - 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?
Though I applaud you for saying so ( ), in fairness, ninja salvaging has always been a gray area fringe profession (more-so than even can-flipping to be honest), and will move forward with this in some form or another. The real nerfs to the profession came more than a year ago with loot drop and salvage price dives, and the community has and will continue to find creative new ways of ruining someones day regardless. I'm honestly not too worried about the effect his may or may not have on ninja-ing as a profession, because if anything, it blows the doors wide open for conflict escalation and tom-foolery. Again though, you're right with can-flipping; without a sizable backup fleet with logi support, this is effectively dead as a new player "profession". http://aidenmourn.wordpress.com/ |
|

Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
4954
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:21:00 -
[128] - Quote
There's a Crime, now let's watch it!
|
|

Tetsel
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:22:00 -
[129] - Quote
Mother Amamake is pleased you tested the new Crimewatch at her place. Now her peacfull Orcas will be burned to death in a giant sacrifice fest !  Twitter:-á-á-á-á@EVE_Tetsel-á-á-á@HereticArmy |

Alx Warlord
Security Task Force
171
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:22:00 -
[130] - 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
As long as you have assisted drones on someone, and he commands atack, you will atack its target too. And if he have a LE against the targed and you not, you will get surprize "Concorded" [Discussion] - New POS system ( Construction Block Built - Starbasecraft) <<< Please CCP read this! |
|

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9711
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:22:00 -
[131] - Quote
TheBlueMonkey wrote:So you're killing off ninja salvaging and can flipping as a professions how is that not dumbing things down? Ninja salvaging isn't touched in any way, and can flipping gets a nice two-way increase in stakes GÇö as the flipper, you are now a free-for-all target, but if he manages to fall for it and steal things back, then so is he.
GǪnow the safety system, on the other handGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|

Aiden Mourn
Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:23:00 -
[132] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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.
"For bad" here being, "the loss of substantial skillpoints". True, ejecting from a ship as a means of escaping cause and effect and consequences to your actions is in the long-game, bad. But ejecting from a T3 to escape the SP loss still has (had?) its consequences, namely leaving behind a 500mil+ ship. I understand that there are obviously exploits to be looked at with this, but I feel like the choice should be there for a pilot to commit to either losing SP or ISK, especially in the case of piloting a T3 which tends to be heavy on both sides of that coin. http://aidenmourn.wordpress.com/ |

TheBlueMonkey
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
173
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:24:00 -
[133] - Quote
ISD TYPE40 wrote: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.
Gah, ninja lootytooty then, I always lump them into the same box because If you've scanned down a mission runner and have been salvaging his wrecks and spot a xmil mod (fair bit for a new player) might as well take it, that now opens you up for universal agression?
so, new players suffer.
It's also gimped the whole dualing thing that so many honor bound 1 vs 1ers go for.
It's definitely a step, I'm just not sure where to and I'm not buying the dev back patting that's going on around here. |

Ydnari
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
124
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:25:00 -
[134] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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. Quote: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? 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.
Alrighty then, look forward to the details on that.
The rest of the changes look good to me  |

Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Ev0ke
358
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:26:00 -
[135] - Quote
itt: good news !
now we only need an improved limited engagement system that allows a group of pirate players to fight a group of police players that engages only one of them
|

Jita Bloodtear
Bloodtear Labs
163
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:27:00 -
[136] - Quote
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?
|

Tarsas Phage
Freight Club
96
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:27:00 -
[137] - Quote
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? |

Sheynan
Lighting the blight
71
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:30:00 -
[138] - Quote
Aiden Mourn wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: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. "For bad" here being, "the loss of substantial skillpoints". True, ejecting from a ship as a means of escaping cause and effect and consequences to your actions is in the long-game, bad. But ejecting from a T3 to escape the SP loss still has (had?) its consequences, namely leaving behind a 500mil+ ship. I understand that there are obviously exploits to be looked at with this, but I feel like the choice should be there for a pilot to commit to either losing SP or ISK, especially in the case of piloting a T3 which tends to be heavy on both sides of that coin.
Maybe, but people were exploiting this all day long by ejecting and immediately scooping up the ejected ship with another one... |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
640

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:33:00 -
[139] - 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 |
|

Odin Shadow
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:33:00 -
[140] - Quote
so, i disconect in a mission. say i cant get back in for a short while. now when i do get back in, ill be in a pod if my ship was scrammed, didnt warp off, didnt tank and just sat there dying? |
|
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
642

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:34:00 -
[141] - 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 |
|

Rayemmi B'tes
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:34:00 -
[142] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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
Oh, sweet. More dead supers is always a good thing. What, like 2 die every week? Hopefully that number'll go up. |

Rayemmi B'tes
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:35:00 -
[143] - Quote
Masterplan, any comment on our bit about offgrid boosters getting agression? |

Sento Tor
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:36:00 -
[144] - Quote
So, now when you flip a can or do whatever to get a suspect flag you'll be shootable by everyone and their dog in highsec. But the person that shoots you while you're a suspect doesn't get a suspect flag in return that makes him shootable by everyone, am I correct? Well, since you've removed the A-B flagging for those situations, I think it would be only fair that whoever attacks a suspect also gets a suspect flag and is shootable by all. After all, the suspect is not a 'criminal' (presumption of innocence and all that) and therefore a person that shoots a suspect should become a suspect as well, since a law abiding citizen of New Eden would not shoot on suspect since he has not been proven guilty. This while 'everyone can shoot the suspect' thing is the major critique I have of the new CW system. IT seems to me that it's essentially a dumbing down of whole aggression mechanics. |

Nomistrav
High Flyers RED.OverLord
90
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:36:00 -
[145] - Quote
Has then been any thought to changing the system so that Smuggling of illegal goods in a particular faction's space is viable?
- If CONCORD/Faction scans you down and finds illegal goods
Are there any Suspect/Criminal flags given to the Smuggler when he/she is scanned and illegal goods are found?
Are Customs Scans still going to be nigh-impossible to avoid?
If not, where on the road-map are features planned to get past Customs Scans?
If Smuggler is a Suspect - do they still get hit with fine/standings loss while potentially being shot at by other players?
Does the Sec Status penalty brought on from having illegal goods trigger Sentry Guns in high-sec, as stated in the chart?
Does the Smuggler still retain a Suspect/Criminal flag - if any - if he jettisons his/her cargo?
|

Aiden Mourn
Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:37:00 -
[146] - Quote
Sheynan wrote:Aiden Mourn wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: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. "For bad" here being, "the loss of substantial skillpoints". True, ejecting from a ship as a means of escaping cause and effect and consequences to your actions is in the long-game, bad. But ejecting from a T3 to escape the SP loss still has (had?) its consequences, namely leaving behind a 500mil+ ship. I understand that there are obviously exploits to be looked at with this, but I feel like the choice should be there for a pilot to commit to either losing SP or ISK, especially in the case of piloting a T3 which tends to be heavy on both sides of that coin. Maybe, but people were exploiting this all day long by ejecting and immediately scooping up the ejected ship with another one...
True (trust me ), but further CW2 rules dictate no more storing ships in another ship while aggressed, though I suppose that goes hand-in-hand with the "no ejecting" part.
http://aidenmourn.wordpress.com/ |

Shandir
Indigo Archive
169
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:38:00 -
[147] - Quote
Nomistrav wrote:Has then been any thought to changing the system so that Smuggling of illegal goods in a particular faction's space is viable?
- If CONCORD/Faction scans you down and finds illegal goods
Are there any Suspect/Criminal flags given to the Smuggler when he/she is scanned and illegal goods are found?
Are Customs Scans still going to be nigh-impossible to avoid?
If not, where on the road-map are features planned to get past Customs Scans?
If Smuggler is a Suspect - do they still get hit with fine/standings loss while potentially being shot at by other players?
Does the Sec Status penalty brought on from having illegal goods trigger Sentry Guns in high-sec, as stated in the chart?
Does the Smuggler still retain a Suspect/Criminal flag - if any - if he jettisons his/her cargo?
They could pretty easily implement this just by giving a suspect flag and letting the players deal with it. |

Optimo Sebiestor
The Society Calyxes
26
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:38:00 -
[148] - Quote
Imo, without a option to create 1v1's or team vs team, this crimewatch fails.. |

DJ FunkyBacon
Eve Radio Corporation
108
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:40:00 -
[149] - Quote
CCP Masterplan 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. 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 happen (even if it has to wait until a .1 patch)
I'd like to say "you don't know how happy that makes me" but I suspect you do, so I'll just say "Thanks!" |

War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1269
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:41:00 -
[150] - Quote
June Ting wrote:This means that if someone logs off a carrier after getting PVE aggression, I have a 15 minute DPS race timer to scan and kill them before they disappear. This seems to not actually carry out the intent of having PVE be risky if you get scanned down, as there is nothing I can do to add a PVP flag to your ship after you've logged out, and if you can survive 5 min for me to switch to a helios, scan you, plus tank my fleet for ~10 minutes, you're scot-free. Mostly an issue for big ships, not as big a deal for small ships which can be blapped easily within 10 minutes.
This part ought to clear that situation up. If you shoot at the logged out pilot you scanned down, they will get a PVP Flag:
CCP Masterplan's Devblog wrote:PVP Flag: This flag is activated when one player uses offensive modules against another. 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. Having this flag will prevent a ship from being removed from space if the pilot logs off. This flag functions in all areas of space.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
|

Nomistrav
High Flyers RED.OverLord
90
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:41:00 -
[151] - Quote
Shandir wrote:
They could pretty easily implement this just by giving a suspect flag and letting the players deal with it.
Agree'd - but with the current system you'd get hit by Suspect flag -every single time- you entered a high-sec system with illegal goods. A new player running a mission could potentially pick up some Strippers and go into Amarr space without even knowing what they were doing and get murdered by a bunch of Vet players. |

Aiden Mourn
Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:41:00 -
[152] - Quote
Rayemmi B'tes wrote:Masterplan, any comment on our bit about offgrid boosters getting agression?
Shhhhh!!
The first rule of off-grid boosting club is....
http://aidenmourn.wordpress.com/ |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
642

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:42:00 -
[153] - 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 |
|

June Ting
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:42:00 -
[154] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:June Ting wrote:This means that if someone logs off a carrier after getting PVE aggression, I have a 15 minute DPS race timer to scan and kill them before they disappear. This seems to not actually carry out the intent of having PVE be risky if you get scanned down, as there is nothing I can do to add a PVP flag to your ship after you've logged out, and if you can survive 5 min for me to switch to a helios, scan you, plus tank my fleet for ~10 minutes, you're scot-free. Mostly an issue for big ships, not as big a deal for small ships which can be blapped easily within 10 minutes. This part ought to clear that situation up. If you shoot at the logged out pilot you scanned down, they will get a PVP Flag: CCP Masterplan's Devblog wrote:PVP Flag: This flag is activated when one player uses offensive modules against another. 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. Having this flag will prevent a ship from being removed from space if the pilot logs off. This flag functions in all areas of space. Contradicted by the "a logged out player cannot have *new* flags applied to them, only extensions of old flags applied before they logged out" mentioned above, hence the request for clarification.
CCP Masterplan wrote: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) |

War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1269
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:43:00 -
[155] - Quote
Optimo Sebiestor wrote:Imo, without a option to create 1v1's or team vs team, this crimewatch fails..
"We're also working on a replacement for the usage of loot-theft as a way to initiate consensual 1v1s without incurring criminal penalties that we hope to release for Winter. Keep an eye out for an announcement about when these changes will become available for public testing."
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |

Dirael Papier
Nevermined Inc
14
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:44:00 -
[156] - Quote
Nomistrav wrote:Has then been any thought to changing the system so that Smuggling of illegal goods in a particular faction's space is viable? You know what would be kind of neat for smuggling? Every time customs officials scan you and notice illegal goods in your cargo you suspect timer is reset (so back to the full 15 minutes. Or just being in high sec with illegal goods has your suspect flag set to the maximum time until the illegal goods are gone, at which point the flag starts counting down) but there's no sec status hit or fee. If it all goes well you can smuggle along happily without any issue, but your open to free attack from anyone that wants free stuff. |

Rayemmi B'tes
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:44:00 -
[157] - Quote
Aiden Mourn wrote:Rayemmi B'tes wrote:Masterplan, any comment on our bit about offgrid boosters getting agression? Shhhhh!! The first rule of off-grid boosting club is....
Death to the offgrid boosters in pvp! Someone actually found a couple when we got wardec'd last time...our solution was alpha nados I believe :P can't find the killmail, but it would be nice to be able to kill our enemies' booster without a concordokken.
And MP, thanks for the response. However, boosting should be considered an 'assist module' in the same way that a repper is. They do just as much, if not more, harm to the enemy fleet by augmenting their own in a vast way. |

Odin Shadow
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:45:00 -
[158] - Quote
so ill ask again.
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? |

Nomistrav
High Flyers RED.OverLord
90
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:45:00 -
[159] - Quote
Dirael Papier wrote:Nomistrav wrote:Has then been any thought to changing the system so that Smuggling of illegal goods in a particular faction's space is viable? You know what would be kind of neat for smuggling? Every time customs officials scan you and notice illegal goods in your cargo you suspect timer is reset (so back to the full 15 minutes. Or just being in high sec with illegal goods has your suspect flag set to the maximum time until the illegal goods are gone, at which point the flag starts counting down) but there's no sec status hit or fee. If it all goes well you can smuggle along happily without any issue, but your open to free attack from anyone that wants free stuff.
Would be pretty cool - I'd fit a Cov Ops cloak on my T3 and be a -very- successful smuggler of my Booster Manufacture ^_^
It's SO HARD finding buyers!!! |

Rayemmi B'tes
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:47:00 -
[160] - Quote
Odin Shadow wrote:so ill ask again.
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?
That's what happens when you D/C while scrammed now, if I'm not mistaken. So nothing changing there. |
|

War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1269
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:47:00 -
[161] - Quote
June Ting wrote:War Kitten wrote:June Ting wrote:This means that if someone logs off a carrier after getting PVE aggression, I have a 15 minute DPS race timer to scan and kill them before they disappear. This seems to not actually carry out the intent of having PVE be risky if you get scanned down, as there is nothing I can do to add a PVP flag to your ship after you've logged out, and if you can survive 5 min for me to switch to a helios, scan you, plus tank my fleet for ~10 minutes, you're scot-free. Mostly an issue for big ships, not as big a deal for small ships which can be blapped easily within 10 minutes. This part ought to clear that situation up. If you shoot at the logged out pilot you scanned down, they will get a PVP Flag: CCP Masterplan's Devblog wrote:PVP Flag: This flag is activated when one player uses offensive modules against another. 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. Having this flag will prevent a ship from being removed from space if the pilot logs off. This flag functions in all areas of space. Contradicted by the "a logged out player cannot have *new* flags applied to them, only extensions of old flags applied before they logged out" mentioned above, hence the request for clarification. CCP Masterplan wrote: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)
Ahh, good point. I missed that part.
I agree, not being able to create the PVP flag kinda sucks and brings back the old logoffski shenanigans.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |

Aiden Mourn
Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:47:00 -
[162] - Quote
Odin Shadow wrote:so ill ask again.
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?
As I understand it, correct. However, if you're scrammed by NPCs and D/C, thats the way it works now as well. http://aidenmourn.wordpress.com/ |

Odin Shadow
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:48:00 -
[163] - Quote
Rayemmi B'tes wrote:Odin Shadow wrote:so ill ask again.
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? That's what happens when you D/C while scrammed now, if I'm not mistaken. So nothing changing there.
nah, currently you vanish after 30 sec's, might be 60. but you do vanish |

Dirael Papier
Nevermined Inc
14
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:48:00 -
[164] - Quote
Nomistrav wrote:Shandir wrote:
They could pretty easily implement this just by giving a suspect flag and letting the players deal with it.
Agree'd - but with the current system you'd get hit by Suspect flag -every single time- you entered a high-sec system with illegal goods. A new player running a mission could potentially pick up some Strippers and go into Amarr space without even knowing what they were doing and get murdered by a bunch of Vet players. Well, there will also be the safety switch, so a new player shouldn't be able to put the illegal goods in their cargo at all unless they turned the safety off.
[EDIT] Unless they picked the illegal goods up outside of highsec |

Rayemmi B'tes
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:49:00 -
[165] - Quote
Odin Shadow wrote:Rayemmi B'tes wrote:Odin Shadow wrote:so ill ask again.
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? That's what happens when you D/C while scrammed now, if I'm not mistaken. So nothing changing there. nah, currently you vanish after 30 sec's
Ah, good to know. Thanks for the heads up. I guess we've just killed people too fast before they D/C  |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9711
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:49:00 -
[166] - Quote
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. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|

Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
687
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:49:00 -
[167] - Quote
Odin Shadow wrote:so ill ask again.
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?
No. you ewarp as usual.
You then sit at your ewarp point till the timer runs out and you disapear FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/
Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities. |

Durzel
The Xenodus Initiative.
68
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:50:00 -
[168] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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 If I understand this correctly gate camps will then be possible in near glass cannon ships because a pirate can just warp to an off grid (but still very close) TAC from the gate and back again, and effectively be reset? |

Jita Bloodtear
Bloodtear Labs
163
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:50:00 -
[169] - Quote
What's the reason for giving 15 min logout timers to ships with npc aggression?
What reason did you guys feel compelled to change all player structure shoots to pvp aggression when armed pvp structures already cause pvp aggression? |

Dirael Papier
Nevermined Inc
14
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:50:00 -
[170] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Odin Shadow wrote:so ill ask again.
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? No. you ewarp as usual. You then sit at your ewarp point till the timer runs out and you disapear What about when there are scramming frigates in the mission? Do those stop scramming when you d/c? |
|

Odin Shadow
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:51:00 -
[171] - Quote
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? |

Steven Hackett
Lead Farmers Kill It With Fire
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:51:00 -
[172] - Quote
I can see why one might want to penalize T3 losses with skillloss.. After all, EVE is not about PVP, but about ratting and RMT'ing the isk.. right? 
Anyway.. I see why ejecting before a T3 loss is not the way it should be.. But.. Removing ejecting also removes the dynamic small scale PVP.. Ex. preventing me from switching ship mid fight from my carrier friend to counter whatever just entered grid.. I see this as a big loss tbh. And i believe a Mastermind could find a better solution to his needs for punishing PVP'ers who risk the isk ;b
Edit: also, i presume the 1min no-jump timer still doesn't count for w-space right? :) If that is not the case, I might need to dig out the pitchfork ;b |
|

CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1831

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:52:00 -
[173] - 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 |
|

Jita Bloodtear
Bloodtear Labs
163
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:52:00 -
[174] - Quote
Odin Shadow wrote:so ill ask again.
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? No, your interpretation is 100% correct from what I've read. Your ship will just sit there with the rats for 15 mins and die |

Dirael Papier
Nevermined Inc
14
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:52:00 -
[175] - 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? The NPC timer doesn't update after you've logged off. So it'll countdown for 15 minutes and then end. |

Odin Shadow
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:53:00 -
[176] - Quote
Dirael Papier wrote: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? The NPC timer doesn't update after you've logged off. So it'll countdown for 15 minutes and then end.
or you die |

Nalha Saldana
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
315
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:54:00 -
[177] - Quote
So if I understood this correctly suicide ganking will be nerfed quite hard because there is no way to scoop the loot without getting a suspect flag. |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
653

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:54:00 -
[178] - 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 |
|

Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
234
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:56:00 -
[179] - Quote
So sentries, can they see the whole grid or just their lock range (150km?)? If you bounce an or offgrid bookmark and come back, will they have stopped shooting you until you trigger them via aggression again, even if it took less than 60s to warp off and back? |

Odin Shadow
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:56:00 -
[180] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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.
but if say i can not get back on. my ship will just sit there and die right? is that intended? |
|

Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
323
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:56:00 -
[181] - Quote
Odin Shadow wrote:Rayemmi B'tes wrote:Odin Shadow wrote:so ill ask again.
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? That's what happens when you D/C while scrammed now, if I'm not mistaken. So nothing changing there. nah, currently you vanish after 30 sec's, might be 60. but you do vanish
Hey, don't worry, this is all part of the plan. Just sit back and enjoy the ride.
Can't wait until some Saturday afternoon and CCP has an internet disconnect at their end(who am I kidding, the CCP network connectivity is bulletproof, right?), and 1000 PvE ships get melted in one shot, and CCP says "AI working as designed, next time make sure you have a completely passive tank that can withstand 15 minutes of pounding". |

Karl Planck
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
263
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:57:00 -
[182] - Quote
Nalha Saldana wrote:So if I understood this correctly suicide ganking will be nerfed quite hard because there is no way to scoop the loot without getting a suspect flag.
rofl, freighter ganks will be HILARIOUS if this is like you paint it.
Low-sec Best-sec |

Durzel
The Xenodus Initiative.
68
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:58:00 -
[183] - Quote
Nalha Saldana wrote:So if I understood this correctly suicide ganking will be nerfed quite hard because there is no way to scoop the loot without getting a suspect flag. Not in a freighter at any rate, nor anywhere busy.
Undecided whether this is "good" or not, since the gank victim can't do anything anyway (they're in a pod) and unless they have an escort (really, who actually does this?) then the neutral scooper is untouchable. |

June Ting
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:58:00 -
[184] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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. Please re-think this, or wait until the player successfully makes ewarp before stopping further application of flags. Otherwise any lowsec camp can be evaded trivially if a ship can tank for 30 seconds-1 minute simply by holding cloak and logging off before breaking cloak. |

Durzel
The Xenodus Initiative.
68
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:00:00 -
[185] - Quote
Daneel Trevize wrote:So sentries, can they see the whole grid or just their lock range (150km?)? If you bounce an or offgrid bookmark and come back, will they have stopped shooting you until you trigger them via aggression again, even if it took less than 60s to warp off and back? From what's been said off-grid certainly, so you could warp off gate and back again in <60 secs in any reasonably fast ship. Dunno if you could warp to an on grid tac (so sentries lose lock) and be safe or not? Does the reseting happen on entering warp, or being invisible to the sentries? |

Durzel
The Xenodus Initiative.
68
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:01:00 -
[186] - Quote
June Ting wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: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. Please re-think this, or wait until the player successfully makes ewarp before stopping further application of flags. Otherwise any lowsec camp can be evaded trivially if a ship can tank for 30 seconds-1 minute simply by holding cloak and logging off before breaking cloak. This is nothing new. What you describe is and has always been the case. |

Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate
784
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:02:00 -
[187] - Quote
That means if someone uses a cargo scaner on a frighter looking for a target for his friends he gets a suspect flag and can be shoot by anyone... hell yea  |

ORCACommander
Obsidian Firelance Technologies
10
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:04:00 -
[188] - Quote
great plan but i want to see individual flagging vs fleet and vs corp. There should be safety in numbers too. if someone is dumb enough to agro a member of an incursion fleet he should expect the incursion fleet to rain hell down on upon his ship without concordokken or penalty to the fleet. |

Palovana
Inner Fire Inc.
299
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:04:00 -
[189] - Quote
Since I haven't seen anyone bring this up...
How will the Overview be changed to display all of the possible valid targets?
Will I be able to differentiate between how Suspects, Criminals, War Targets and Militia Targets are displayed? Please support: export of settings in editable format
Your stuff goes here. |

TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
53
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:06:00 -
[190] - Quote
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).
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. |
|

Mynas Atoch
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
63
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:07:00 -
[191] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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
Have your operations team been able to give you metrics on the stability of your customer base under PvP conditions, to give you some feel for how many of your customers are going to be affected negatively by this?
Are you considering changing your reimbursement rules to take into account the huge spike in demand through your petition system for customers who lose ships, sometimes VERY expensive ships worth hundreds if not thousands of euros (as CCPs own marketing often boasts) due to internet issues combined with your change in aggression mechanics?
In other words, have you done a proper change analysis including effects outside simply the codebase, or is this just some coders thinking this will be cool without looking at the secondary effects and their deleterious impact on customer and community relations? |
|

CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1831

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:08:00 -
[192] - 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 |
|

Karl Planck
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
264
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:10:00 -
[193] - Quote
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.
Edit: reading comprehension trained to lvl1  Low-sec Best-sec |

Aiden Mourn
Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
7
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:11:00 -
[194] - Quote
Durzel wrote:Nalha Saldana wrote:So if I understood this correctly suicide ganking will be nerfed quite hard because there is no way to scoop the loot without getting a suspect flag. Not in a freighter at any rate, nor anywhere busy. Undecided whether this is "good" or not, since the gank victim can't do anything anyway (they're in a pod) and unless they have an escort (really, who actually does this?) then the neutral scooper is untouchable.
Though wouldn't that "neutral scooper" now become a suspect to the entire game for effectively "stealing" from the original owner? Remind me to bring popcorn and a lawnchair to Uedama on expansion day. http://aidenmourn.wordpress.com/ |

TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
53
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:11:00 -
[195] - Quote
Oh another question I have is this:
Are you guys going to fix Sanctum constellation in Genesis? Currently if you get aggressed by a police NPC for being outlaw there you get concorded.
A few years back it was possible to petition losses there, and you guys said it was a bug you'd fix, but recently you have changed the policy and claim that it's not broken, and only reimburse one ship lost there per character. |
|

CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1831

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:12:00 -
[196] - 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 |
|

TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
53
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:13:00 -
[197] - Quote
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. |

Ugleb
Masuat'aa Matari Ushra'Khan
235
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:13:00 -
[198] - Quote
Quote:After losing a ship and entering a capsule, players will still be restricted from docking/jumping for up to a minute (if they have an active Weapons flag).
Sounds like more pods are going to die. http://uglebsjournal.wordpress.com/
To contact [-MM-] or [UNITY]: http://www.masuataa.co.uk/defaul1t.asp - channel "Masuat'aa Public" http://www.ushrakhan.com/ - channel "Voices U'K" |

Alx Warlord
Security Task Force
171
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:14:00 -
[199] - Quote
When the new POS system comes, that will have no forcefield, will the "docking flag game" be aplied? I mean, if you get out of your POS and shot someone near it, will you be able to dock like reentering the "forcefield" ???? [Discussion] - New POS system ( Construction Block Built - Starbasecraft) <<< Please CCP read this! |

Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
119
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:14:00 -
[200] - Quote
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 |
|
|

CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1835

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:14:00 -
[201] - 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 |
|

Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
1017
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:16:00 -
[202] - Quote
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? http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |

Jaangel
Cloak and Badgers
12
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:17:00 -
[203] - Quote
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.
|

Sheynan
Lighting the blight
71
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:18:00 -
[204] - Quote
Ugleb wrote:Quote:After losing a ship and entering a capsule, players will still be restricted from docking/jumping for up to a minute (if they have an active Weapons flag). Sounds like more pods are going to die.
the quoted statement is not a change to the current mechanics... |

Sulindra
Ananke Astrodynamics Terran Commonwealth
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:19:00 -
[205] - Quote
Forgive me if this has been asked already, but to me it sounds like can flipping will be no more based on what I read.
Quote: but we are adding one additional rule: If I can legally attack the owner of a container, then I can legally take from the container.
So Player X is mining, Player Y takes from the can and puts it in their own. Player X is free to take it back without incurring a flag? |

ShatterSparkz
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:21:00 -
[206] - Quote
NPC Flag: This flag is activated when a player uses offensive modules against an NPC (or vice-versa). Having this flag will prevent a ship from being removed from space if the pilot logs off. This flag functions in all areas of space.
This could be one of the most effective tools in the anti-botting war yet.
I think a 15min timer might be a bit extreme, but I approve of making people put more ~effort~ into playing this game |
|

CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1835

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:22:00 -
[207] - 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 |
|

Jaangel
Cloak and Badgers
14
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:25:00 -
[208] - Quote
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.
I may have just fell in love with these changes |

Lolmer
Yahoo Inc Caffeine Nicotine and Hate
39
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:29:00 -
[209] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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.
QFT from OP.
Also, ejecting should never be disallowed for any reason.
"Oh, hey, yeah your ship is on fire and your crew has jumped offboard, but you gotta go down with your ship regardless of what you want."
Horrible idea, not just for the Strategic Cruiser pilots. This should be our choice, not yours, whether we fight it out 'till the end or eject, leaving our precious ship (faction, Strategic Cruiser, whatever) behind to possibly be claimed by the attackers if they stop shooting in time.
Make the ship unable to be scooped if it's locked (just as one cannot board a ship while a target lock is on it) to avoid the eject -> scoop -> new ship scenario. Plus, have a person with a PvP flag (or Weapon flag, whatever) unable to board a ship, so if they eject, they're now just in a pod for the duration of their timer. :)
Win-win, without the sucky enforcement of when I can, or can not, eject from my own ship.
For what it's worth, I like most of all the other changes (except the global flag for can-flipping, but you're working on alternates for that, so...) presented in this blog post. |

Burseg Sardaukar
Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance
172
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:29:00 -
[210] - Quote
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? Hey, as a dude that lives in lowsec, you should read my idea on how to "fix" it... in Blog format, complete with a spreadsheet! http://3xxxd.blogspot.com/2012/09/how-to-buff-lowsec.html |
|
|

CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1838

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:32:00 -
[211] - 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 |
|

Midnight Hope
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
42
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:32:00 -
[212] - Quote
How are we going to see everybody else flags? New icons? Can we have a pretty pic please? |

Emmy Mnemonic
Entropy Extension Soldiers Of New Eve
10
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:33:00 -
[213] - Quote
I just came home from work, I'm tired and exhausted and fed up by the advanced and complicated rules/regulations/procedures in my trade of work, really looking forward to some mindeless pewpew. But had a quick glance at the dev blogs first.
..and so I came to read this...
Really CCP...gimme a break! ;-) Thats to advanced, I dont have the energy atm!
Guess I'll stay in nullsec where all this about agression and flagging (hopefully) will continue to be very easy to understand! Just shoot the other guy before he shoots you. Simple. Straight forward. No bitching.
|

Burseg Sardaukar
Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance
172
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:35:00 -
[214] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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.
And its frontloaded? So instead of shooting a guy, waiting for him to shoot back, then killing him to get an aggression-level hit, I'm going to take a -2.5% change or so regardless?
Somewhat more hesitant about these changes... unless you guys make it so you can't go below -5 without podding Hey, as a dude that lives in lowsec, you should read my idea on how to "fix" it... in Blog format, complete with a spreadsheet! http://3xxxd.blogspot.com/2012/09/how-to-buff-lowsec.html |

scimichar
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:36:00 -
[215] - Quote
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? |

Salpad
Carebears with Attitude
49
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:39:00 -
[216] - Quote
I just want to know how long those flags last. You seem to want some types to last 15 minutes. That's fine, but what about the rest?
|

Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
102
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:39:00 -
[217] - Quote
The only glaring issue with the current setup is that pods should be able to eject from a ship whenever, not ever being prevented. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9719
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:41:00 -
[218] - Quote
Salpad wrote:I just want to know how long those flags last. You seem to want some types to last 15 minutes. That's fine, but what about the rest? What others are you thinking of?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|

War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1274
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:43:00 -
[219] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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.
I thought logoffski tricks were fixed by being able to scan out a ship and point it before it disappeared, thus applying the 15 minute PVP timer. This is going away now?
Now a ship with no flags can jump a gate in lowsec, logoff before they decloak, and be safely gone in 60 seconds? That should bring up some old tears again. You have to be able to prevent that e-warp *and* kill it within 60 seconds.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |

Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
632
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:44:00 -
[220] - Quote
This is a bit confusing. As for me - I'm not a schemer, I'm like a dog chasing a car. |
|

Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
103
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:45:00 -
[221] - Quote
One thing I am wondering about, if you get GCC in low sec for shooting a pod, and gate guns start shooting you, do the gate guns get a 15 min aggression timer? If not, does that mean if my GCC finishes its countdown on a gate, the guns will stop shooting? Or does it mean that the days of landing on gate with 1 minute left on GCC will not make me get shot by gate guns for another 14 minutes after my GCC is gone? |

VonKolroth
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
7
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:45:00 -
[222] - Quote
Sentient Blade wrote:1. Not sure why you get 15 minutes for ratting. Seems a bit over the top.
2. No ejection? This would prevent people from ejecting from tier 3s, guaranteed skill point loss, which it's fair to say is one of the most hated aspects of the game. Also reduces probability of pod escaping by ejecting before hull hits zero. Doesn't bode well IMO.
Everything else looks fine.
1.) Learn 2 cloak/dock/POS | Short of being awoxed, you really have to just not pay attention to get caught ratting or missioning. On the off chance a gang that actually has a good prober comes into a ratting system or a missioning hub full of ships, you should have a plan prepared for how you're going to deal with those circumstances. It's not anywhere near difficult, unless you feel entitled to not pay attention to what you're doing in the game at the time.
2.) The point of the skill loss was to introduce the risk SP loss to flying T3's. If they took a long time to train I could see a justification for complaints on this one, but as it stands it takes less than a week to train a Level 5 in a subsystem skill. |

War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1274
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:46:00 -
[223] - Quote
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.
I think someone else asked this earlier, but I haven't seen the answer:
If you shoot at someone at a gate in lowsec, warp off grid before he dies (point is held by your cohort), and you warp back on grid, and then proceed to shoot the original target some more, do you :
a) Get another sec status hit, and gain new sentry aggro? b) Get no further sec hit, sentries ignore you? c) Get no further sec hit, sentries shoot at you anyway because they witnessed a sec status type action?
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |

mkint
891
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:48:00 -
[224] - Quote
Does Anyone else just want to not log on for a month after this goes live until ccp works out all the game-breaking bugs? Let all the nooblets who don't follow the news and blogs sacrifice their ships first. Maxim 34: If you're leaving scorch-marks, you need a bigger gun. |

Arec Bardwin
756
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:48:00 -
[225] - Quote
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?
|

Aliventi
Southern Cross Trilogy Flying Dangerous
8
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:49:00 -
[226] - Quote
No moar disappearing Chimera!
Thank you! Dec. 8 can't come soon enough! |

PinkKnife
L F C Ethereal Dawn
228
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:54:00 -
[227] - Quote
THANK YOU.
Death to Drakes and Tengues Online!
Also, Death to strategically logging off. I can't believe everyone's internet is that bad, and strangely enough only when they are ratting do they experience such unusual internet latency issues. 
+1 to all of crime watch. +1 to removing logging off as a valid strategy to avoid being caught with your pants down. Learn to be paranoid and smart, or lose your isk. |

MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
142
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:58:00 -
[228] - Quote
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.
Is this as simple as warping away and warping back to the gate? Can you warp to a 150+ perch spot on the gate where it cant shoot you to work as well? |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
666

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 17:58:00 -
[229] - 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 -
[230] - 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 |
|
|

TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
54
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:01:00 -
[231] - Quote
I think you guys should do what I said, especially about sanctum constellation. Fix it or make it so outlaws can't jump in or something. |

June Ting
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:01:00 -
[232] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: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. I thought logoffski tricks were fixed by being able to scan out a ship and point it before it disappeared, thus applying the 15 minute PVP timer. This is going away now? Now a ship with no flags can jump a gate in lowsec, logoff before they decloak, and be safely gone in 60 seconds? That should bring up some old tears again. You have to be able to prevent that e-warp *and* kill it within 60 seconds. What Durzel said is true -- this is *currently* a mechanic that is valid (yes, I petitioned it, and was told working as intended), but I personally think it should be considered an exploit, and made non-viable with the release of CrimeWatch. If they're tightening the "gatecrash to another system and log" cheat-y behavior to make it non-viable, they should also be tightening this. |

Odin Shadow
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:02:00 -
[233] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:Also, Death to strategically logging off. I can't believe everyone's internet is that bad, and strangely enough only when they are ratting do they experience such unusual internet latency issues. 
what about the times ccp's network goes down or the random isp drops people get. while i agree with not letting peeps get away from pvp'ing by logging off, letting tham die in missions because a lone NPC frig is scramming them seams a little bit daft tbh all missioners will now only be able to make sure they dont die to disconnects if they are in a +20min cap stable, high dps tanking ship. narrowing the ships people use is not a good thing. |

Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
908
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:02:00 -
[234] - Quote
When do gate guns get involved in Low Sec?
That's not addressed. Since GCC isn't activated, I'm not clear on that.
EDIT ::
What about the logistics repair timers? Are those synched up? Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
666

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:03:00 -
[235] - 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 |
|

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
2484
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:04:00 -
[236] - Quote
I can hardly wait for the outcry from all of the botters ratting in Null when they realize the old "someone comes into local = log off immediately" tactic won't work anymore. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |

MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
142
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:08:00 -
[237] - Quote
After thinking things over I was really unsure if I was going to like the new Crimewatch system. For the most part I think you guys hit it spot on. Will need to test it though. Also I cant wait to see the tricks people come up with to get around the rules. |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
667

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:09:00 -
[238] - 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 |
|

Unforgiven Storm
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
146
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:09:00 -
[239] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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.
Im sorry, but when two navy boats are fighting in the sea and one is loosing the capitan of the losing ship has always the option to say "abandon ship" in the middle of the fight. Same principle applies here, why I cant abandon a ship that is "sinking" and try to save myself (my pod)?
You still didn't manage to explain why this needs to change! What is the main purpose of this change other than, "because I want it"? explain this change too me, what is the purpose, what people and this game gains by changing this? Allow us to change characters of the same account without the need to logout and put the password again. |

Ripard Teg
Selective Pressure Rote Kapelle
34
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:10:00 -
[240] - Quote
Quote: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.
So wait. Does this mean I can ridiculously over-tank a ship, load a PLEX into it, undock from Jita, wait to be cargo scanned and for a Thrasher to shoot at me, dock back up, repeat 50-odd times...
...and as long as they were all different Thrashers, I'll check my character sheet to find that I now have 50 kill-rights?
I'm liking this plan. Jester's Trek: wherein I ramble about EVE Online, gaming, and from time to time... life. |
|

Kaildoth
Generic Corp.
10
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:10:00 -
[241] - Quote
CCP Masterplan 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. 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 happen (even if it has to wait until a .1 patch)
Yea good job, start copying the failed pvp systems of other games, just to do ..... a contest....., completely ignoring what system made your game famous. You start with duels, then we get instanced pvp and all those failed systems, i hope you are just joking, else you really gonna see your subs dropping. |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
667

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:11:00 -
[242] - 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 |
|

John Henke
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:13:00 -
[243] - Quote
I think you should really reconsider the length of the NPC-timer. One thing is if you log off by yourself. You should know what you are doing. But if you have a disconnect because the CCP server have shut down or the internet provider has a problem, you are going to loose the ship. Active tanked ships, which use their boosters only if needed, wont have a chance to survive a 15 minute NPC-timer (e.g. in AE-bonusstage, last room of pirat scarlet). |

PinkKnife
L F C Ethereal Dawn
231
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:15:00 -
[244] - Quote
John Henke wrote:I think you should really reconsider the length of the NPC-timer. One thing is if you log off by yourself. You should know what you are doing. But if you have a disconnect because the CCP server have shut down or the internet provider has a problem, you are going to loose the ship. Active tanked ships, which use their boosters only if needed, wont have a chance to survive a 15 minute NPC-timer (e.g. in AE-bonusstage, last room of pirat scarlet).
If the CCP server is shutting down the NPC rats won't be there to shoot at you. <.< |

JinJao Mackenzie
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:16:00 -
[245] - Quote
What happens when a player uses an assisting module on an NPC?
One Oneiros I lost was Concorded when I misclicked and activated one of repairers on a mission rat.
I don't see this situation listed in the table. |

WInter Borne
Cold Station 12 Surely You're Joking
9
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:16:00 -
[246] - Quote
So just to confirm, if we are engaging in combat in wspace, and for some reason need to switch from dps to logi, or from dps to ecm....we will have to wait out the full timer? In essence, in any pvp we engage in we are locked in that ship for the duration of the timer? |

John Henke
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:17:00 -
[247] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:John Henke wrote:I think you should really reconsider the length of the NPC-timer. One thing is if you log off by yourself. You should know what you are doing. But if you have a disconnect because the CCP server have shut down or the internet provider has a problem, you are going to loose the ship. Active tanked ships, which use their boosters only if needed, wont have a chance to survive a 15 minute NPC-timer (e.g. in AE-bonusstage, last room of pirat scarlet). If the CCP server is shutting down the NPC rats won't be there to shoot at you. <.<
You are right! My mistake. |

Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
908
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:17:00 -
[248] - Quote
Sorry if this was answered.
The "Incur Sec Status" says you will get Sentry Guns as long as you "remain in sight" - does that mean warping out and back to the gate resets sentry guns?
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |

Adaahh Gee
Rock jockeyz The Jagged Alliance
40
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:17:00 -
[249] - Quote
Just to clarify this "NPC aggro timer"
Assuming I'm in high sec running a lev 4 in a ship with active tank.
My local BT engineer unplugs the wrong cable in the telephone exchange. My internet falls on it's arse.
Under current system, my modules deactivate at the end of cycle and I emergency warp off (assuming I'm not scram'd) and I disappear from D-scan.
Under this new system, 1. Would I remain in the mission site, with all my modules switched off for 15 mins? (and therefore loose my active tanking ship) Or 2. Would I E-Warp away from the mission site but remain on d-scan and probe-able for 15 mins.
Scenario 1 will lead to a a lot of complaints and petitions and serves give no real gain to improving game mechanics. Scenario 2 is fair enough and as someone said "Fit a cloak" and warp to a safe for 15mins, then log.
|

FalconX Blast
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
29
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:17:00 -
[250] - Quote
1. Looks like interdictors are back to being unable to bubble and jump.
2. If the target has NPC aggression from log-off, and I shoot him, does that start a pvp aggression timer that I can keep perpetually til he dies? |
|

MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
142
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:20:00 -
[251] - Quote
Unforgiven Storm wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: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. Im sorry, but when two navy boats are fighting in the sea and one is loosing the capitan of the losing ship has always the option to say "abandon ship" in the middle of the fight. Same principle applies here, why I cant abandon a ship that is "sinking" and try to save myself (my pod)? You still didn't manage to explain why this needs to change! What is the main purpose of this change other than, "because I want it"? Please explain this change to me, I'm a simple player that didn't understand this change and need help to understand the purpose so I can make my peace and deal with it... what is the purpose, what people and this game gains by changing this?
I think this is aimed solely at T3's when they were created they put into the rules that when you lose your ship you lose a skill. Players found a way around this. This is a way for them to put it back in balance. Would you be more for it if it was limited to T3's only? |

Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
324
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:21:00 -
[252] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:John Henke wrote:I think you should really reconsider the length of the NPC-timer. One thing is if you log off by yourself. You should know what you are doing. But if you have a disconnect because the CCP server have shut down or the internet provider has a problem, you are going to loose the ship. Active tanked ships, which use their boosters only if needed, wont have a chance to survive a 15 minute NPC-timer (e.g. in AE-bonusstage, last room of pirat scarlet). If the CCP server is shutting down the NPC rats won't be there to shoot at you. <.<
Right, and the CCP routers and FW's on their side are bulletproof.... Or an large North American carrier loses the connectivity to Europe for 15 minutes, that has never happened..... |

PinkKnife
L F C Ethereal Dawn
231
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:21:00 -
[253] - Quote
FalconX Blast wrote:1. Looks like interdictors are back to being unable to bubble and jump.
2. If the target has NPC aggression from log-off, and I shoot him, does that start a pvp aggression timer that I can keep perpetually til he dies?
I believe the pvp flag only gets issued if the they are online, so no. You'd essentially have the 15minutes to try and kill them. |

Alx Warlord
Security Task Force
172
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:22:00 -
[254] - Quote
Will the carrier triage module, the dread siege module, and the cynos gen count as a weapon? will it aplly continuously untill the cycle ends or it will only aplly in the begin? [Discussion] - New POS system ( Construction Block Built - Starbasecraft) <<< Please CCP read this! |

Alx Warlord
Security Task Force
172
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:23:00 -
[255] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:Sorry if this was answered.
The "Incur Sec Status" says you will get Sentry Guns as long as you "remain in sight" - does that mean warping out and back to the gate resets sentry guns?
YES. [Discussion] - New POS system ( Construction Block Built - Starbasecraft) <<< Please CCP read this! |

Cassius Longinus
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
14
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:23:00 -
[256] - Quote
My thoughts:
1. I'm going to be sad about dictors being pinned on one side of a gate again. That generally means you need to "bring more" to cover both sides of a gate (which is bad... we want less people in gang, not more).
2. Probably you should have docking your ship in a carrier/orca etc, pass on flags to the carrier/orca the same way the remote-assistance does.
3. Probably, boosting a fleet (on grid or off) should count as remote assistance.
I love the resetting gate guns change. When roaming, that means we'll only have to tank the guns on gates in which we engage in combat. That is terrific.
|

Odin Shadow
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:25:00 -
[257] - Quote
Adaahh Gee wrote:Just to clarify this "NPC aggro timer"
Assuming I'm in high sec running a lev 4 in a ship with active tank.
My local BT engineer unplugs the wrong cable in the telephone exchange. My internet falls on it's arse.
Under current system, my modules deactivate at the end of cycle and I emergency warp off (assuming I'm not scram'd) and I disappear from D-scan.
Under this new system, 1. Would I remain in the mission site, with all my modules switched off for 15 mins? (and therefore loose my active tanking ship) Or 2. Would I E-Warp away from the mission site but remain on d-scan and probe-able for 15 mins.
Scenario 1 will lead to a a lot of complaints and petitions and serves give no real gain to improving game mechanics. Scenario 2 is fair enough and as someone said "Fit a cloak" and warp to a safe for 15mins, then log.
1. if scrammed (unsure if they have changed mods switching off at the end of the cycle to combat this issue) 2. if not scrammed |

Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
324
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:26:00 -
[258] - Quote
Adaahh Gee wrote:Just to clarify this "NPC aggro timer"
Assuming I'm in high sec running a lev 4 in a ship with active tank.
My local BT engineer unplugs the wrong cable in the telephone exchange. My internet falls on it's arse.
Under current system, my modules deactivate at the end of cycle and I emergency warp off (assuming I'm not scram'd) and I disappear from D-scan.
Under this new system, 1. Would I remain in the mission site, with all my modules switched off for 15 mins? (and therefore loose my active tanking ship) Or 2. Would I E-Warp away from the mission site but remain on d-scan and probe-able for 15 mins.
Scenario 1 will lead to a a lot of complaints and petitions and serves give no real gain to improving game mechanics. Scenario 2 is fair enough and as someone said "Fit a cloak" and warp to a safe for 15mins, then log.
One point, if an ISP pulls the plug, (and this WILL happen, it happens all the time), how will you be able to turn on the cloak? You can't shoot rats if cloaked, so precisely when will this cloak, which BTW many fits won't allow, be turned on? |

Solstice Project
Red Tsunami No Value
1774
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:26:00 -
[259] - Quote
So, if i understand this right ... people who attack outlaws in highsec won't become suspects, it'll just be a limited engagement ?
And there goes my hope that the bigmouthed cowards die out ...
Edit: Actually, i hoped for more changes to weed out all the idiots from highsec, not related to attacking outlaws or not ... Inappropriate signature removed. Spitfire |

Reticle
Sight Picture
31
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:26:00 -
[260] - Quote
Whoop Whoop. That's the Sound of da Police
Pretty good stuff. And FINALLY some decent CCP-produced game documentation. You need more of that EVERYWHERE.
My only complaint is killrights for simple agression. Kill rights should be for kills only. |
|

MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
142
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:27:00 -
[261] - Quote
Cassius Longinus wrote:My thoughts:
1. I'm going to be sad about dictors being pinned on one side of a gate again. That generally means you need to "bring more" to cover both sides of a gate (which is bad... we want less people in gang, not more).
2. Probably you should have docking your ship in a carrier/orca etc, pass on flags to the carrier/orca the same way the remote-assistance does.
3. Probably, boosting a fleet (on grid or off) should count as remote assistance.
I love the resetting gate guns change. When roaming, that means we'll only have to tank the guns on gates in which we engage in combat. That is terrific.
Why would this stop dictors from jumping the bubble mechanic only gave agro if someone inside the bubble tried to warp. I dont see this changing in the new system or did I miss something? |

Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
106
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:29:00 -
[262] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: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. I thought logoffski tricks were fixed by being able to scan out a ship and point it before it disappeared, thus applying the 15 minute PVP timer. This is going away now? Now a ship with no flags can jump a gate in lowsec, logoff before they decloak, and be safely gone in 60 seconds? That should bring up some old tears again. You have to be able to prevent that e-warp *and* kill it within 60 seconds.
Decloak is 30 seconds and targeting is 1 second, they won't disappear :P |

TheMaster42
Scorpion Unicorn Bird
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:29:00 -
[263] - Quote
So will the PvP flag appear on your screen when you INITIATE warp and are going to get pulled in by a drag bubble (so you can cancel your warp in response)? |

Unforgiven Storm
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
147
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:31:00 -
[264] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Unforgiven Storm wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: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. Im sorry, but when two navy boats are fighting in the sea and one is loosing the capitan of the losing ship has always the option to say "abandon ship" in the middle of the fight. Same principle applies here, why I cant abandon a ship that is "sinking" and try to save myself (my pod)? You still didn't manage to explain why this needs to change! What is the main purpose of this change other than, "because I want it"? Please explain this change to me, I'm a simple player that didn't understand this change and need help to understand the purpose so I can make my peace and deal with it... what is the purpose, what people and this game gains by changing this? I think this is aimed solely at T3's when they were created they put into the rules that when you lose your ship you lose a skill. Players found a way around this. This is a way for them to put it back in balance. Would you be more for it if it was limited to T3's only?
I don't care about T3, make the rule just for them, but don't drag anybody behind. One tecnique I use alot, because in my pc exposions tend to lag the client for a couple of seconds and I normally find my pod locked and scram after the lag goes away, I normally eject when in structure and press warp saving my pod 10/10 times I do this (and not bubled ofcourse). Its a valid survival pod tactic that I see no reason to change. Now if t3 pilots must die because there is a rule, fine make only for t3 I can live with that, just don't punish everybody else please. Allow us to change characters of the same account without the need to logout and put the password again. |

Ali Aras
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:32:00 -
[265] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:Also, Death to strategically logging off. I can't believe everyone's internet is that bad, and strangely enough only when they are ratting do they experience such unusual internet latency issues.  Heh, actually the causality is the other way -- my internet is terribad but I want to play EVE, so I rat instead of PvP. It's less fun, but at least a disconnect isn't likely death in a ship with sufficient tank. |

Kmelx
The Elysian Agoge Elysian Empire
50
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:33:00 -
[266] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:Here's some of the important changes compared to the old system that players should be aware of:
Illegal attacks on ships (not capsules) in low-sec only incur a Suspect flag. No CONCORD response if the attacker subsequently jumps in to high-sec.
That is full ******, all of the popular low sec entry systems will end up perma camped, all you have to do as a pirate is sit there and tank for 60 seconds, then jump to high sec and warp off if the fight goes the wrong way for you. You'll end up with stupid EHP fast locking T3 camps everywhere, the risks will be minimal for the people running the camps.
I thought the general idea from CCP was to ENCOURAGE people to go to lowsec and to introduce consequences for player actions, but you've just buffed piracy massively and the lame ********* who sit on low sec side of high sec entry gates, can now do it with even more impunity, hell you can pretty much do away with the stupid Orca camps now, you don't need an Orca if you can just wait for a bit, jump to high sec and warp off. |

Lyron-Baktos
Selective Pressure Rote Kapelle
321
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:33:00 -
[267] - Quote
the PVP flag that gets added to a ship I just attacked, does that timer keep resetting the more I shoot at him? So, he can't do station games any longer? Selective Pressure [FOVRA] is now recruiting! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1797934#post1797934 |

Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
39
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:36:00 -
[268] - Quote
If I understood well, logistics assisting someone with only a LE timer (like someone self-defending himself against a criminal) will be flagged SUSPECT and be able to be attacked from everybody around ?
Why don't just replicate the timers from the player who receives the assistance, like with every other case ? (Meaning copy the LE timer instead of a SUSPECT timer.)
I also don't understand why an agressor in low sec could jump back to high sec safely.
Edit : Quote here : "Assisting someone who is engaged in an LE will cause the assistor to receive a Suspect flag." [Hapiness I blueprint]
Whine less - [1] Enjoy more - [1] |

Burseg Sardaukar
Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance
174
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:37:00 -
[269] - Quote
Lyron-Baktos wrote:the PVP flag that gets added to a ship I just attacked, does that timer keep resetting the more I shoot at him? So, he can't do station games any longer?
No this sounds like the Weapons flag, and is required for the target to shoot back, just like today. Hey, as a dude that lives in lowsec, you should read my idea on how to "fix" it... in Blog format, complete with a spreadsheet! http://3xxxd.blogspot.com/2012/09/how-to-buff-lowsec.html |

MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
142
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:39:00 -
[270] - Quote
Kmelx wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote:Here's some of the important changes compared to the old system that players should be aware of:
Illegal attacks on ships (not capsules) in low-sec only incur a Suspect flag. No CONCORD response if the attacker subsequently jumps in to high-sec. That is full ret@rd, all of the popular low sec entry systems will end up perma camped, all you have to do as a pirate is sit there and tank for 60 seconds, then jump to high sec and warp off if the fight goes the wrong way for you. You'll end up with stupid EHP fast locking T3 camps everywhere, the risks will be minimal for the people running the camps. I thought the general idea from CCP was to ENCOURAGE people to go to lowsec and to introduce consequences for player actions, but you've just buffed piracy massively and the lame ********* who sit on low sec side of high sec entry gates, can now do it with even more impunity, hell you can pretty much do away with the stupid Orca camps now, you don't need an Orca if you can just wait for a bit, jump to high sec and warp off.
You do realize he will still have a 14 minutes left on his suspect flag where anyone can shoot him right.
Also if is his a Pirate and this is my opinion is if he is an outlaw in that system so say a -2 in a 1.0 systeme he shouldnt be able to dock in stations. This should also go the same with standings why are people with low standings allowed to dock in hostile stations. |
|

Shandir
Indigo Archive
170
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:40:00 -
[271] - Quote
I'm getting the impression you should reduce the NPC timer significantly, and allow it to turn into a PvP timer. |

ArmyOfMe
Probable Cause.
110
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:41:00 -
[272] - Quote
Ah the sweet outburst of tears from the more cowardly side of pirates that had to depend on orcas to do anything Suleiman Shouaa> And you still think you're taking risks? NightmareX> I do. I take risks every day. But i do whatever i can to make sure i'm not ending up in a loss.
|

Lyron-Baktos
Selective Pressure Rote Kapelle
322
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:41:00 -
[273] - Quote
so, station games do not get changed. They can undock, shoot one time and then dock again in 60 seconds and be gay. Selective Pressure [FOVRA] is now recruiting! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1797934#post1797934 |

VonKolroth
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
7
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:41:00 -
[274] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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.
I wouldn't expect it on this release, but I do think we should be getting this sooner than later. I can't think of any downsides for anyone except people who like to pull neutral reps on unsuspecting individuals during station games, and well who really is worried about them? |

Ugleb
Masuat'aa Matari Ushra'Khan
235
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:41:00 -
[275] - Quote
Sheynan wrote:Ugleb wrote:Quote:After losing a ship and entering a capsule, players will still be restricted from docking/jumping for up to a minute (if they have an active Weapons flag). Sounds like more pods are going to die. the quoted statement is not a change to the current mechanics...
Actually, good point. I'm not keeping this weapon flag in mind very well. ;) http://uglebsjournal.wordpress.com/
To contact [-MM-] or [UNITY]: http://www.masuataa.co.uk/defaul1t.asp - channel "Masuat'aa Public" http://www.ushrakhan.com/ - channel "Voices U'K" |

Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
908
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:43:00 -
[276] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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!
It was mentioned at some point that a "dueling" mechanic would be implemented. Any sign of that?
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |

Bart Starr
Aggressive Structural Steel Expediting Services
96
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:47:00 -
[277] - Quote
So, how does this affect the common scenario addressed several weeks ago?
Random Hauler gets exploded on a high-sec gate. Wreck is yellow to everyone but the victim.
Player A: Loots the yellow wreck on a highsec jump gate.
What exactly happens?
Player A now gets a suspect flag. 1. Do gate guns open fire? (Y/N?)
Now, suppose Player B ('vigilante') attacks Player A.
2. Player A is allowed to shoot back without penalty, correct? (pretty sure the answer is yes....) Does this create some kind of strange 'one-on-one' flag which is exactly what Crimewatch was supposed to eliminate? Really, player B should be getting a 'suspect' flag as well if the system was to be consistent with the stated goal of simplifying webs of flags. I suppose that goal is secondary to simply making highsec as safe as possible. 
Now, suppose Player C comes along, doesn't want to engage the suspect, but RR's Player B, the vigilante.
3. Is Player A, (suspect) still allowed to engage the remote repairer (C)? Or is the RRing player allowed to participate in PVP while still under Concord protection? (ie PVP without risk)
|

Burseg Sardaukar
Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance
175
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:48:00 -
[278] - Quote
I asked earlier, haven't seen an answer:
RR'ing someone at war... does... what exactly? Would it depend on if they are actively fighting?
Would two war targets fighting each other in hisec flag an LE between the two pilots concerned or is it just a PVP flag? Hey, as a dude that lives in lowsec, you should read my idea on how to "fix" it... in Blog format, complete with a spreadsheet! http://3xxxd.blogspot.com/2012/09/how-to-buff-lowsec.html |

TheMaster42
Scorpion Unicorn Bird
5
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:49:00 -
[279] - Quote
Also if I kill a legal wardec target and loot my deserved rewards, I can now be attacked by all players?
EDIT: NOPE cool: "If I can legally attack the owner of a container, then I can legally take from the container." |

Steijn
Quay Industries CAStabouts
193
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:49:00 -
[280] - Quote
Quote:NPC Flag: This flag is activated when a player uses offensive modules against an NPC (or vice-versa). Having this flag will prevent a ship from being removed from space if the pilot logs off. This flag functions in all areas of space.
thats just shafted anyone who does missions and not PVP because they have a weak internet connection. |
|

Solstice Project
Red Tsunami No Value
1775
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:51:00 -
[281] - Quote
Steijn wrote:Quote:NPC Flag: This flag is activated when a player uses offensive modules against an NPC (or vice-versa). Having this flag will prevent a ship from being removed from space if the pilot logs off. This flag functions in all areas of space. thats just shafted anyone who does missions and not PVP because they have a weak internet connection. It's fair because COMBAT is COMBAT, no matter against whom. The PvPer could have a weak internet connection too, but of course, mission runners want a special piece of the cake everybody gets ... Inappropriate signature removed. Spitfire |

Malcom Dax
Minmatar Death Squad Broken Chains Alliance
36
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:51:00 -
[282] - Quote
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.
Blacklight Incorporated: Recruiting all pilots for PvE and Industry - UK/EU/US timezone. |

Kmelx
The Elysian Agoge Elysian Empire
51
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:52:00 -
[283] - Quote
MIrple wrote:You do realize he will still have a 14 minutes left on his suspect flag where anyone can shoot him right.
Also if is his a Pirate and this is my opinion is if he is an outlaw in that system so say a -2 in a 1.0 systeme he shouldnt be able to dock in stations. This should also go the same with standings why are people with low standings allowed to dock in hostile stations.
So you bounce safes for a bit, hell you can even go for a nice fly around high sec, go on a tour and see the sites. |

Piquet Raddei
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
18
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:53:00 -
[284] - Quote
Some nice stuff here, but the DEV's still aren't answering some questions that keep popping up frequently. I'm sorry but I can't trust the words of other players who only learned about this on the same day I did...
WHAT HAPPENS IF WE'RE RATTING/MISSIONING AND OUR "SOCKET" GETS CLOSED? Happens all the time - but being stuck under heavy gunfire for 15 minutes will make for some pretty irritated players who log back in to their pods...
IF A SHOOTS B AND I AID B BY SHOOTING A (non-fleet/corp; just a good citizen passing by), DOES D-Z GET TO SHOOT AT ME NOW?
There's good ideas here - I like that it makes things a bit more dangerous for griefers who go after newbs/little guys. There's just more questions than answers right now... |

Nirnaeth Ornoediad
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
120
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:54:00 -
[285] - Quote
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 like this. In terms of "EVE is a simulation", it's like the Sentry Guns are content to drive off suspects. "The Mittani isn't even gone for a day and CCP's management is already making bad decisions."
THE MITTANI for CEO of CCP 1-800-273-8255 |

Burseg Sardaukar
Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance
175
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:54:00 -
[286] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote:So, how does this affect the common scenario addressed several weeks ago? Random Hauler gets exploded on a high-sec gate. Wreck is yellow to everyone but the victim. Player A: Loots the yellow wreck on a highsec jump gate. What exactly happens? Player A now gets a suspect flag. 1. Do gate guns open fire? (Y/N?) Now, suppose Player B ('vigilante') attacks Player A. 2. Player A is allowed to shoot back without penalty, correct? (pretty sure the answer is yes....) Does this create some kind of strange 'one-on-one' flag which is exactly what Crimewatch was supposed to eliminate? Really, player B should be getting a 'suspect' flag as well if the system was to be consistent with the stated goal of simplifying webs of flags. I suppose that goal is secondary to simply making highsec as safe as possible.  Now, suppose Player C comes along, doesn't want to engage the suspect, but RR's Player B, the vigilante. 3. Is Player A, (suspect) still allowed to engage the remote repairer (C)? Or is the RRing player allowed to participate in PVP while still under Concord protection? (ie PVP without risk)
From all the answers I've read, it sounds like Player C becomes a Suspect for repping someone in a LE (Player B).
So that makes Player A and Player C both Suspects for different reasons, and Player B is only PVP and LE flagged against Player A.
I don't think it really spirals out of control too much, since it replaces a lot of the "rep this guy, wait till he shoots, now u can shoot back, then get repped" chains, replacing almost all of it with Suspect flags for the RR part.
The confusing part still comes back to: If I'm a suspect, I can shoot back at anyone that shot at me... and the fight outlasts 15min suspect flag somehow, so I have a LE and PVP flag remaining against the people shooting at me. And now only they can shoot me and I can shoot them. Anyone else that interferes goes suspect. It's less confusing than the current system, but still has its little twists. Hey, as a dude that lives in lowsec, you should read my idea on how to "fix" it... in Blog format, complete with a spreadsheet! http://3xxxd.blogspot.com/2012/09/how-to-buff-lowsec.html |

Amelya Laurann
Boundless Space Seashells
20
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:54:00 -
[287] - Quote
After reading the entire Devblog on Crimewatch, I wanted to share my concerns about the new mechanics that were described.
I don't know if it was intentionnal, but ejecting from your ship in specific occasions was a really good strategy to save your pod and, as noted in the title, subsystems skills when about to explode in a T3 ship.
I heard that there was some exploit with ejects, if it was a way to fix that, it was actually not a so great fix.
Now instant lockers can even predict when you will be in your pod too!
I may actually get more corpses for my giant secure container to add to my collection... Not that it's the best way I thought of ever being able to gather some more easely... |

Steijn
Quay Industries CAStabouts
193
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:54:00 -
[288] - Quote
Solstice Project wrote:Steijn wrote:Quote:NPC Flag: This flag is activated when a player uses offensive modules against an NPC (or vice-versa). Having this flag will prevent a ship from being removed from space if the pilot logs off. This flag functions in all areas of space. thats just shafted anyone who does missions and not PVP because they have a weak internet connection. It's fair because COMBAT is COMBAT, no matter against whom. The PvPer could have a weak internet connection too, but of course, mission runners want a special piece of the cake everybody gets ...
So what about dc's caused by the server etc. that miraculously arent logged? |

VonKolroth
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
7
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:57:00 -
[289] - Quote
Cassius Longinus wrote: 3. Probably, boosting a fleet (on grid or off) should count as remote assistance.
Oh yes. |

Skogen Gump
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
121
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:57:00 -
[290] - Quote
I love these changes!
Only thing I want to see fixed is theNPC timer, 15 minutes is a bit too long. Also why is this change in? What was wrong with it, before?
Also as the ER guys have asked, please don't ship this without a safe way to have a mutual engagement!
Otherwise, seriously sweet work guy! |
|

Alli Othman
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
31
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:57:00 -
[291] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: 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
But above you said that gateguns would not fire on logi for outlaws, but repping an outlaw incurs a sec hit. |

Nirnaeth Ornoediad
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
121
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:58:00 -
[292] - Quote
Mizhir wrote:Aethlyn wrote:Really like the proposed changes, although I'd like to see some more details on the LE/assistance stuff. If you help the criminal, you get a suspect or criminal flag, okay. But why should you become attackable by everyone (not just the other party in the engagement) by helping, for example, a newbie that is being attacked/ganked by pirates? If the pirate attacks the newbie (which is an illegal target for the pirate) the pirate will become flagged. Which means you are allowed to attack the pirate or help the newbie without being flagged yourself. However if you attack the pirate (or rep the newbie) the pirate may attack you due to the LE, but you will still not be attackable by everyone else.
The tricky part is: you can help the Newbie by shooting the Criminal. You can't help the newbie by repping him. (Well, you could...but then you'll pick up a Suspect flag and the Newbie--who's really a ganker, can shoot you.
Victim: "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed! Rep me!" Kindly EVE-Uni person starts repping the Victim. >Boom< Kindly EVE-Uni person finds self in a pod. "The Mittani isn't even gone for a day and CCP's management is already making bad decisions."
THE MITTANI for CEO of CCP 1-800-273-8255 |

Antihrist Pripravnik
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
47
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:58:00 -
[293] - Quote
@CCP:
I hope that you will fix the lag created when losing a ship. If you don't already know (highly doubt it since all of the petitions players made), there is a 1-5 seconds lag sometimes (well, 50% of the time in my case) that is strictly client side and client produced - my hardware is slightly above today's average, internet connection is stable 16MB/s:2MB/s cable and my OS and drivers are always up to date (I'm a programmer, they have to be up to date for my work). That ship destruction lag is the reason why I always eject a moment before my ship blows up. It's a tool that allows me to have any control over the client in those couple of seconds and allows me to apply a workaround for a bug that has been in the game for years.
If you are already making it impossible to eject during a fight, which is generally a positive change, fixing this bug should be your highest priority. I (and many other customers that experience the same issue), will not be very happy for losing a pod because of that lag-bug without any possibility to apply a workaround. CCP Ytterbium: Yarrblblbgrlblbgrlblblblbblbgrlblblbgrblblyarrrrdrooooooolonthekeyboardlikealunatic     |

Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
908
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:00:00 -
[294] - Quote
Ok, here's a good question ::
Are the penalties for sec status (destruction of ship, pod, etc) being changed at all?
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |

Sulindra
Ananke Astrodynamics Terran Commonwealth
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:01:00 -
[295] - Quote
Malcom Dax wrote: Or make alliance members have legal access too\
This! How many times have I been doing something with alliance, and someone drops a can, and logs, and now I have to cart my ass over to the can instead of being able to grab it with a tractor beam. PITA. |

Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
100
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:02:00 -
[296] - Quote
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.
|

John Henke
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:04:00 -
[297] - Quote
Solstice Project wrote:Steijn wrote:Quote:NPC Flag: This flag is activated when a player uses offensive modules against an NPC (or vice-versa). Having this flag will prevent a ship from being removed from space if the pilot logs off. This flag functions in all areas of space. thats just shafted anyone who does missions and not PVP because they have a weak internet connection. It's fair because COMBAT is COMBAT, no matter against whom. The PvPer could have a weak internet connection too, but of course, mission runners want a special piece of the cake everybody gets ...
But in a PvP-Situation i consider my ship lost before i undock. If i am lucky or know, what i am doing, i will return with it and consider as a win. |

Burseg Sardaukar
Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance
177
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:05:00 -
[298] - Quote
Alli Othman wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: 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
But above you said that gateguns would not fire on logi for outlaws, but repping an outlaw incurs a sec hit.
Outlaw != Criminal
You can RR an outlaw (-10) that has done nothing wrong. However, if they have a criminal or suspect flag you take a hit and are going to get shot at. Hey, as a dude that lives in lowsec, you should read my idea on how to "fix" it... in Blog format, complete with a spreadsheet! http://3xxxd.blogspot.com/2012/09/how-to-buff-lowsec.html |

Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
324
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:07:00 -
[299] - Quote
Well, the null sec zealots get to rejoice a little more as the path of the utter destruction of high sec just got a little shorter. Let us combine 2 features by separate dev's and see what happens in missions.
My opposition to the AI changes are all over the forums, but this NPC timer is wonderful, just wonderful. The null sec zealots say "man up, fly a non-drone boat".
OK, let's say I am in Worlds Collide and I am in a Vargur. I still need small drones because my BS guns can't track the frigs that are scramming me in the room. Now, the new AI states that the NPC's will go after objects of similar sigs, so that means the frigs will be going after small drones in a big big way. So once all the small drones are dead, my gunboat Vargur is in a really bad way. I can't warp out of the mission, and with the new 15 minute timer, my active-tanked Vargur is auto-dead if I log off to be able to get new drones.
Only way the Vargur survives is if it can sit in the mission for 15 minutes tanking the site, then logging off, or waiting until downtime.
But no, these two new "improvements" by separate dev's will not have wipe out high sec income at all.
Just fly a missile Tengu...oh yeah.forgot, the mission Tengu is having is DPS reduced by 20% by a 3rd dev. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9723
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:07:00 -
[300] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote:Player A now gets a suspect flag. 1. Do gate guns open fire? (Y/N?) No. Theft does not incur a sec status loss, and therefore doesn't trigger the sentries.
Quote:Now, suppose Player B ('vigilante') attacks Player A. 2. Player A is allowed to shoot back without penalty, correct? (pretty sure the answer is yes....) Does this create some kind of strange 'one-on-one' flag which is exactly what Crimewatch was supposed to eliminate? Yes, it creates a limited engagement, which is a single connection between the two that gets around the CW1.0 mess by being non-transferable.
Quote:Now, suppose Player C comes along, doesn't want to engage the suspect, but RR's Player B, the vigilante. 3. Is Player A, (suspect) still allowed to engage the remote repairer (C)? Or is the RRing player allowed to participate in PVP while still under Concord protection? (ie PVP without risk) Anyone aiding A will be committing the crime of aiding a suspect and will become a suspect. Anyone aiding B will be committing the crime of butting in on a LE and will become a suspect. As such, there is no need for this whole GÇ£keeping track of who shot who and when and where and whyGÇ¥.
In this case, player C will be a free-for-all target GÇö A can engage him at will without further repercussions just like everyone else in the universe.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
|

Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
852
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:08:00 -
[301] - Quote
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!)
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?
Quote:3. Probably, boosting a fleet (on grid or off) should count as remote assistance. 1) Join an "open mining fleet". 2) Shoot a station with a noobship. 3) Watch Orca get concordokkened. 4) ??? 5) Profit. |

Sulindra
Ananke Astrodynamics Terran Commonwealth
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:09:00 -
[302] - Quote
Cassius Longinus wrote: 2. Probably you should have docking your ship in a carrier/orca etc, pass on flags to the carrier/orca the same way the remote-assistance does.
Seconded, man so many ganker orcas would go down in Highsec. So much fun! So much isk to make selling orcas!
|

Tsubutai
The Tuskers
124
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:09:00 -
[303] - Quote
Kmelx wrote:Bottom line is if they commit a crime in low sec and jump to high sec concord should blap them for it, the same as they do now, it shouldn't be a possible survival strategy for pirates to run away and hide in high sec. People commiting criminal acts in low security space shouldn't be able to run and hide in supposedly high sec space, its completley backwards. If they've been shooting people in lowsec, they'll have suspect flags. All it means is that you'll have to have a tackler or two on the highsec side of the gate, just as you would if you were fighting on a gate deeper in lowsec. It's really not a big deal. |

Lolmer
Yahoo Inc Caffeine Nicotine and Hate
42
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:11:00 -
[304] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Well, the null sec zealots get to rejoice a little more as the path of the utter destruction of high sec just got a little shorter. Let us combine 2 features by separate dev's and see what happens in missions.
My opposition to the AI changes are all over the forums, but this NPC timer is wonderful, just wonderful. The null sec zealots say "man up, fly a non-drone boat".
OK, let's say I am in Worlds Collide and I am in a Vargur. I still need small drones because my BS guns can't track the frigs that are scramming me in the room. Now, the new AI states that the NPC's will go after objects of similar sigs, so that means the frigs will be going after small drones in a big big way. So once all the small drones are dead, my gunboat Vargur is in a really bad way. I can't warp out of the mission, and with the new 15 minute timer, my active-tanked Vargur is auto-dead if I log off to be able to get new drones.
Only way the Vargur survives is if it can sit in the mission for 15 minutes tanking the site, then logging off, or waiting until downtime.
But no, these two new "improvements" by separate dev's will not have wipe out high sec income at all.
Just fly a missile Tengu...oh yeah.forgot, the mission Tengu is having is DPS reduced by 20% by a 3rd dev.
Or....you could fly a ship and fittings appropriate to the mission you are running. What a concept! Perhaps you should learn to play instead of asking the developers to keep parts of the game dumbed down so that you don't have to think. |

Jim Era
4165
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:11:00 -
[305] - Quote
As I was saying, I was wondering why people read dev blogs and **** like that, I prefer to wait til it happens, hell half the time I don't even know it happens... Just these godamn eve forums are spoiling it. I am very disappointed in those guys who have taken up one of my passtimes. |

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial Rooks and Kings
1289
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:12:00 -
[306] - Quote
Absolutely wonderful. Good job guys! Member of CSM 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9723
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:12:00 -
[307] - Quote
Kmelx wrote:Bottom line is if they commit a crime in low sec and jump to high sec concord should blap them for it, the same as they do now, it shouldn't be a possible survival strategy for pirates to run away and hide in high sec. People commiting criminal acts in low security space shouldn't be able to run and hide in supposedly high sec space, its completley backwards. They can't run and hide in highsec any more than they can in lowsec, and even so, didn't that sound a bit backwards to you? GÇ£High sec spaceGÇ¥ sounds exactly like where you would go to run and hide. 
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|

Burseg Sardaukar
Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance
177
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:12:00 -
[308] - 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.
I think the only real way to make this not happen is to stay above -5. There have to be some drawbacks to being an outlaw, and I'd say this is a pretty key one.
Hey, as a dude that lives in lowsec, you should read my idea on how to "fix" it... in Blog format, complete with a spreadsheet! http://3xxxd.blogspot.com/2012/09/how-to-buff-lowsec.html |
|

ISD Suvetar
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
186

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:13:00 -
[309] - Quote
Very welcome changes, thanks so much CCP! ISD Suvetar Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|

Oreamnos Amric
Z3R0 RETURN MINING INC. Illusion of Solitude
10
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:14:00 -
[310] - Quote
All things considered these changes appear pretty good. I think the 15 minute timers could do with shortening, especially in lowsec and nullsec. After all you're basically penalising people for playing the game by falgging them for quarter of an hour.
The could also be more differentiation between hisec and lowsec. Sure you don't have to worry about Concord in lowsec, but how about dropping the criminal flag and just marking people as suspects? Alternatively, you could link the sec status penalty to being attacked by sentry guns.
Ultimately it shouldn't affect me too much as I live in a wormhole, but it would be nice to see more people in lowsec. |
|

Varesk
Origin. Black Legion.
165
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:16:00 -
[311] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:why can't i eject when i have a weapon timer?
Mass T3 user complaints.
On a serious note,
Can you give us an option to remove the new flags from the overview?
|

Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1284
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:16:00 -
[312] - Quote
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.
Caldari Militia |

Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1775
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:17:00 -
[313] - Quote
John Henke wrote:Solstice Project wrote:Steijn wrote:Quote:NPC Flag: This flag is activated when a player uses offensive modules against an NPC (or vice-versa). Having this flag will prevent a ship from being removed from space if the pilot logs off. This flag functions in all areas of space. thats just shafted anyone who does missions and not PVP because they have a weak internet connection. It's fair because COMBAT is COMBAT, no matter against whom. The PvPer could have a weak internet connection too, but of course, mission runners want a special piece of the cake everybody gets ... But in a PvP-Situation i consider my ship lost before i undock. If i am lucky or know, what i am doing, i will return with it and consider as a win.
Combat is combat ... think about it. There's no real reason to distinguish between NPCs and players. They're still ships and it's still combat. Issues with disconnects can happen to both PvE and PvP people. Mission runners aren't special snowflakes ...
Edit: Oh i forgot to note ... they didn't write that the ship won't go into emergency warp, so ...................... Inappropriate signature removed. Spitfire |

Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
1201
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:17:00 -
[314] - Quote
I like it. Pretty sweet... now about the changes to repairing sec status... 
|

Rixx Javix
The Tuskers
245
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:17:00 -
[315] - Quote
As a pilot who is going to have a criminal flag hoisted above his ship all the time anyway, I can support these changes. I'd support them more fully however if we can agree that a 15 minute timer for any possible infraction is too long! There should not be a situation in which someone has a 15m timer, ever.
Especially given the new changes and flags. A maximum limit of 5m for a timer violation is more than adequate given the additional parameters initiated in this new system.
Sec status hits, criminal flags, station and gate guns, and a 5m flag timer are enough. http://eveoganda.blogspot.com |

Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
324
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:18:00 -
[316] - Quote
Lolmer wrote:
Or....you could fly a ship and fittings appropriate to the mission you are running. What a concept! Perhaps you should learn to play instead of asking the developers to keep parts of the game dumbed down so that you don't have to think.
Of course, a very trite answer with zero substance. Contrary to what you might think, not all ships have the fitting flexibility to handle these changes.
And if a high sec player is lucky enough to have the skills ship that can be altered he still has to nerf his tank or DPS to handle these changes, which will hammer his income, which this was all about anyway: wiping out high sec income. |

Jace Errata
Lawlz Brawlz
283
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:18:00 -
[317] - Quote
Copy from another thread:
I'm rather worried by the change to can-related aggression. It means that if I so much as pick up a wreck from someone else's ill-advised attempt to kill a battleship with an Ibis, every single player in EVE, all of them, gets the ability to shoot me with no consequences, for 15 minutes.
And people will take advantage of that. Stealth OST puns and blatant lies since 2009 Jace Errata on Twitter
One day they woke me up so I could live forever It's such a shame the same will never happen to you |

Kasuko
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:19:00 -
[318] - Quote
NPC log off time of 15 minutes sounds good to me. Logging off should never be a "valid tactic". If you want to rat in null sec (it's dangerous out there you know) and you don't want to fit a cloak and you don't want to have your ship aligned and you don't want to have your finger on the warp button and you don't want to sit in a safe spot cloaked for 15 minutes while your timer runs down and no one can find you then ... YES YOU WILL BE KILLED! Play the game!
Also Can flipping still exists ... it's just harder which is good. If you just liked being a douche before and flipping cans with there being nothing anyone could do before you are SOL now, they can just take it back and you won't get kill rights on them. However if you really want to keep flipping cans you can have a second neutral character scoop from your flipped can (which will be auto-abandoned) and flip that one. If they steal from the neutral characters can you get your kill rights too!
|

Bart Starr
Aggressive Structural Steel Expediting Services
96
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:19:00 -
[319] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Well, the null sec zealots get to rejoice a little more as the path of the utter destruction of high sec just got a little shorter. Let us combine 2 features by separate dev's and see what happens in missions.
My opposition to the AI changes are all over the forums, but this NPC timer is wonderful, just wonderful. The null sec zealots say "man up, fly a non-drone boat".
OK, let's say I am in Worlds Collide and I am in a Vargur. I still need small drones because my BS guns can't track the frigs that are scramming me in the room. Now, the new AI states that the NPC's will go after objects of similar sigs, so that means the frigs will be going after small drones in a big big way. So once all the small drones are dead, my gunboat Vargur is in a really bad way. I can't warp out of the mission, and with the new 15 minute timer, my active-tanked Vargur is auto-dead if I log off to be able to get new drones.
Only way the Vargur survives is if it can sit in the mission for 15 minutes tanking the site, then logging off, or waiting until downtime.
But no, these two new "improvements" by separate dev's will not have wipe out high sec income at all.
Just fly a missile Tengu...oh yeah.forgot, the mission Tengu is having is DPS reduced by 20% by a 3rd dev.
Try 10% DPS nerf. When bears whine, the nerfs are dialed back.
Um. How are you scrambled if the frigates are attacking your drones? You should still be able to warp out. Now, if the frigates kill off your drones, then scram you down because you decided to keep hanging around, well thats your fault, right? Maybe if you were clever, you would bring in an alt in a frigate to draw the frigs away....
Carebears just fail at adapting to anything.
|

Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
852
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:21:00 -
[320] - Quote
Re 15 minute NPC timer: there is a small adjustment I would suggest. Make it so that cloaking devices stay active when a person logs off.
Why? Imagine someone diving deep into 0.0 space with an intention to kill rats or do exploration sites. They don't have any stations or towers to hide in. With CW2 they can't save themselves by simply logging off - which is nice. However, to end a play session, they now have to wait 15 minutes while literally doing nothing. If they have a cloak and warp off to a safespot, they are virtually invulnerable for the duration of the timer anyway, so why not just let them warp off, cloak, and log out? Functionally it would be equivalent to them waiting out the timer cloaked, only it would save them 15 minutes of real life time. |
|

Andre Vauban
Quantum Cats Syndicate
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:22:00 -
[321] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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 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. QCATS is recruiting https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=146180
|

Absocold
BOAE INC Red Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:23:00 -
[322] - Quote
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. |

Arya Regnar
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:23:00 -
[323] - Quote
-6 subs Have fun guys.
It was fun while it lasted.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|

Aiden Mourn
Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
14
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:24:00 -
[324] - Quote
Lolmer wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Well, the null sec zealots get to rejoice a little more as the path of the utter destruction of high sec just got a little shorter. Let us combine 2 features by separate dev's and see what happens in missions.
My opposition to the AI changes are all over the forums, but this NPC timer is wonderful, just wonderful. The null sec zealots say "man up, fly a non-drone boat".
OK, let's say I am in Worlds Collide and I am in a Vargur. I still need small drones because my BS guns can't track the frigs that are scramming me in the room. Now, the new AI states that the NPC's will go after objects of similar sigs, so that means the frigs will be going after small drones in a big big way. So once all the small drones are dead, my gunboat Vargur is in a really bad way. I can't warp out of the mission, and with the new 15 minute timer, my active-tanked Vargur is auto-dead if I log off to be able to get new drones.
Only way the Vargur survives is if it can sit in the mission for 15 minutes tanking the site, then logging off, or waiting until downtime.
But no, these two new "improvements" by separate dev's will not have wipe out high sec income at all.
Just fly a missile Tengu...oh yeah.forgot, the mission Tengu is having is DPS reduced by 20% by a 3rd dev. Or....you could fly a ship and fittings appropriate to the mission you are running. What a concept! Perhaps you should learn to play instead of asking the developers to keep parts of the game dumbed down so that you don't have to think.
I think he's got a fair point actually. Running missions has absolutely nothing to do with "learning to play" or "being better at Eve". They're a "push button, receive candy" mechanic to keep isk flowing into the game. In fact they are explicitly a dumbed down way to grind isk without really thinking, but thats what they're there for (which, not so incidentally, is why they don't pay much anyways.).
I enjoy preying on mission runners as much as the next guy, but that one was actually a pretty realistic question for an extremely common scenario; just saying.
Edit: just the same, its going to be hilarious watching people who don't read the news at all log off in missions now  http://aidenmourn.wordpress.com/ |

Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
852
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:26:00 -
[325] - Quote
Andre Vauban wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: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 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.
There is no LE going on in your example, as far as I can tell. The first pirate will get an S flag on attacking. (Assuming this is lowsec. In 0.0 nothing happens and in high he'll get concorded.) However your friend gets no flags* and the logi can freely rep him. Moreover, your entire fleet can now attack the aggressing pirate without repercussions, as he is a suspect.
* He will get a PvP (aka logoff) flag, however that has nothing to do with gateguns. |

Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1776
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:26:00 -
[326] - Quote
Arya Regnar wrote:-6 subs Have fun guys.
It was fun while it lasted. Not sure what your issue is, but i'm sure it's great that you go, because CCP probably didn't want you anyway ... if i remember a certain quote right. Inappropriate signature removed. Spitfire |

Alli Othman
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
31
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:27:00 -
[327] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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. I agree with not being able to pop out of your t3 just cause you got in a fight that went badly for you (though with the coming T3 nerf it'll probably be necessary to re-evaluate the SP loss if they're going to take such a hit as has been hinted at), but the main thing that I'm concerned about is what Zagdul brought up:
Eliminating the ability to ghostride with caps/supers. It's already a high risk, high player-skill intensive thing to do. Getting rid of the ability to do it just kind of kills some of the more creative combat situations that have come from it. Honestly, I would rather have t3s still able to eject if it meant keeping this neat bit of player creativity- after all, they can't store their t3 in a neutral orca anymore so there's still going to be a good loss coming to them. |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
683

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:28:00 -
[328] - 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 |
|

Lolmer
Yahoo Inc Caffeine Nicotine and Hate
47
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:29:00 -
[329] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Lolmer wrote:
Or....you could fly a ship and fittings appropriate to the mission you are running. What a concept! Perhaps you should learn to play instead of asking the developers to keep parts of the game dumbed down so that you don't have to think.
Of course, a very trite answer with zero substance. Contrary to what you might think, not all ships have the fitting flexibility to handle these changes. And if a high sec player is lucky enough to have the skills ship that can be altered he still has to nerf his tank or DPS to handle these changes, which will hammer his income, which this was all about anyway: wiping out high sec income.
My reply was succinct and accurate. Use the right tool for the job, rather than fitting the job to the tool. Your inability to use a ship and fittings appropriate to what you're fighting is no reason to hold back this much requested, and appropriate, AI update.
Maybe learn to play? Learn to change how you play? Change your ship and fittings to meet the changing environment? Or would you rather the universe stays static so that you don't have to think or do any work
So sorry you might have to make a trade-off on your Perfect Ship & Fittings (PSF) because the developers would like to improve the game and improve some of the content so that it is more interactive. |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
683

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:33:00 -
[330] - 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 |
|
|

Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:34:00 -
[331] - 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.
I think CCP means a sufficiently LOW secstatus will cause you to be fired upon. That is if you had 0.0 secstatus before - destroying a single illegal ship probably will NOT result in a low enough secstatus for you to be fired upon by sentry guns.
Thus secstatus will continue to mean something (if not much) if you repeatedly fire upon illegal ship targets in low sec without doing good deeds in between (ratting/tag turn in etc).
But thanks for complaining that you can't incorporate sentry guns into the force defending your standing gate camp from in system ambushers. Simply flying away and then back won't make them like habitual suspects. 
|
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
683

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:34:00 -
[332] - 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 |
|

Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4984
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:35:00 -
[333] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Of course, a very trite answer with zero substance. Contrary to what you might think, not all ships have the fitting flexibility to handle these changes.
And if a high sec player is lucky enough to have the skills ship that can be altered he still has to nerf his tank or DPS to handle these changes, which will hammer his income, which this was all about anyway: wiping out high sec income.
This is going to reduce income across the board, not just in hisec. Sorry. please leave |

T RAYRAY
Percussive Diplomacy PERCUSSIVE PIZZA TIME DIPLOMACY
17
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:35:00 -
[334] - Quote
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. |

Eve Amada
Lightspeed Enterprises Tactical Narcotics Team
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:37:00 -
[335] - Quote
Arya Regnar wrote:-6 subs Have fun guys.
It was fun while it lasted.
HAHA there goes a FW farmer & his alts |

Lolmer
Yahoo Inc Caffeine Nicotine and Hate
48
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:38:00 -
[336] - Quote
Aiden Mourn wrote:Lolmer wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Well, the null sec zealots get to rejoice a little more as the path of the utter destruction of high sec just got a little shorter. Let us combine 2 features by separate dev's and see what happens in missions.
My opposition to the AI changes are all over the forums, but this NPC timer is wonderful, just wonderful. The null sec zealots say "man up, fly a non-drone boat".
OK, let's say I am in Worlds Collide and I am in a Vargur. I still need small drones because my BS guns can't track the frigs that are scramming me in the room. Now, the new AI states that the NPC's will go after objects of similar sigs, so that means the frigs will be going after small drones in a big big way. So once all the small drones are dead, my gunboat Vargur is in a really bad way. I can't warp out of the mission, and with the new 15 minute timer, my active-tanked Vargur is auto-dead if I log off to be able to get new drones.
Only way the Vargur survives is if it can sit in the mission for 15 minutes tanking the site, then logging off, or waiting until downtime.
But no, these two new "improvements" by separate dev's will not have wipe out high sec income at all.
Just fly a missile Tengu...oh yeah.forgot, the mission Tengu is having is DPS reduced by 20% by a 3rd dev. Or....you could fly a ship and fittings appropriate to the mission you are running. What a concept! Perhaps you should learn to play instead of asking the developers to keep parts of the game dumbed down so that you don't have to think. I think he's got a fair point actually. Running missions has absolutely nothing to do with "learning to play" or "being better at Eve". They're a "push button, receive candy" mechanic to keep isk flowing into the game. In fact they are explicitly a dumbed down way to grind isk without really thinking, but thats what they're there for (which, not so incidentally, is why they don't pay much anyways.). I enjoy preying on mission runners as much as the next guy, but that one was actually a pretty realistic question for an extremely common scenario; just saying. Edit: just the same, its going to be hilarious watching people who don't read the news at all log off in missions now 
No, it wasn't a valid question as he wants to be able to use the log off mechanic to avoid losing his ship because he failed at his current activity (couldn't tank the mission he was in, didn't expect a hot drop when he jumped through a gate, etc.) I was saying that instead of whining that this change will make his ability to avoid losing his ship because he chooses to not change it to properly run a mission/site/combat/whatever is ridiculous.
He's complaining that his ship by itself (no friends or alts) cannot handle a scenario which he voluntarily went into and that by bringing more dynamic content into a currently very static environment will make it so that he cannot run his missions anymore. Instead of, you know, changing his ship, fittings, or finding some friends (MMO, anyone?).
Don't undock what you can't afford to lose. Undock is consenting to PvP. Undock and count your ship as already lost. ... |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9726
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:39:00 -
[337] - Quote
@-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? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
690

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:41:00 -
[338] - 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 |
|

BOLEVINE
Cold Blue Steel Wrong Hole.
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:41:00 -
[339] - Quote
-->Means harsher rules for criminals and less fun in the end. For example, "Security-status penalties are now GÇÿfront-loadedGÇÖ, so a criminal/suspect will incur the full penalty when an illegal attack starts, not when (if) the target is destroyed. "
Means less time in low sec having fun killing peeps for those who dont want to go a full -10. Less time = less fun.
example 2," Weapons Flag: This flag is activated by using offensive modules against another player (or simply by activating certain non-targeted weapons such as smartbombs). Having this flag will prevent a character from performing actions such as jumping, docking and switching ships in space. This flag functions in all areas of space."
->Means we cant jump back through another low sec gate to disrupt the guy your trying to lock down. So less freedom to move around and PVP in low sec means less fun.
This is a step backwards for those who like small gang fun as blob warfare in null can be boring and less challenging unless you are the FC. So all we have left for decent pvp fun is low sec and worm holes.
Also, it sounds like we wont be able to 1v1 for a while.... " We're also working on a replacement for the usage of loot-theft as a way to initiate consensual 1v1s without incurring criminal penalties that we hope to release for Winter."
This means less fun in possible high sec pvp as well. Not allowing criminals to steal cans without aggroing everyone in the game means harsher punishments for criminals and therefore less fun and less of a chance to be bad and get away with it. Makes me wonder if someones mom wrote these new rules... |

Reticle
Sight Picture
32
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:42:00 -
[340] - Quote
Don't forget that any and every criminal flag now gives the target KILL RIGHTS. I'm not a fan of this. It's probably to give rights on every member of a gank squad, not just the final blow. Getting kill rights for someone scratching your paint with a single shot seems excessive. |
|

Bart Starr
Aggressive Structural Steel Expediting Services
97
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:43:00 -
[341] - Quote
Wait, why would sentry guns attack outlaws? Has this been changed?
As I understand it: Sentry guns are essentially 'Concord'. They don't instapop you, they don't scram, but they respond to the same 'stimuli'.
Right now, anything that causes a 'Concord response' in highsec causes a sentry gun response in lowsec. (GCC) Its fairly consistent.
Currently, an outlaw does not have a GCC because they haven't done anything bad 'recently'.
Is this another 'Concord Buff' where sentry guns now attack people merely for having low sec status?
Perhaps some serious thought should be given to removing Faction Navy, if gate guns are going to simply instapop any 'small fast' outlaw ship that tries to undock or jump through a gate. |

Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
101
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:44:00 -
[342] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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...
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...... |

Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
854
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:46:00 -
[343] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:Abdiel Kavash wrote: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 Much appreciated! 
CCP Masterplan wrote:Abdiel Kavash wrote: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. Well I'm completely fine with dealing with the corp B fleet. However the proposed mechanics allow them to be practically invulnerable while they rip my fleet apart - it's not the player fleet I'm dealing with, it's the invulnerability granted to them via game mechanics.
(A technicality though; they need to hold tackle somehow, which causes aggression. This means that if they tackle one ship, the rest of my fleet can warp off. They can still pick off crucial ships though without any way to prevent it. Or they can use a heavily tanked ship to hold tackle on many ships at once, with only the tackled ships being able to respond. Now imagine that they bring some abomination with 8 points and point all of my logistics.) |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
696

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:47:00 -
[344] - 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 |
|

Miles Forrester
Reverberation Inc The Veyr Collective
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:47:00 -
[345] - Quote
Altrue wrote:If I understood well, logistics assisting someone with only a LE timer (like someone self-defending himself against a criminal) will be flagged SUSPECT and be able to be attacked from everybody around ?
Why don't just replicate the timers from the player who receives the assistance, like with every other case ? (Meaning copy the LE timer instead of a SUSPECT timer.)
I also don't understand why an agressor in low sec could jump back to high sec safely.
Edit : Quote here : "Assisting someone who is engaged in an LE will cause the assistor to receive a Suspect flag."
I'd support changing assistance to copy the LE instead of receiving the Suspect flag and here's why:
- Alice steals from Bob's can - Alice gets Suspect flag - Bob (or someone else) gets a combat ship and starts to attack Alice - Bob is now engaged in a LE with Alice - Bob is losing and calls out to the corp/alliance for help - Charlie responds and goes out with a (e.g.) logistic ship - Charlie starts repairing Bob's shield and/or armor/cap - According to the ruleset, Charlie would get the Suspect flag for helping a corp/alliance member
Either I'm wrong or something doesn't add up here. |

Sergi Arro
The Dark Space Initiative
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:48:00 -
[346] - Quote
Sorry if this has been asked before, but I'm not going through 17 pages...
If I am in a mission site and I end up dc'ing while I have the NPC flag, does my ship stay their until either i get back online or my ship blows up?
Let's assume the dc is very bad (maybe a big storm knocked out power over a wide area). If I can tank whatever is there indefinitely, do I stay in space until downtime, being shot at my npcs? I would assume this is the case as the flag is "activated when a player uses offensive modules against an NPC (or vice-versa). " and that it goes on to state "Having this flag will prevent a ship from being removed from space if the pilot logs off."
Thanks in advance! |

Styth spiting
Gunzerkers
66
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:49:00 -
[347] - Quote
In regards to can flipping.
Flipper and Hauler warp in. Flipper flips can. Places contents in new container. Receives flag(s). Hauler then takes contents from container. Receives no flag.
So basically if you flip cans with an alt or with a friend which is basically how most people do it these days, the only thing that changes is your flipper ship can be attacked, which if you're in a noob ship wouldn't even matter (if you looking for can loot, not kills). |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
696

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:50:00 -
[348] - 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 |
|

Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
107
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:52:00 -
[349] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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...
As an outlaw myself I would be wondering why anyone would be on a gate with a cruiser and a frigate that can't take gate guns for any period of time...the only time I would be fighting in either of those on a gate just about alone is if the other person is an outlaw as well... |

Andre Vauban
Quantum Cats Syndicate
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:52:00 -
[350] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:Andre Vauban wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: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 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. There is no LE going on in your example, as far as I can tell. The first pirate will get an S flag on attacking. (Assuming this is lowsec. In 0.0 nothing happens and in high he'll get concorded.) However your friend gets no flags* and the logi can freely rep him. Moreover, your entire fleet can now attack the aggressing pirate without repercussions, as he is a suspect. * He will get a PvP (aka logoff) flag, however that has nothing to do with gateguns.
Let me rephrase that then:
Pirate A enages a neutral B on the gate. A receives a criminal flag and the gate guns start shooting him. B than engages A back creating a LE. B's friends in logi (C and D) show up and chain up. C reps B. C then receives a suspect flag and the gate guns start shooting him. D also receives a suspect flag since he just repped a suspect and the gate guns start shooting him too. Now all of A's friends can come in and shoot C and D without taking any flags nor being engaged by the guns.
I'm fine with C and D being engaged by anybody, but its not cool that they also have to endure gate guns for repairing the victum in this case. QCATS is recruiting https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=146180
|
|

TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
56
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:55:00 -
[351] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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...
... In addition to all the others?
It's the only time in the game I can think of where you cannot assist your corpmates in combat at all. |

Burseg Sardaukar
Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance
178
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:55:00 -
[352] - Quote
Sergi Arro wrote:Sorry if this has been asked before, but I'm not going through 17 pages...
If I am in a mission site and I end up dc'ing while I have the NPC flag, does my ship stay their until either i get back online or my ship blows up?
Let's assume the dc is very bad (maybe a big storm knocked out power over a wide area). If I can tank whatever is there indefinitely, do I stay in space until downtime, being shot at my npcs? I would assume this is the case as the flag is "activated when a player uses offensive modules against an NPC (or vice-versa). " and that it goes on to state "Having this flag will prevent a ship from being removed from space if the pilot logs off."
Thanks in advance!
It sounds like only the PVP flag can be re-applied after you log, so you have to only survive 15m. I honestly do think this should be more like 5 minutes, but I think all timers need a bit of a shrink... 15 minutes has been the de facto amount forever and I guess that's what everyone wants (?). Hey, as a dude that lives in lowsec, you should read my idea on how to "fix" it... in Blog format, complete with a spreadsheet! http://3xxxd.blogspot.com/2012/09/how-to-buff-lowsec.html |

Sheynan
Lighting the blight
71
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:56:00 -
[353] - Quote
What about freighters or ships in general logging off right after a gatejump and thus vanishing without anyone being able to get them ?
Will this issue also be addressed ? |

Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
101
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:57:00 -
[354] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: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... As an outlaw myself I would be wondering why anyone would be on a gate with a cruiser and a frigate that can't take gate guns for any period of time...the only time I would be fighting in either of those on a gate just about alone is if the other person is an outlaw as well...
Some people's idea of being an outlaw is roaming and pvping..
Not instalock camping, no risk pvp and other such terribleness people like Scum and TunDraGon do to soil the name of pirates everywhere. |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
700

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:58:00 -
[355] - 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 |
|

War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1279
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:58:00 -
[356] - Quote
BOLEVINE wrote:-->Means harsher rules for criminals and less fun in the end. For example, "Security-status penalties are now GÇÿfront-loadedGÇÖ, so a criminal/suspect will incur the full penalty when an illegal attack starts, not when (if) the target is destroyed. "
Means less time in low sec having fun killing peeps for those who dont want to go a full -10. Less time = less fun.
Presumably you'll only go -5 if all you're shooting is ships in lowsec. It wasn't mentioned in this devblog, but I assume that the earlier announcement that you could only go -10 by shooting pods still holds.
Quote:example 2," Weapons Flag: This flag is activated by using offensive modules against another player (or simply by activating certain non-targeted weapons such as smartbombs). Having this flag will prevent a character from performing actions such as jumping, docking and switching ships in space. This flag functions in all areas of space."
->Means we cant jump back through another low sec gate to disrupt the guy your trying to lock down. So less freedom to move around and PVP in low sec means less fun.
This timer is only 60 seconds. The effect is the same as it has always been. You fire your guns in pvp, you can't dock or jump for 60 seconds. No change.
Quote: Also, it sounds like we wont be able to 1v1 for a while.... " We're also working on a replacement for the usage of loot-theft as a way to initiate consensual 1v1s without incurring criminal penalties that we hope to release for Winter."
Why won't you be able to 1v1 for a while? The CW2 changes are coming in winter, and so is the consensual 1v1 system (they hope).
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |

Sulindra
Ananke Astrodynamics Terran Commonwealth
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:00:00 -
[357] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:Re 15 minute NPC timer: there is a small adjustment I would suggest. Make it so that cloaking devices stay active when a person logs off.
Why? Imagine someone diving deep into 0.0 space with an intention to kill rats or do exploration sites. They don't have any stations or towers to hide in. With CW2 they can't save themselves by simply logging off - which is nice. However, to end a play session, they now have to wait 15 minutes while literally doing nothing. If they have a cloak and warp off to a safespot, they are virtually invulnerable for the duration of the timer anyway, so why not just let them warp off, cloak, and log out? Functionally it would be equivalent to them waiting out the timer cloaked, only it would save them 15 minutes of real life time.
Cloak up and go make a sandwich 15 minutes saved. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9728
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:00:00 -
[358] - Quote
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.  GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|

Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
855
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:02:00 -
[359] - Quote
Sulindra wrote:Abdiel Kavash wrote:Re 15 minute NPC timer: there is a small adjustment I would suggest. Make it so that cloaking devices stay active when a person logs off.
Why? Imagine someone diving deep into 0.0 space with an intention to kill rats or do exploration sites. They don't have any stations or towers to hide in. With CW2 they can't save themselves by simply logging off - which is nice. However, to end a play session, they now have to wait 15 minutes while literally doing nothing. If they have a cloak and warp off to a safespot, they are virtually invulnerable for the duration of the timer anyway, so why not just let them warp off, cloak, and log out? Functionally it would be equivalent to them waiting out the timer cloaked, only it would save them 15 minutes of real life time. Cloak up and go make a sandwich 15 minutes saved.
I'm thinking more of a "have to log off, need to go to work" scenario.
However I guess I could just stay around and AFK cloak.  |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
700

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:03:00 -
[360] - 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 |
|
|

Malcom Dax
Minmatar Death Squad Broken Chains Alliance
37
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:04:00 -
[361] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:Malcom Dax wrote:... stuff about fleets and cans.
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!
Awesome!  Blacklight Incorporated: Recruiting all pilots for PvE and Industry - UK/EU/US timezone. |

Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
1201
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:04:00 -
[362] - Quote
BOLEVINE wrote:-->Means harsher rules for criminals and less fun in the end. For example, "Security-status penalties are now GÇÿfront-loadedGÇÖ, so a criminal/suspect will incur the full penalty when an illegal attack starts, not when (if) the target is destroyed. "
Means less time in low sec having fun killing peeps for those who dont want to go a full -10. Less time = less fun.
Hmmm.... What is happening w/ sec status? Isn't that part of Crimewatch?
Sec Hits
- Killing someone w/ a suspect flag gives sec hit down to -5.0
- Killing a pod (killing w/ a criminal flag) gives sec hit to -10.0
Sec Boosts
- Killing someone with a negative sec status gives a sec status boost up to +10.0 (so buy kill rights to up sec status?)
- Turning in tags to up sec status from -5.0 to +5.0
The Crimewatch Fanfest vid is long... but really the part of it that makes all of this make perfect sense to me was when CCP Greyscale explained (very briefly) how the lowsec ecosystem might work with the changes to the criminal flagging mechanics and secboosting options. I've taken the liberty of linking the vid at 22:00 here where he explained it. With the forthcoming bounty system and the ability to sell killrights, all of this together will make lowsec a really interesting place to be, I think. But... we are missing two parts of the story so it's hard to see how this will happen. We have the Criminal flagging part of the story now... what we need is the bounty system (and killrights contract selling which I suspect is similar to the bounty sys) and we are missing the part about taking secstatus in the other direction via tags or killing people with a negative sec.
|

Tarvos Telesto
Blood Fanatics
15
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:04:00 -
[363] - Quote
"Stealing from a container will expose you to potential attacks from all players (but not from sentry guns)."
No more cans spam under jita....WOOW that cool, push people to real pvp, good job CCP. |

War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1279
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:05:00 -
[364] - Quote
War Kitten 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. I think someone else asked this earlier, but I haven't seen the answer: If you shoot at someone at a gate in lowsec, warp off grid before he dies (point is held by your cohort), and you warp back on grid, and then proceed to shoot the original target some more, do you : a) Get another sec status hit, and gain new sentry aggro? b) Get no further sec hit, sentries ignore you? c) Get no further sec hit, sentries shoot at you anyway because they witnessed a sec status type action?
Answering my own question with a guess from reading other responses, but the real answer is important since sec status hits are now front-loaded.
I think the answer is C. B would be exploitable and A is a double-whammy on sec status hits.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |

Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
855
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:05:00 -
[365] - Quote
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?
Well is it possible to disallow scooping of ships that are being targeted, just like now you can't board them? |

Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:05:00 -
[366] - Quote
Although a threat to T1 cruisers and frigates of all type -- sentry guns alone are pretty meaningless for large ships and roam groups, especially T2-T3.
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.
Lots of low sec gate camps are semi-AFK auto-target affairs which last all weekend. Worse its more likely in the interests of experienced pilots to join gate camps than to oppose them. Gate camps tend to be ad hoc groups for farming kills of less experienced and solo players. Since lo sec is generally NOT organized into large alliances and corps, it can take a while before a large enough group of more experienced players comes by to dislodge gate camps from some ambush spots.
PVP should not become an AFK activity even where a large fleet is ambushing individuals. Gate camping by larger groups in lo sec should entail its own infrequent risk from the EMPIRE factions -- since within sustained universal trade embargo is against factional interests not just individual pilots and corps.
I suppose larger rat/NPC convoys transiting gates and visiting stations might provide similar breaks in a static situation...as well as a prize for rival groups to fight with/over.
|

Jace Errata
Lawlz Brawlz
285
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:08:00 -
[367] - Quote
Random thought: I hope the PVP and NPC flags are called something else in-game. Stealth OST puns and blatant lies since 2009 Jace Errata on Twitter
One day they woke me up so I could live forever It's such a shame the same will never happen to you |

Erik Finnegan
Polytechnique Gallenteenne
75
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:09:00 -
[368] - Quote
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. |

Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
855
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:10:00 -
[369] - Quote
Proddy Scun wrote: 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.
This is a double-edged sword. Either you make the NPCs too weak, so that they can be ignored or easily shot down. Or you make them too strong, and they will start interfering with honest fights. |

Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
101
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:10:00 -
[370] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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.
But if the two -10 guys DON'T start the fight because they are in ships that cant take sentries. But jump into a say.. Gang of three, that would be a good fight normally except they are all positive sec. They can tackle and kill one of us without the other being able to do anything at all to help
If we try to help we die to sentries. In this case the sentries are working against the passive party, not the agressing one. |
|

Dern Morrow
Vanguard Frontiers Intrepid Crossing
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:11:00 -
[371] - Quote
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? |

Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
163
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:11:00 -
[372] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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?
That is a unrealistic scenario. Nobody is ever going to do that. What they will do however is eject from their ship in high-sec after baiting someone and have their alt scoop it up in the Orca and warp away ;-) |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
702

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:11:00 -
[373] - 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 |
|

Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
737
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:11:00 -
[374] - Quote
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)? Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |

Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
1201
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:13:00 -
[375] - Quote
Is there going to be a way to boost up your sec status other than grinding 1 NPC per system???   
|

TheMaster42
Scorpion Unicorn Bird
5
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:13:00 -
[376] - Quote
PvP flag will carry between systems like all the other flags, correct? (This would be a change from the current behavior.) |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
705

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:16:00 -
[377] - 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 |
|

Jeas Imerius
Zero-G Freelancing
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:16:00 -
[378] - Quote
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.
 |

l0rd carlos
Friends Of Harassment
48
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:17:00 -
[379] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
But if the two -10 guys DON'T start the fight because they are in ships that cant take sentries. But jump into a say.. Gang of three, that would be a good fight normally except they are all positive sec. They can tackle and kill one of us without the other being able to do anything at all to help
If we try to help we die to sentries. In this case the sentries are working against the passive party, not the agressing one.
That's the hard life of an outlaw. Crash the gate. Use scout. |

Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
442
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:17:00 -
[380] - Quote
It seems a lot of these questions would be answered if people read the entire dev blog, the entire thread, or just waited for it to hit the test server. At least I can only assume that the devs would love it if people actually tested each scenario that people are asking about, to make sure it follows their plan.
|
|

Louis deGuerre
The Dark Tribe Against ALL Authorities
481
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:17:00 -
[381] - Quote
I'm probably not understanding the new system but sec status penalties for assisting against criminals feels counter intuitive to me. FIRE FRIENDSHIP TORPEDOES ! Louis's epic skill guide v1.1 |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9730
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:19:00 -
[382] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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. I kind of suspected as much. It's the whole interim period where something is sitting in space without a pilot that is the clincher, I suppose.
If it was just a matter of storing the ship, the old idea treating the Orca pilot as if he were a logi or other remote support ship could be resurrected, but I guess that middle step is annoyingGǪ
Oh well, it's not like T3s could stand being toned down a bit anyway.  GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|

Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
101
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:19:00 -
[383] - Quote
l0rd carlos wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:
But if the two -10 guys DON'T start the fight because they are in ships that cant take sentries. But jump into a say.. Gang of three, that would be a good fight normally except they are all positive sec. They can tackle and kill one of us without the other being able to do anything at all to help
If we try to help we die to sentries. In this case the sentries are working against the passive party, not the agressing one.
That's the hard life of an outlaw. Crash the gate. Use scout.
This however is the only situation i can think of in the game where you can't help a corpmate as well as the only time when gate guns work in favor of the agressor. |

Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1777
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:19:00 -
[384] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote: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.
Benefits: Tons of fun in highsec, because everybody plus faction police is on your ass. Everybody as in: Players if they care ... and the faction police isn't really an issue as long as there are enough bookmarks to warp around ... and they are easily doable on grid anyway. The warping is great fun, though. Showed this to quite a few people and they all enjoyed what i'm doing.
I agree, though, that CCP should make a distinct outlaw profession ... simple gankers, who hide in station unless called/having found targets via alts, don't count. Inappropriate signature removed. Spitfire |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
705

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:20:00 -
[385] - 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 -
[386] - 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 -
[387] - 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 |
|

glepp
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
89
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:22:00 -
[388] - Quote
You broke dictors again by giving them a weapon flag for launching an interdiction probe.
Dammit, now that they were finally working again.
Since you actually put it in the chart, I assume it's intentional. What's the reasoning? |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
705

|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:22:00 -
[389] - 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 |
|

Darius III
Interstellar eXodus BricK sQuAD.
1434
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:24:00 -
[390] - Quote
I may regret saying this but here goes anyway:
This system looks to be a major improvement, after reviewing all materials available to me i can not think of any major complaint nor do I think any of it is "obviously broken" from the outset.
Provided a mechanic is introduced that allows for voluntary pvp-I think l am 100% for every aspect of the revisions. l didnt think that the new crimewatch would be an improvement, and am very pleased that CCP has proven me wrong. Kudos Hmmm |
|

Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:24:00 -
[391] - Quote
Marcel Devereux wrote:
That is a unrealistic scenario. Nobody is ever going to do that. What they will do however is eject from their ship in high-sec after baiting someone and have their alt scoop it up in the Orca and warp away ;-)
I can confirm that Tundragon scoops with orcas all the friggin time. It's not really fair but it minimizes losses if we can't get out by other means. I am not worried about it being nerfed because it was an OP tactic for escape.
It should be made such that if the ship is targeted it cant be scooped by the orca, not that "you can't eject just because". The "you cant eject under gun countdown" rule in general is just pointlessly limiting and doesnt achieve anything. Maybe if you care about ejecting T3s so much, you could ONLY make it apply to them? Honestly, the reasoning behind implementing it is not sound and its just not worth doing, too restrictive.
CCP Masterplan wrote: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!
Call it a Mutual Fire Contract, not something WOW'y like a duel. |

adopt
Enlightened Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
434
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:26:00 -
[392] - Quote
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? Shadoo > Always remember to fit Cynosural Field Generator I, have 450 Liquid Ozone in your cargo and convo a friendly Pandemic Legion member if you have a capital or super capital ship tackled.
FREE XOLVE ~ THE HERO TEST NEEDS |

Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
221
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:26:00 -
[393] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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.
It is really a shame that people can jump through a gate and within the period of the gate cloak timer log out in hope of the enemy being unable to kill his ship in 30 seconds...
Pinky |

Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
858
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:27:00 -
[394] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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) Implication: if you web your freighter in one system, you can't log off in the next system to avoid getting killed by WTs (you will keep the 15 minute logoff timer). |

De'Veldrin
NerdHerd En Garde
391
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:28:00 -
[395] - Quote
Goonspiracy wrote:Tippia wrote:Goonspiracy wrote:Are you seriously giving ratters 15 min "keep their ships in space" aggression timers? Do you not see anything wrong with this? This is a very simple question Fit a cloak? That's a brilliant way to defend your logged out ship
Why would you need to log out if you can cloak? Unsub or don't.-á I don't care what your reasons are, and neither does anyone else.-á Just click the button and go away - or don't. |

Mujen
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:29:00 -
[396] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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.
I'm interested in hearing why bubbles were intended to work this way. I flew dictors when you could jump after dropping the bubble and when you couldn't. In my opinion the "broken" way far superior. If you wanted to keep the dictor from jumping? Warp in his bubble. Trap him. Give him aggression to prevent him. This creates a much more dynamic and challenging playing environment.
Dictors are getting pricey, and they are fragile. You could cloak for sure, but it would nice to have other ways to GTFO and assist the fleet.
I fear that this will penalize small scale pvp where gangs would only have 1 dictor, so this change I feel will diminish their use. People will be less aggressive if they are afraid about aggroing.
Although I can see why dropping a bubble can be seen in the same light as shooting a weapon it makes eve more predictable tactically. You're taking a tool out of the FC toolkit. I know the first time dictors were hit with this basically nobody I knew liked it at all and their use dropped. There was a great amount of excitement when this mechanic went back to the "broken" way. I have have been on both sides of the dictor bubble and I would prefer that it remains how it is.
|

Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:29:00 -
[397] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Some people's idea of being an outlaw is roaming and pvping..
Not instalock camping, no risk pvp and other such terribleness people like Scum and TunDraGon do to soil the name of pirates everywhere.
Actually we do roam, just not every waking moment. Usually every other day.
|

Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:30:00 -
[398] - Quote
Since CCP is taking away early surprise ejection as an option to reduce chances of being podded in PVP...
maybe they need to automated pod combat escape a little more.
While its nice to survey and BM wrecks from pod in NPC combat, in PVP combat I just want to get the hell away ASAP.
In PVP sometimes I find my pod appearance lagged behind attackers or the explosion makes the pod spinning and uncontrollable for a short but critical time.
How about having pod home on random celestial body or dock with random station in system? Or at least a random warp out of weapon range (350km+) within grid.
The within grid warp might be the best compromise for pod escape between PVP and NPC combat. Although it would be easy enough to make the auto-escape a player toggle button option as well. |

Jarin Arenos
Card Shark Industries
40
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:30:00 -
[399] - Quote
So far I've seen no commentary on the effect this will have on mission runners. I know that this playstyle is low on your list of priorities (especially highsec missions), but this is a huge functional nerf. As it stands currently, if you're in a mission, and the network between you and CCP craps its pants, you warp out within 60 seconds, saving your ship from the whims of fate.
Post-change, your ship sits there like a lump and - if you're not heavy-tanked cap-stable - dies. So the new rule is "Cap Stable Overtank or GTFO"? No more blitzing missions in my AF unless I live next-door to CCP? This can't be the intention of this change... |

Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
858
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:30:00 -
[400] - Quote
adopt wrote: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?
If you pod (or even aggress a pod) someone in lowsec, you will get a C (criminal) flag. As long as you stay in lowsec, this only means you will get shot at by gateguns. However is you jump to highsec while you still have the C flag active, you'll get the CONCORD treatement complete with instant points and no more jumping. |
|

Lolmer
Yahoo Inc Caffeine Nicotine and Hate
49
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:31:00 -
[401] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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.
You're already doing that per player, and you don't have to do it for every item, only ships, and then only when people eject, so horrendously often.
You don't want to track these flags, we don't want you to tell us how we fly (or get out of) our ships. How do we meet in the middle? Don't block ejecting from a ship! :) Rather, block pilots from boarding a ship when they have the offending flag and you now have the penalty you're looking for while leaving our ejections alone. ;) Also block ships from being scooped if they're locked (which you already have code in for boarding a ship while locked).
Keep in mind that this change doesn't just affect Strategic Cruisers. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9731
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:31:00 -
[402] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:It should be made such that if the ship is targeted it cant be scooped by the orca, not that "you can't eject just because". HmmGǪ there's already a similar rule for entering ships IIRC, so maybe that would be a way around it?
If the mechanics are (kind of) already there, it could conceivably be combined with my idea for weapons-flagging adjustments.
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.  GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|

Sulindra
Ananke Astrodynamics Terran Commonwealth
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:32:00 -
[403] - Quote
What really fascinates me about this thread are the outlaws from lowsec whining about the gate guns. As if the outlaw is an innocent party in all this. This is low security space. Not no security space. If you don't want to get shot by the gate guns go to null.
T3 pilots. SUCK IT UP! If you can't afford to lose it DON"T FLY IT.
They do not make enough cheese to go with the amount of whine we got going.
CCP Masterplan THANK YOU!
I for one am going to enjoy running through highsec trying to chase down criminals. These changes are glorious!
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
582
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:33:00 -
[404] - Quote
I think this is a huge awesome change.....
No more ejecting from a t3 to prevent SP loss... This is moreless a good thing, but it has one Major Drawback. Sadly, it means no more free ships...... I've picked up the occassional t3, BSs, BCs, and even a Charon because pilots ejected rather than suffer the ship loss... and damnit, I love those free ships!!
No more storing ships in a carrier/orca to save them... (This was a much needed change.... )
No more gate/station games with logistics.... (This just made logistics MUCH harder, but IMO, a good change)
And talk about a whammy to highsec RR: With the new system, Assume Pirate A got a suspect or criminal flag. If Samaritan B attacks A (which is legal), it creates a Limited Engagement. Anyone that attempts to remote assist Samaritan B gains a suspect flag, and can be shot by EVERYONE legally. I like this a lot....
I'm curious how this stuff will carry over with war-dec mechanics... What happens when neither player A nor B is flagged as globally attackable, and are legally shooting each other, and player C comes along and starts repping Player A? |

Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
858
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:33:00 -
[405] - Quote
Tippia wrote: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.  Because it is an interesting and quite unique mechanic. I would in fact welcome encouraging ejecting in some other ways. |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1489
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:35:00 -
[406] - Quote
tayjor wrote:So you can steal from corp wallet and hangers with impunity, but take 1 trit from a can and the whole universe is on your ass? Theres no such thing as 'stealing from the corp wallet' if you have been given access TK is recruiting |

Lyron-Baktos
Selective Pressure Rote Kapelle
322
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:36:00 -
[407] - Quote
please incresase the time it takes before someone can dock. station games need to go. either you undock and fight or you sit in station. No more undock, fire 1 round and then dock again shortly afterwards.
5 minutes would be nice Selective Pressure [FOVRA] is now recruiting! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1797934#post1797934 |

Eon Ending
Inquisition FiS Division Surely You're Joking
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:36:00 -
[408] - Quote
Question to CCP Masterplan from the WH crowd:
Here's a situation: A WH-living person logs on (Character A) , finds a bad guy (Character B) going through his WH.
Char A tracks down and shoots Char B & destroys Char B. Char A now has a 15 minute flag. Char B drops some sweet epic lewtz. Char A wants to fly to his POS, grab a indy and pick up said epic lewtz. Char A can't under the new system as he's got the flag and can't change ships.
Is that the new reality under this system??
Or Situation B:
Char A is in his corp's WH and gets jumped by char B. Char B has a flag.
Char A shoots back trying to drive B off. Char A now has a flag.
Char C (from the same corp as A) arrives and pins Char B down. Char C has a flag.
Char A manages to flee to his POS.
Char A tries to reship into a more appropriate ship to help Char C kill Char B. But can't because of the flag.
Is this how it is going to be under the new system????
Can anybody help?
|

Borlag Crendraven
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
90
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:36:00 -
[409] - Quote
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?
The already suggested mechanic that would prevent scooping a boat that's being targeted by something. What your current mechanic would result in, would not only be making it much more difficult to ransom someone regardless of what kind of boat they are in, but it would also make things even more inconvenient for us living in wormholes. We have no silly concord protection mechanics, we have no safe zones and that is just how we like it down here. We are fine with losing boats, wouldn't be flying T3's for practically everything we do if we weren't. However making it increasingly more difficult to even try and save our pods, by removing the eject trick will have much more severe consequences. I'd be willing to bet that a huge portion of the userbase suffer from the same problems of having system lag at the time of destruction of their boat, even if mail/notification blinking and notices are turned off. That would essentially take us out of the play for what could be the rest of the day, unless a known space connecting wormhole is available of course.
If it came to that, I wouldn't care that much about the skill point loss either, heck you could even tie it to the ship loss, afterall even now I still get a lossmail for every single Proteus I lose regardless of whether I jump out in time or not. Surely this indicates that even after jumping out of the said boat, I still have (or rather had) ownership of the said boat, which in return could be linked to your SP loss code. |

Darth Gustav
Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension
1313
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:36:00 -
[410] - Quote
This proposal doesn't just eliminate freighter ganking for profit (you can't loot the wrecks anymore without being engaged by lookie-lous), it also breaks (lol) high-sec war mechanics, too. You can't loot the field if you clear it and hold it now, because again lookie-lous will engage you for taking the loots.
That's broken and stupid and it doesn't sound like Eve Online to me. He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |
|

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1489
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:36:00 -
[411] - Quote
Ydnari wrote:There's a mention of kill rights... I heard that kill rights on -10 toons are incredible useful TK is recruiting |

Sulindra
Ananke Astrodynamics Terran Commonwealth
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:38:00 -
[412] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote:This proposal doesn't just eliminate freighter ganking for profit (you can't loot the wrecks anymore without being engaged by lookie-lous), it also breaks (lol) high-sec war mechanics, too. You can't loot the field if you clear it and hold it now, because again lookie-lous will engage you for taking the loots.
That's broken and stupid and it doesn't sound like Eve Online to me.
It doesn't break highsec war mechanics. If you can legally shoot it you can legally loot it. |

Amelya Laurann
Boundless Space Seashells
32
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:39:00 -
[413] - Quote
Jim Era wrote:As I was saying, I was wondering why people read dev blogs and **** like that, I prefer to wait til it happens, hell half the time I don't even know it happens... Just these godamn eve forums are spoiling it. I am very disappointed in those guys who have taken up one of my passtimes.
Oh I bashed them on your behalf :D
I read devblogs because i can speculate and do some arbitrage on a small scale and get a couple extra billions. If i did wait, the changes in the markets over the time the info is released up to the actual implementation would wreck these profits.
I can also get my words out there if need be (like now), and prepare my planned skills accordingly. It has other bonuses as well, won't name them all XD
|

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9732
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:40:00 -
[414] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote:This proposal doesn't just eliminate freighter ganking for profit (you can't loot the wrecks anymore without being engaged by lookie-lous), it also breaks (lol) high-sec war mechanics, too. You can't loot the field if you clear it and hold it now, because again lookie-lous will engage you for taking the loots. If they were legal targets, you can legally loot them. Since they're WTs, no-one will be allowed to attack you. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|

Tsubutai
The Tuskers
126
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:40:00 -
[415] - Quote
Eon Ending wrote:Question to CCP Masterplan from the WH crowd: Char A tracks down and shoots Char B & destroys Char B. Char A now has a 15 minute flag. Char A wants to fly to his POS, grab a indy and pick up said epic lewtz. Char A can't under the new system as he's got the flag and can't change ships.
Is that the new reality under this system?? The flag that prevents you from ejecting and swapping ships is the weapons flag, which only lasts for one minute. Bearing in mind that it'd probably take at least 20-odd seconds to warp to your POS from the grid where the fight happened, I really don't think it's going to be a huge deal. |

Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
2721
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:41:00 -
[416] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: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! Call it a Mutual Fire Contract, not something WOW'y like a duel.
You can call it what ever you want, but it's dueling and every motherF is going to call it dueling. If your only reason for calling it something convoluted is because other games also call dueling what it is, then the problem is you and not the name. |

TheMaster42
Scorpion Unicorn Bird
5
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:44:00 -
[417] - Quote
For being affected by hictor/dictor bubbles, when exactly in time is the PvP flag applied to the warper and the h/dictor? |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1490
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:45:00 -
[418] - 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?
Ninja Salvaing died ages ago..
And as for can flipping?
Expect a fight, just not the one you wanted TK is recruiting |

Darth Gustav
Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension
1313
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:45:00 -
[419] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Darth Gustav wrote:This proposal doesn't just eliminate freighter ganking for profit (you can't loot the wrecks anymore without being engaged by lookie-lous), it also breaks (lol) high-sec war mechanics, too. You can't loot the field if you clear it and hold it now, because again lookie-lous will engage you for taking the loots. If they were legal targets, you can legally loot them. Since they're WTs, no-one will be allowed to attack you. I missed that. My bads. He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |

Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
861
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:47:00 -
[420] - Quote
Hmm... so if a ganker attempts but fails to gank a miner, the miner can no longer loot the ganker's wreck? (as in, he would get a global S flag) |
|

Sulindra
Ananke Astrodynamics Terran Commonwealth
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:47:00 -
[421] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Expect a fight, just not the one you wanted
Exacty! |

Jarin Arenos
Card Shark Industries
40
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:48:00 -
[422] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:Hmm... so if a ganker attempts but fails to gank a miner, the miner can no longer loot the ganker's wreck? (as in, he would get a global S flag) Search the devblog for the words "front loaded" |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1490
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:49:00 -
[423] - 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
In olden-times you used to aggress a wreck or can that the target was owner of to extend the pvp timer.
I think this got fixed last expansion? TK is recruiting |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9734
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:49:00 -
[424] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:Hmm... so if a ganker attempts but fails to gank a miner, the miner can no longer loot the ganker's wreck? (as in, he would get a global S flag) The miner will get kill rights and the ganker will be criminal-flagged. Either way, he's now a legal target and therefore taking stuff from him is no longer an illegal action. Loot away. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|

Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
137
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:49:00 -
[425] - Quote
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. TAKE ALL MY MONIES |

DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
374
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:51:00 -
[426] - Quote
CCP Explorer wrote:EVE is not a simple game, but at least there will now be charts describing how it behaves! 
1st criticism: NEED MOAR CHARTS 
CRIMEWATCH BLOG wrote: we're making a pretty open-ended sandbox, which gives us developers a lot of [/s]confidence ABSOULTE CERTAINTY that you players will find new ways to do old things pretty quickly [s] exploight the living HECK OUTOF ANY SYSTEM WE TRY TO FIX
FIXED  Nostalgie ist die Faehigkeit, darueber zu trauern, dass es nicht mehr so ist, wie es frueher nicht gewesen ist. -- Manfred Rommel-á |

Bart Starr
Aggressive Structural Steel Expediting Services
97
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:52:00 -
[427] - 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. 
Not as good as you think.
If you eject from your ship, presumably your ship will be locked. Which means it cannot be scooped by anyone but the owner. And the Orca Alt is not 'the owner'.
So the answer to Masterplans question is: the fact that your ship is locked by a hostile.
|

Jarin Arenos
Card Shark Industries
40
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:54:00 -
[428] - Quote
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... |

Lolmer
Yahoo Inc Caffeine Nicotine and Hate
53
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:55:00 -
[429] - Quote
Borlag Crendraven 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? The already suggested mechanic that would prevent scooping a boat that's being targeted by something. What your current mechanic would result in, would not only be making it much more difficult to ransom someone regardless of what kind of boat they are in, but it would also make things even more inconvenient for us living in wormholes. We have no silly concord protection mechanics, we have no safe zones and that is just how we like it down here. We are fine with losing boats, wouldn't be flying T3's for practically everything we do if we weren't. However making it increasingly more difficult to even try and save our pods, by removing the eject trick will have much more severe consequences. I'd be willing to bet that a huge portion of the userbase suffer from the same problems of having system lag at the time of destruction of their boat, even if mail/notification blinking and notices are turned off. That would essentially take us out of the play for what could be the rest of the day, unless a known space connecting wormhole is available of course. If it came to that, I wouldn't care that much about the skill point loss either, heck you could even tie it to the ship loss, afterall even now I still get a lossmail for every single Proteus I lose regardless of whether I jump out in time or not. Surely this indicates that even after jumping out of the said boat, I still have (or rather had) ownership of the said boat, which in return could be linked to your SP loss code.
QFT.
I'm perfectly fine with losing SP as consequence for losing the T3 I was flying (even if ejecting). What I'm not okay with is CCP telling me when I can, or cannot, eject from my own ship (for whatever reason; saving pod, because I can, ransom, etc.) |

Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
861
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:56:00 -
[430] - Quote
Jarin Arenos wrote: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... The only headache that is getting handed to you is if you were using logging off as a means of escape. CCP doesn't want you to do that anymore. |
|

Sulindra
Ananke Astrodynamics Terran Commonwealth
5
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:58:00 -
[431] - Quote
Jarin Arenos wrote: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...
nope... not really. |

Treya Neverette
Deep Space Havoc LLC
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:59:00 -
[432] - Quote
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. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9734
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:00:00 -
[433] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote:Not as good as you think.
If you eject from your ship, presumably your ship will be locked. Which means it cannot be scooped by anyone but the owner. And the Orca Alt is not 'the owner'.
So the answer to Masterplans question is: the fact that your ship is locked by a hostile. Are you talking about right now or about being a possible solution? I'll admit that I haven't tried it myself, but from what I've seen from various camps, it never seemed like it was a problem right nowGǪ
GǪbut if it is, then as mentioned previously, yes, that's the answer.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|

Arec Bardwin
757
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:00:00 -
[434] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:Arec Bardwin wrote:- Pods, are they legal targets if the player is criminal, suspect, LE flagged? Yes Interesting 
|

Jarin Arenos
Card Shark Industries
42
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:00:00 -
[435] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:Jarin Arenos wrote: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... The only headache that is getting handed to you is if you were using logging off as a means of escape. CCP doesn't want you to do that anymore. So glad that you're blessed with an internet connection that never dies when you're in the middle of doing something. The rest of us aren't so lucky. 60 seconds was usually plenty to stop people from using it as an "oshit" escape button. 15 minutes is cruel and unusual. |

Baljos Arnjak
Dark Praetorian Order
31
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:02:00 -
[436] - Quote
Dirael Papier wrote:Dersen Lowery wrote:Generally, this looks great.
Just a possibility: What if webbing another player didn't count as weapon activation? The reason being that (just) webbing a slow-aligning ship is as much a favor as anything else. Webbing NPCs would still count as weapon activation as long as they're too stupid to take the hint and warp off. Well, if there's a way to setup an LE on request such that neither player is suspect flagged (like an option in the right click menu of a character to request an LE) then that could be used to safely web someone else without becoming a suspect.
I know, late to the table for that quote. But that could be an easy way to introduce a new isk sink. CONCORD sanctioned LE's, works kinda like a mini one-ship war dec who's cost is based on ship value, and only granted if the other party also requests one against you. Something fairly unobtrusive like half a percent of ship value or something. Obviously this is more for dueling than for freighter webbing (as freighter webbing is usually done by someone in-corp to get around being concordokkened).
Just an idea  |

Odin Shadow
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:02:00 -
[437] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:Jarin Arenos wrote: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... The only headache that is getting handed to you is if you were using logging off as a means of escape. CCP doesn't want you to do that anymore.
ifccp has network issue the same as they have had many times recently or you isp or power goes out. that 1 little scramming frig will hold you as your mods switch off and you ship explodes. all because you cant log into your high sec mission guy through no fault of your own.
|

steave435
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
80
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:02:00 -
[438] - Quote
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. |

Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
861
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:03:00 -
[439] - Quote
Treya Neverette wrote: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.
This only happens in highsec, and the mechanics are the same as they were for years now - simply put, NO way to escape Concord. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9734
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:03:00 -
[440] - Quote
Jarin Arenos wrote:So glad that you're blessed with an internet connection that never dies when you're in the middle of doing something. The rest of us aren't so lucky. 60 seconds was usually plenty to stop people from using it as an "oshit" escape button. 15 minutes is cruel and unusual. No. 60 seconds isn't enough, which is why the full 15 minutes were instituted. Hell, for some, not even the 15 minutes were enough.
Now you have the same timer as everyone else. vOv. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
|

Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
865
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:06:00 -
[441] - Quote
steave435 wrote: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.
You can still pull it off, if your ship is aligned towards something as it passes the wreck. Then you just loot and immediately hit warp. Since it's quite difficult to pull off, there will be little if any competition so you have the time to set up. |

Claire Raynor
NovaGear
20
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:06:00 -
[442] - Quote
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?
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? |

Treya Neverette
Deep Space Havoc LLC
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:06:00 -
[443] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:Treya Neverette wrote: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. This only happens in highsec, and the mechanics are the same as they were for years now - simply put, NO way to escape Concord. Keep in mind that C flag in CW2 == GCC in CW1.
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. |

Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
326
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:06:00 -
[444] - Quote
Jarin Arenos wrote: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...
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. |

Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
865
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:09:00 -
[445] - Quote
Claire Raynor 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? 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?
Yes and no. If you all open fire on one target, only that one person will be able to shoot back without consequences. Most likely he alone will not do enough damage to neccessitate logistics before he dies. Then you can move on to the next target and this way eliminate the fleet one by one. |

Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
865
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:09:00 -
[446] - Quote
Treya Neverette wrote: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.
A criminal flag is what causes CONCORD intervention. |

PinkKnife
L F C Ethereal Dawn
232
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:09:00 -
[447] - Quote
I love the freighter ganking pilots crying that now they can't gank in peace. You do realize the irony here right? You want to to gank someone, but then not have someone interfere in your business while you do it? Welcome to eve, where there are repercussions, gank away but don't expect people to not try and take advantage of the situation and the consequences of your actions. |

Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
865
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:10:00 -
[448] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Jarin Arenos wrote: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... 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.
If 90% of people who voluntarily confine themselves in highsec quit, and 10% decide to also participate in other more profitable parts of the game, EVE will be better off. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9738
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:11:00 -
[449] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: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. Good thing, then, that the income will be largely untouched. Heavy missiles aren't particularly important to highsec income and the problem of making the GÇ£drone-killing AIGÇ¥ not kill drones was solved three years ago.
Claire Raynor wrote: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? The new safety system will keep you safe. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1491
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:11:00 -
[450] - Quote
Salpad wrote:I just want to know how long those flags last. You seem to want some types to last 15 minutes. That's fine, but what about the rest?
potato TK is recruiting |
|

Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
113
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:12:00 -
[451] - Quote
Destination SkillQueue wrote:Warde Guildencrantz wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: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! Call it a Mutual Fire Contract, not something WOW'y like a duel. You can call it what ever you want, but it's dueling and every motherF is going to call it dueling. If your only reason for calling it something convoluted is because other games also call dueling what it is, then the problem is you and not the name.
bit harsh on the response there, just said that the technical name in the context menu shouldnt be "request duel", it should be "request contract of mutual fire" or something. people can call it duels if they want |

Marcus Gideon
Federal Defense Operations Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
33
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:13:00 -
[452] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:Kel hound wrote: 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?
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 Found this clear back on Page 4...
Not sure if it's been addressed much since then, still got a lot of pages to read...
But I also dug this up, from a February '09 Dev Blog...
http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=1711
Seems the authors meant for you to be able to eject from a T3 "giving players an incentive to abandon ship from time to time." |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
585
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:16:00 -
[453] - Quote
Treya Neverette wrote: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.
1.) The only way you gain a criminal flag is if you shoot a POD in lowsec, illegally shoot a player in highsec, or assist a criminal. A.) Pods can warp, even when criminally flagged, so your pod can get safe. In lowsec, the "cannot warp" limitation doesn't exist... it's a highsec feature only, where you're going to be concordoken anyway... so whats the problem???
B.) If the criminal timer reduced from 15 minutes to say.... 5 minutes: Imagine if you attempt to gank a hulk... and the hulk's buddy jams you and then your concordoken. The act of jamming you creates an LE with the jammer for 15 minutes. So, after 5 minutes, you could then return and legally shoot that jammer. Essentially, if you reduce the C timer, you need to reduce the LE timer to the same length of time or less. Truthfully, I don't particularly see the need to adjust this timer, as its pretty much the same timer people cope with today, and pirating is fine!
2.) You want to create a method to escape concord by entering a WH.... This isn't necessarily a bad thing... but I'm not sure it really adds all that much to the game other than provide you a tool to mess with WH logistics to/from highsec.
|

l0rd carlos
Friends Of Harassment
49
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:16:00 -
[454] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: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. Good thing, then, that the income will be largely untouched. Heavy missiles aren't particularly important to highsec income and the problem of making the GÇ£drone-killing AIGÇ¥ not kill drones was solved three years ago.
Some Pilots are just afraid of change. |

Sulindra
Ananke Astrodynamics Terran Commonwealth
7
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:21:00 -
[455] - Quote
Claire Raynor 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? 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?
If they are a legal target to the all members of the fleet then there will be no LE. If you have an alt corp that reps a war corp, then the alt corp gets LE flagged. |

Albert Spear
Ferrous Infernum Miners' Militia
7
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:21:00 -
[456] - Quote
[quote=VonKolroth][quote=Sentient Blade]
1.) Learn 2 cloak/dock/POS | Short of being awoxed, you really have to just not pay attention to get caught ratting or missioning. On the off chance a gang that actually has a good prober comes into a ratting system or a missioning hub full of ships, you should have a plan prepared for how you're going to deal with those circumstances. It's not anywhere near difficult, unless you feel entitled to not pay attention to what you're doing in the game at the time.
[quote]
1. This if fine if you have the skills to cloak and you belong to a group that has a POS. If you are a newbie - it is yet another penalty that reduces the ability for newbies to make isk and continue in the game.
When you are new in the game rat'ing is one of the few ways to make isk in high sec while skills grow. Make rat'ing too dangerous and more newbies will decide that after the 21 day trial - or sooner - that the game is not for them.
Right now rat'ing in high sec while gaining skills is a primary activity for newbies who want to own better ships. Missioning is the second way, and again this makes it more difficult and dangerous to mission. |

ihcn
Life. Universe. Everything. Clockwork Pineapple
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:21:00 -
[457] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:I love the freighter ganking pilots crying that now they can't gank in peace. You do realize the irony here right? You want to to gank someone, but then not have someone interfere in your business while you do it? Welcome to eve, where there are repercussions, gank away but don't expect people to not try and take advantage of the situation and the consequences of your actions. You've missed the point by a mile. Suicide ganking is no longer viable when it's being done for profit (as opposed to griefing). Which makes hisec a safer place. |

Jarin Arenos
Card Shark Industries
43
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:22:00 -
[458] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Jarin Arenos wrote: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... 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. And the vast majority of people in these threads are gloating over griefer tears. I think the forums are just a massive pile of schadenfreude.
|

Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
29
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:23:00 -
[459] - Quote
I have real problems with WARP DISABLE for Criminal flag.
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.
I suggest instead adding criminals in overview or local chat menu as a warp to point instead (like fleet warp). In busy high sec systems someone (player or CONCORD) will eventually catch me and scramble me within the 15 minute period. It doesn't stretch the storyline too far to make such a feature part of cooperative hi sec system infrastructure in conjunction with CONCORD facilities.
One other thing I would give CONCORD is predictive warp -- that is they can warp to my endpoint while I am still in warp. Proactive instead of reactive after I arrive. One warp scrambler and I am done running. And yet I can still warp until CONCORD gets a ship within realistic storyline range.
I can't see much chance of problems if CONCORD priorities are (1) first response to new attacks (including successive victims) (2) current criminal flags that got away the first time but are not currently attacking anyone new (3) current criminal flags blown up X times before - shortest timer first (4) outlaw secstatus - close or lowest sec frst
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.
|

Claire Raynor
NovaGear
20
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:24:00 -
[460] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: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. Good thing, then, that the income will be largely untouched. Heavy missiles aren't particularly important to highsec income and the problem of making the GÇ£drone-killing AIGÇ¥ not kill drones was solved three years ago. Claire Raynor wrote: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? The new safety system will keep you safe.
Sorry?? New Safety system? Or were you trying to be Smart?
No - my question was - attacking a legal target who is Suspect, Criminal or Suspect with a spider tank type setup sounds like it will cause almost every member of the spider tank to themselves become a Suspect?
Also - what if the legal target is a war target and not Suspect, Criminal or Suspect flagged - there will not be an LE - so neutral reppers will just get PvP flagged and not Criminal flagged? |
|

ihcn
Life. Universe. Everything. Clockwork Pineapple
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:24:00 -
[461] - Quote
Albert Spear wrote:
1. This if fine if you have the skills to cloak and you belong to a group that has a POS. If you are a newbie - it is yet another penalty that reduces the ability for newbies to make isk and continue in the game.
When you are new in the game rat'ing is one of the few ways to make isk in high sec while skills grow. Make rat'ing too dangerous and more newbies will decide that after the 21 day trial - or sooner - that the game is not for them.
Right now rat'ing in high sec while gaining skills is a primary activity for newbies who want to own better ships. Missioning is the second way, and again this makes it more difficult and dangerous to mission.
Good. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
585
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:25:00 -
[462] - Quote
I really, really want to know what happens here:
Carebear A in in Corp A Carebear B is in Corp B.
Corp A and Corp B are at war: Player A engages Player B legally in highsec. Player C reps player B.
Since there are no global flags generated for Player B (he's not a criminal, suspect, nor outlaw), then there is no Limited Engagement flag. As such, Player C does NOT receive a suspect flag for Repping player B.
Free Neutral Logistics in Highsec Wars??? Dear god I hope NOT!!!!!!!! |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1491
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:25:00 -
[463] - Quote
Alx Warlord wrote:Will the carrier triage module, the dread siege module, and the cynos gen count as a weapon? will it aplly continuously untill the cycle ends or it will only aplly in the begin? Does it matter?
Its not like anything sieged/triaged/cynoing is going anywhere in the next 5 mins TK is recruiting |

Jarin Arenos
Card Shark Industries
43
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:26:00 -
[464] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:If 90% of people who voluntarily confine themselves in highsec quit, and 10% decide to also participate in other more profitable parts of the game, EVE will be better off.
CCP doesn't chain you into being a "highsec player". You do it yourself. In fact, CCP is trying to encourage you to open your eyes and look for other things to do than grind NPCs 23/7. Because losing 75% of the game's playerbase will let it remain profitable and continue operating. Or was this your clever way of saying you hate the game and it would be "better off" dead? |

Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
866
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:26:00 -
[465] - Quote
Udonor wrote: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.
What exactly are you trying to get more ammo for when you're about to get concorded? |

Lucas Quaan
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
41
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:28:00 -
[466] - Quote
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? |

Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1779
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:29:00 -
[467] - Quote
Arec Bardwin wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote:Arec Bardwin wrote:- Pods, are they legal targets if the player is criminal, suspect, LE flagged? Yes Interesting  Oh i missed that line. So, after a good year when i asked for this, it finally comes. :D Inappropriate signature removed. Spitfire |

Bubanni
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
461
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:29:00 -
[468] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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)
Does this mean that... if player B shoots player A in system 1 and target A jumps into system 2 and gets killed by player C. Will player B then show up together with player C on player A 's killmail?
Question 2, if player B shoots player A in system 1, and player A jumps to system 2 and logs off, will player A then stay in space in system 2 for a longer duration than the current 1 min?
(Sorry for cutting it into A and B examples)
Christmas wish list https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134275
Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934 |

ihcn
Life. Universe. Everything. Clockwork Pineapple
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:29:00 -
[469] - Quote
Jarin Arenos wrote:Abdiel Kavash wrote:If 90% of people who voluntarily confine themselves in highsec quit, and 10% decide to also participate in other more profitable parts of the game, EVE will be better off.
CCP doesn't chain you into being a "highsec player". You do it yourself. In fact, CCP is trying to encourage you to open your eyes and look for other things to do than grind NPCs 23/7. Because losing 75% of the game's playerbase will let it remain profitable and continue operating. Or was this your clever way of saying you hate the game and it would be "better off" dead? can i have your stuff when you leave |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9739
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:30:00 -
[470] - Quote
Claire Raynor wrote:Sorry?? New Safety system? Or were you trying to be Smart? No, I'm talking about the new safety system that will be presented in detail in an upcoming dev blog. It's a system where you can pre-set your answers to various conditions and warning windows to ensure that you never do something that flags you in a way that you want (or, at the other end of the spectrum, that you are not bothered by warning popups when you really really need for your guns to fire right this millisecond).
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:I really, really want to know what happens here:
Carebear A in in Corp A Carebear B is in Corp B.
Corp A and Corp B are at war: Player A engages Player B legally in highsec. Player C reps player B.
Since there are no global flags generated for Player B (he's not a criminal, suspect, nor outlaw), then there is no Limited Engagement flag. As such, Player C does NOT receive a suspect flag for Repping player B. From what we've been told before, wardecs will be treated much the same as LEs, only with more participants. Corpers A and B can freely shoot each other without triggering any global flags, and they can rep each other without issues as well.
If player C comes along and reps a war target in a war he's not a part of himself, he becomes a suspect. Nothing seems to suggest that they've changed this, but yes, a clarification would be nice. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
|

Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
1018
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:30:00 -
[471] - Quote
Looking at the charts, and thought maybe the term "incurring sec status penalty" could be made more compact. Call it "penalized action" and give it a flag type A.
You get an A flag by stealing, or doing any action that gives you a C or S flag except assisting others in a LE. This would be shown on the "flags awarded" chart.
Consequences are the sentry guns shoot you and your sec status drops. Its cleared by a session change or grid change. This would be shown on the Consequences chart.
Question: Is there a timer on that as well? At the moment it would appear there is not.
Question: If my status is -10, does doing a crime still incur a sec status penalty? Its not like it can go any lower..... ( I say the answer should be yes, but never hurts to ask).
Also it would seem you need to add an LE (limited engagement) flag to the chart, add the conditions for getting an LE, the consequences to getting an LE, and what clears an LE. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |

Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1779
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:30:00 -
[472] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:Udonor wrote: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. What exactly are you trying to get more ammo for when you're about to get concorded? Ignore him. One can't warp with GCC for quite a while now. That's nothing new. Actually, plenty of people talk about things that aren't new at all, but for whatever reason don't even know that.
Edit: To add something constructive. He had a point, if players would actually hunt outlaws, but 90% of those i meet don't. They try to get a lucky shot and then run away. ^_^ Inappropriate signature removed. Spitfire |

Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
866
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:31:00 -
[473] - Quote
Lucas Quaan wrote: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? Heh, a slight troll by CCP.
Think about it: who exactly is an illegal target in 0.0? |

Nalha Saldana
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
315
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:31:00 -
[474] - Quote
Claire Raynor wrote:Tippia wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: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. Good thing, then, that the income will be largely untouched. Heavy missiles aren't particularly important to highsec income and the problem of making the GÇ£drone-killing AIGÇ¥ not kill drones was solved three years ago. Claire Raynor wrote: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? The new safety system will keep you safe. Sorry?? New Safety system? Or were you trying to be Smart? No - my question was - attacking a legal target who is Suspect, Criminal or Suspect with a spider tank type setup sounds like it will cause almost every member of the spider tank to themselves become a Suspect? Also - what if the legal target is a war target and not Suspect, Criminal or Suspect flagged - there will not be an LE - so neutral reppers will just get PvP flagged and not Criminal flagged?
They havent announced the new safety system properly but they have talked about it, its a warning that pops up asking you "Do you want to continue doing this now criminal action?" and these warnings can be turned off in the options menu. |

Jarin Arenos
Card Shark Industries
43
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:32:00 -
[475] - Quote
Quote:can i have your stuff when you leave 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. |

Asterian XVV
Hightec Constructions
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:33:00 -
[476] - Quote
Almighty Masterplan,
Could the PvP flag be expanded to cover self destruction? Also, will the jump prevention impact passing through a wormhole, or will the jump mechanics for WH space remain untouched.
Thanks |

Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1779
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:34:00 -
[477] - Quote
Jarin Arenos wrote:Quote:can i have your stuff when you leave 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. That's true, but the mission runners simply won't leave .......... Inappropriate signature removed. Spitfire |

steave435
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
80
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:34:00 -
[478] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:I love the freighter ganking pilots crying that now they can't gank in peace. You do realize the irony here right? You want to to gank someone, but then not have someone interfere in your business while you do it? Welcome to eve, where there are repercussions, gank away but don't expect people to not try and take advantage of the situation and the consequences of your actions. It's perfectly fine for people to be able to interfere, by f.e. looting the wreck before the gankers do, or suicide ganking the hauler coming to pick up the loot, or simply having corp mates of the target show up and get the right to shoot the looter, as they've always been able to do. Suicide ganking is supposed to be viable though, and with this, at least that form of suicide ganking no longer is. There are still other suicide ganking methods that still are viable, so that may be fine, I simply want to know if that's an intentional nerf or if it's something they would like to keep viable.
I personally have no stake in it, I don't suicide gank myself....Hell, I barely even log in anymore, but I used to gank a few years ago, so I still know how it works. |

Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
867
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:34:00 -
[479] - Quote
Jarin Arenos wrote:Quote:can i have your stuff when you leave 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. Alright maybe an objective "would be better" is an overstatement. But I would subjectively prefer EVE with more EVE players, even at the cost of losing a massive number of NPC grinders.
(I have a feeling this conversation will just get deleted due to being off-topic though.) |

Treya Neverette
Deep Space Havoc LLC
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:35:00 -
[480] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Treya Neverette wrote: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. 1.) The only way you gain a criminal flag is if you shoot a POD in lowsec, illegally shoot a player in highsec, or assist a criminal. A.) Pods can warp, even when criminally flagged, so your pod can get safe. In lowsec, the "cannot warp" limitation doesn't exist... it's a highsec feature only, where you're going to be concordoken anyway... so whats the problem??? B.) If the criminal timer reduced from 15 minutes to say.... 5 minutes: Imagine if you attempt to gank a hulk... and the hulk's buddy jams you and then your concordoken. The act of jamming you creates an LE with the jammer for 15 minutes. So, after 5 minutes, you could then return and legally shoot that jammer. Essentially, if you reduce the C timer, you need to reduce the LE timer to the same length of time or less. Truthfully, I don't particularly see the need to adjust this timer, as its pretty much the same timer people cope with today, and pirating is fine! 2.) You want to create a method to escape concord by entering a WH.... This isn't necessarily a bad thing... but I'm not sure it really adds all that much to the game other than provide you a tool to mess with WH logistics to/from highsec.
I just didnt understand that the new criminal flag in high-sec would be the same as GCC. Thanks for the clarification. |
|

Jarin Arenos
Card Shark Industries
43
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:36:00 -
[481] - Quote
Solstice Project wrote:Jarin Arenos wrote:Quote:can i have your stuff when you leave 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. That's true, but the mission runners simply won't leave .......... My point is that those highsec players that you hate so much fund the continued development of this game. Look at the statistics on users-by-security some time. And even THAT doesn't tell the story, because a huge chunk of null is financed via PLEX from highsec characters. |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1491
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:37:00 -
[482] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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... Werent we expecting some changes to sentry gun damage that helps out smaller ships? TK is recruiting |

Matt Grav
Wrath of the Pea
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:38:00 -
[483] - Quote
Quote:
I think someone else asked this earlier, but I haven't seen the answer:
If you shoot at someone at a gate in lowsec, warp off grid before he dies (point is held by your cohort), and you warp back on grid, and then proceed to shoot the original target some more, do you :
a) Get another sec status hit, and gain new sentry aggro? b) Get no further sec hit, sentries ignore you? c) Get no further sec hit, sentries shoot at you anyway because they witnessed a sec status type action?
Answering my own question with a guess from reading other responses, but the real answer is important since sec status hits are now front-loaded.
I think the answer is C. B would be exploitable and A is a double-whammy on sec status hits.
I'm still looking for the answer to this ^
Also I'm surprised that more people aren't talking about the HiSec pvp pod killing changes  |

Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
1018
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:38:00 -
[484] - Quote
Lucas Quaan wrote: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? I asked that. Answer: There is no such thing as an illegal target in Null. You are free to shoot anything. Lines #2 and #3 that have entries for shooting illegal targets in Null are a typo, and will be removed. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |

Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
103
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:39:00 -
[485] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: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... Werent we expecting some changes to sentry gun damage that helps out smaller ships?
they were really bad. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9741
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:41:00 -
[486] - Quote
Matt Grav wrote:I'm still looking for the answer to this ^ One would think that you'd only get one sec hit per engagement, and that an GÇ£engagementGÇ¥ is defined as GÇ£as long as you have that PvP flagGÇ¥GǪ but I'm only guessing. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|

Terrorfrodo
Deep Space Darwinian Law Enforcement Agency
191
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:44:00 -
[487] - Quote
Epic changes 
But, wouldn't it be better to shorten the NPC aggro timer somewhat and in exchange make it renewable by player aggression? Make it so that when a player disconnects with NPC aggression he disappears after 5 Minutes, but only if he is not aggressed by players before those 5 minutes are up. People intentionally disconnecting when they are jumped would still die because 5 minutes is plenty of time to scan someone down and point the ship. But it would reduce the grief brought on by genuine disconnects... 15 mintes is a looong time, people will just randomly pass through and see your ship, get back with a scanner and kill it.
And really, the 15 minute timer will only punish people with real disconnects. Everyone else will know that he will die when he logs off, so he will stay on and warp from safespot to safespot until his timer has expired, just like we do now when we have player aggression. . |

Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:46:00 -
[488] - Quote
Cheers for the work so far CCP, but could you also mention the severity of incurring security penalties? How much rating is lost at each specific case mentioned here? |

Matt Grav
Wrath of the Pea
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:46:00 -
[489] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Matt Grav wrote:I'm still looking for the answer to this ^ One would think that you'd only get one sec hit per engagement, and that an GǣengagementGǥ is defined as Gǣas long as you have that PvP flagGǥGǪ but I'm only guessing. I'm not so worried about the sec hit, it's more whether or not the gate guns will fire once the returning suspect opens fire on me again.
|

Jarin Arenos
Card Shark Industries
44
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:46:00 -
[490] - Quote
Terrorfrodo wrote:Epic changes  But, wouldn't it be better to shorten the NPC aggro timer somewhat and in exchange make it renewable by player aggression? Make it so that when a player disconnects with NPC aggression he disappears after 5 Minutes, but only if he is not aggressed by players before those 5 minutes are up. People intentionally disconnecting when they are jumped would still die because 5 minutes is plenty of time to scan someone down and point the ship. But it would reduce the grief brought on by genuine disconnects... 15 mintes is a looong time, people will just randomly pass through and see your ship, get back with a scanner and kill it. And really, the 15 minute timer will only punish people with real disconnects. Everyone else will know that he will die when he logs off, so he will stay on and warp from safespot to safespot until his timer has expired, just like we do now when we have player aggression. This is more reasonable. It meas less fun runs in fast-but-fragile ships, but wouldn't spell complete doom for non-cap-stable-ubertanks. |
|

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9741
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:49:00 -
[491] - Quote
Matt Grav wrote:I'm not so worried about the sec hit, it's more whether or not the gate guns will fire once the returning suspect opens fire on me again. Sure, but since one triggers the other, it amounts to much the same thing, so the limitations of one sound like they would affect the other.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
586
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:50:00 -
[492] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Matt Grav wrote:I'm still looking for the answer to this ^ One would think that you'd only get one sec hit per engagement, and that an GǣengagementGǥ is defined as Gǣas long as you have that PvP flagGǥGǪ but I'm only guessing.
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.
So essentially, you can warp off, warp back, and shed the sentries.... even if the P & W flags are still active on you....
If you don't get hit with a second Sec Status hit, it really sounds like you won't actually re-gain sentry fire....
A couple of thoughts: 1.) If the player shoots back at you, prior to you grid hopping, when you come back you'll have a LE with that player, meaning you can freely engage without sec status hits....
2.) If you grid hop, and you don't have a LE with that player (because they didn't shoot back at you before), then you SHOULD get a second sec status hit... That will solve sentry shedding issues, it will help you lower your sec status, and then the only people truly affected by this are those that chase ships from grid to grid re-aggressing them.
|

Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
29
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:51:00 -
[493] - Quote
Claire Raynor wrote:Tippia wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: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. Good thing, then, that the income will be largely untouched. Heavy missiles aren't particularly important to highsec income and the problem of making the GÇ£drone-killing AIGÇ¥ not kill drones was solved three years ago. Claire Raynor wrote: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? The new safety system will keep you safe. Sorry?? New Safety system? I didn't know about that - thanks for clarification No - my question was - attacking a legal target who is Suspect, Criminal or Suspect with a spider tank type setup sounds like it will cause almost every member of the spider tank to themselves become a Suspect? Also - what if the legal target is a war target and not Suspect, Criminal or Suspect flagged - there will not be an LE - so neutral reppers will just get PvP flagged and not Criminal flagged?
NO it is pretty clear that you will not get crimewatch flagged for attacking legal targets. You will get LE flagged with respect to the criminal you are attacking...just so he doesn't get penalized for resisting arrest. (Probably so that bounty hunters didn't have it too easy when some one is trying to avoid becoming an outright outlaw.) |

Odin Shadow
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:52:00 -
[494] - Quote
Jarin Arenos wrote:Terrorfrodo wrote:Epic changes  But, wouldn't it be better to shorten the NPC aggro timer somewhat and in exchange make it renewable by player aggression? Make it so that when a player disconnects with NPC aggression he disappears after 5 Minutes, but only if he is not aggressed by players before those 5 minutes are up. People intentionally disconnecting when they are jumped would still die because 5 minutes is plenty of time to scan someone down and point the ship. But it would reduce the grief brought on by genuine disconnects... 15 mintes is a looong time, people will just randomly pass through and see your ship, get back with a scanner and kill it. And really, the 15 minute timer will only punish people with real disconnects. Everyone else will know that he will die when he logs off, so he will stay on and warp from safespot to safespot until his timer has expired, just like we do now when we have player aggression. This is more reasonable. It meas less fun runs in fast-but-fragile ships, but wouldn't spell complete doom for non-cap-stable-ubertanks.
or make it so mods do not deactivate after people log off, let them run until the ship vanishes |

Koghrun Amman
L F C Ethereal Dawn
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:52:00 -
[495] - Quote
Not sure if this has already come up.
Scenario: Player A is in 0.0 with Player B. Player A shoots at B at a gate. B does not return fire. Player B has a PVP timer, but no weapon timer, and can jump freely to safety after taking a single salvo. Player A cannot jump until his weapon timer expires (15 minutes after his weapon counters).
This will so radically change the way small gang combat is done in 0.0
No timers in Null! |

Tsukinosuke
Id Est
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:54:00 -
[496] - Quote
Criminal, Suspended and Incurring Sec-status Penalty Flags are enough..
please Do Not make it COMPLICATED.. |

Obiareus
Chosen Path
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:54:00 -
[497] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:[quote=June Ting]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.
So say you are in an interdictor and pop a bubble out in null sec to slow down someone pursuing you You wait the weapons flag time of 60 seconds expires and jump into low sec if your pursuer hits the bubble in system A whilst you are now in system B, do any additional flags hit you? I would suppose PVP might, which merely limits your IN SPACE logoff abilities, but seeing as the bubble is illegal in empire I am concerned about the escalation of flags
also I noticed deployable bubbles were left out of the flagging chart, was this on purpose, IE deployable bubbles do not cause any flags to be generated? |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9743
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:56:00 -
[498] - Quote
Koghrun Amman wrote:Not sure if this has already come up.
Scenario: Player A is in 0.0 with Player B. Player A shoots at B at a gate. B does not return fire. Player B has a PVP timer, but no weapon timer, and can jump freely to safety after taking a single salvo. Player A cannot jump until his weapon timer expires (15 minutes after his weapon counters). The W-timer is only 60 seconds. The scenario you describes in no different than we currently have. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|

Cassius Longinus
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
14
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:57:00 -
[499] - Quote
Koghrun Amman wrote: Player A cannot jump until his weapon timer expires (15 minutes after his weapon counters). This will so radically change the way small gang combat is done in 0.0 No timers in Null!
Weapon timers are 60s, just like now. I don't see a change in null, except that rats now give a logoff timer.
Anyways, I hope the light dictor thing is revisited- there is really no reason to penalize the flying coffin, and small gangs really require a single ship to lock down both sides of a gate from initial warp-off.
The other thing that jumps out at me (and I may have just missed it in the blog), but if Highsec gates aren't going to automatically fire on outlaws, then some interesting roaming opportunities may evolve with a small group of, say, RR-BS moving into highsec and just roaming together to see who flags on them. (presumably, once they've been flagged upon, they can retaliate). |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
586
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:58:00 -
[500] - Quote
Koghrun Amman wrote:Not sure if this has already come up.
Scenario: Player A is in 0.0 with Player B. Player A shoots at B at a gate. B does not return fire. Player B has a PVP timer, but no weapon timer, and can jump freely to safety after taking a single salvo. Player A cannot jump until his weapon timer expires (15 minutes after his weapon counters).
This will so radically change the way small gang combat is done in 0.0
No timers in Null!
There are radical changes to nullsec combat, but this is not one of them: The weapon's timer is 1 minute, not 15 minutes... This is EXACTLY the same as it currently is!!!
The radical changes are: Inheriting Weapons Timers for Remote Assistance. Meaning logi's can no longer just escape through a gate or dock, but have to stick it out until the end of the 1 minute Weapons timer.
NPC aggression now leaves your ship in space for 15 minutes, which is an enormous amount of time! You can no longer safely log off while PvE'ing to evade roamers, as they might scan you down and gank you. |
|

Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
29
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:58:00 -
[501] - Quote
Koghrun Amman wrote:Not sure if this has already come up.
Scenario: Player A is in 0.0 with Player B. Player A shoots at B at a gate. B does not return fire. Player B has a PVP timer, but no weapon timer, and can jump freely to safety after taking a single salvo. Player A cannot jump until his weapon timer expires (15 minutes after his weapon counters).
This will so radically change the way small gang combat is done in 0.0
No timers in Null!
Well at least CCP can claim this has some basis in EVE physics "Hot guns generate interference with jumps and dangerous heat in enclosed docks"
Weapons timer is ONLY 60 seconds. |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1491
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:58:00 -
[502] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:Lucas Quaan wrote: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? Heh, a slight troll by CCP. Think about it: who exactly is not a legal target in 0.0? Chribba TK is recruiting |

Matt Grav
Wrath of the Pea
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:59:00 -
[503] - Quote
Koghrun Amman wrote:Not sure if this has already come up.
Scenario: Player A is in 0.0 with Player B. Player A shoots at B at a gate. B does not return fire. Player B has a PVP timer, but no weapon timer, and can jump freely to safety after taking a single salvo. Player A cannot jump until his weapon timer expires (15 minutes after his weapon counters). Weapons timer is on 60 sec not 15 min.
Edit: people are fast around here. |

Nirnaeth Ornoediad
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
121
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:59:00 -
[504] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Well, the null sec zealots get to rejoice a little more as the path of the utter destruction of high sec just got a little shorter. Let us combine 2 features by separate dev's and see what happens in missions.
My opposition to the AI changes are all over the forums, but this NPC timer is wonderful, just wonderful. The null sec zealots say "man up, fly a non-drone boat".
OK, let's say I am in Worlds Collide and I am in a Vargur. I still need small drones because my BS guns can't track the frigs that are scramming me in the room. Now, the new AI states that the NPC's will go after objects of similar sigs, so that means the frigs will be going after small drones in a big big way. So once all the small drones are dead, my gunboat Vargur is in a really bad way. I can't warp out of the mission, and with the new 15 minute timer, my active-tanked Vargur is auto-dead if I log off to be able to get new drones.
Only way the Vargur survives is if it can sit in the mission for 15 minutes tanking the site, then logging off, or waiting until downtime.
But no, these two new "improvements" by separate dev's will not have wipe out high sec income at all.
Just fly a missile Tengu...oh yeah.forgot, the mission Tengu is having is DPS reduced by 20% by a 3rd dev.
In a MMO game, you are not entitled to solo access to every piece of content . If you can't figure out one ship to do Worlds Collide, do it with a buddy. Do a different mission. Do *something*. It's not like all of EVE need be defined by a single PVE mission in hi-sec.
"The Mittani isn't even gone for a day and CCP's management is already making bad decisions."
THE MITTANI for CEO of CCP 1-800-273-8255 |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
586
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 22:01:00 -
[505] - Quote
Cassius Longinus wrote:
Anyways, I hope the light dictor thing is revisited- there is really no reason to penalize the flying coffin, and small gangs really require a single ship to lock down both sides of a gate from initial warp-off.
While not being able to bubble and jump is a hinderance to dictors, perhaps there's a better solution... Give the dictor hull a bonus to speed while cloaked, or to fitting a cloak. This will improve their surviveability, while still subjecting them to a pretty hefty drawback when bubbling people... |

Jarin Arenos
Card Shark Industries
44
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 22:03:00 -
[506] - Quote
Nirnaeth Ornoediad wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Well, the null sec zealots get to rejoice a little more as the path of the utter destruction of high sec just got a little shorter. Let us combine 2 features by separate dev's and see what happens in missions.
My opposition to the AI changes are all over the forums, but this NPC timer is wonderful, just wonderful. The null sec zealots say "man up, fly a non-drone boat".
OK, let's say I am in Worlds Collide and I am in a Vargur. I still need small drones because my BS guns can't track the frigs that are scramming me in the room. Now, the new AI states that the NPC's will go after objects of similar sigs, so that means the frigs will be going after small drones in a big big way. So once all the small drones are dead, my gunboat Vargur is in a really bad way. I can't warp out of the mission, and with the new 15 minute timer, my active-tanked Vargur is auto-dead if I log off to be able to get new drones.
Only way the Vargur survives is if it can sit in the mission for 15 minutes tanking the site, then logging off, or waiting until downtime.
But no, these two new "improvements" by separate dev's will not have wipe out high sec income at all.
Just fly a missile Tengu...oh yeah.forgot, the mission Tengu is having is DPS reduced by 20% by a 3rd dev. In a MMO game, you are not entitled to solo access to every piece of content . If you can't figure out one ship to do Worlds Collide, do it with a buddy. Do a different mission. Do *something*. It's not like all of EVE need be defined by a single PVE mission in hi-sec. It's called an "example". There's tons of L4 missions with elite frigates. |

Koghrun Amman
L F C Ethereal Dawn
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 22:04:00 -
[507] - Quote
Sorry guys, I misread that. I have edited my original post to reflect the truth. |

Jarin Arenos
Card Shark Industries
44
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 22:06:00 -
[508] - Quote
Look, I'm not saying that you can't make highsec missions more challenging or whatever. But like the 20% HML nerf + tracking damped missiles, this is too much at once. All we're asking is at least some sort of consideration from CCP in this process. A little communication and assurance that they've at least looked at the issue and this isn't just lousy oversight. |

MisterNick
The Sagan Clan Pax Romana Alliance
125
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 22:07:00 -
[509] - Quote
Mmm, charts 
Masterplan best plan, solid changes. I look forward to testing it. "Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom." |

Atomic Option
Taggart Transdimensional Virtue of Selfishness
23
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 22:16:00 -
[510] - Quote
Quote:Weapons Flag: This flag is activated by using offensive modules against another player (or simply by activating certain non-targeted weapons such as smartbombs). Having this flag will prevent a character from performing actions such as jumping, docking and switching ships in space. This flag functions in all areas of space.
Can you confirm whether a smartbomb will need to actually hit a player or not for this flag to become active. It'd be kinda messed up if players recieved this flag from using a smartbomb vs NPCs. It could also be problematic if you get this from hitting a fleetmate in PVE content. |
|

Lucas Quaan
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
41
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 22:17:00 -
[511] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:Lucas Quaan wrote: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? Heh, a slight troll by CCP. Think about it: who exactly is not a legal target in 0.0? Yeah, but it's listed for targeted modules so knowing the arbitrariness of some game mechanics I thought it best to ask. Never assume incompetence where malice would be so much more fun. :) |

Matt Grav
Wrath of the Pea
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 22:18:00 -
[512] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Matt Grav wrote:I'm still looking for the answer to this ^ One would think that you'd only get one sec hit per engagement, and that an GǣengagementGǥ is defined as Gǣas long as you have that PvP flagGǥGǪ but I'm only guessing. That's interesting. The suspect flag is global, so as long as I do not get into a LE with someone, then nothing is tracking the engagement . So if they warp off grid and then return and attack again we may well find that they take another sec hit + gate guns.
Otherwise a pirate could pick up the suspect flag in a belt and then freely attack anyone at a gate without taking further sec hit or gate guns.
That's the way that I read no A-B flagging outside of LE anyway.
|

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9746
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 22:19:00 -
[513] - Quote
Lucas Quaan wrote:Yeah, but it's listed for targeted modules so knowing the arbitrariness of some game mechanics I thought it best to ask. Never assume incompetence where malice would be so much more fun. :) Nolnah's razor? 
Matt Grav wrote:That's interesting. The suspect flag is global, so as long as I do not get into a LE with someone, then nothing is tracking the engagement . So if they warp off grid and then return and attack again we may well find that they take another sec hit + gate guns.
Otherwise a pirate could pick up the suspect flag in a belt and then freely attack anyone at a gate without taking further sec hit or gate guns.
That's the way that I read no A-B flagging outside of LE anyway. Yes, I can't quite see how it would fit into the current system as described, since only LEs set up any kind of relationship and it's not certain that one will exist, but it seems like a reasonable limitation. After all, there must be some kind of tracking going on so you don't get a sec drop for every shot you fire, or even for every module activation. Exactly what mechanism or timer they'll use as a basis isn't particularly relevant on the scale of things, but it would be nice to knowGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|

Tsubutai
The Tuskers
129
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 22:20:00 -
[514] - Quote
I have a question about sentry gun aggression and sec status hits. According to the blog, if I attack a neutral pilot while on grid with sentry guns, I will take a sec status hit and the sentries will start shooting me. If I then warp off, the sentries will immediately forget about my wicked ways and will let me be until I do something bad again. The blog also states that when you attack and kill a player ship, you only get a single, front-loaded sec status hit. What then happens if, having aggressed a neutral in sight of the sentries and then warped off grid, I come back and start shooting the neutral again. What happens in terms of sentry aggression and sec status in that case?
a) I take an additional sec status hit, sentries start shooting me again b) I take no additional sec status hit, sentries start shooting me again c) I take no additional sec status hit, sentries ignore me d) I take an additional sec status hit, sentries ignore me
I assume it's (b), but am not sure. |

Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
29
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 22:32:00 -
[515] - Quote
Jarin Arenos wrote:Look, I'm not saying that you can't make highsec missions more challenging or whatever. But like the 20% HML nerf + tracking damped missiles, this is too much at once. All we're asking is at least some sort of consideration from CCP in this process. A little communication and assurance that they've at least looked at the issue and this isn't just lousy oversight.
Why? If you are high sec, no risk player it should be impossible for you to earn enough ISK to PLEX your account every month.
IF you are only weekend warrior, you shouldn't be able get all your equipment from a single PLEX purchase either.
This fits well with the CCP goal is to sell more PLEX by lowering the ISK value of PLEX. Ultimately this means decent full-time PVP players will all be able to PLEX their accounts every month while less serious part-time or high sec players foot the bill.
How it works: Initially by reducing mission income, more hi sec people will need to buy PLEX with RL cash rather than ISK. The reduced demand for PLEX on ISK market will lower the ISK value of PLEX...meaning those rich folk converting RL cash to ISK via PLEX will also need to buy more PLEX to reach ISK target goals. A new equilibrium price will eventually be established at lower level as low sec and null sec PVPers start buying more PLEX and stop paying RL cash. |

Bienator II
madmen of the skies
952
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 22:34:00 -
[516] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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?
a scooping timer. add the timer to the orca where the exploit actually happens a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105
You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |

Jarin Arenos
Card Shark Industries
44
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 22:35:00 -
[517] - Quote
Udonor wrote:Jarin Arenos wrote:Look, I'm not saying that you can't make highsec missions more challenging or whatever. But like the 20% HML nerf + tracking damped missiles, this is too much at once. All we're asking is at least some sort of consideration from CCP in this process. A little communication and assurance that they've at least looked at the issue and this isn't just lousy oversight. Why? If you are high sec, no risk player it should be impossible for you to earn enough ISK to PLEX your account every month. IF you are only weekend warrior, you shouldn't be able get all your equipment from a single PLEX purchase either. This fits well with the CCP goal is to sell more PLEX by lowering the ISK value of PLEX. Ultimately this means decent full-time PVP players will all be able to PLEX their accounts every month while less serious part-time or high sec players foot the bill. How it works: Initially by reducing mission income, more hi sec people will need to buy PLEX with RL cash rather than ISK. The reduced demand for PLEX on ISK market will lower the ISK value of PLEX...meaning those rich folk converting RL cash to ISK via PLEX will also need to buy more PLEX to reach ISK target goals. A new equilibrium price will eventually be established at lower level as low sec and null sec PVPers start buying more PLEX and stop paying RL cash. Okay first, I don't PLEX, I just pay my monthly fee and play the game. Second... that rambling mess is... probably a bit of a stretch. Seriously, man, with that avatar, I'd be careful about throwing around conspiracy theories, or you might have some nice DEA men dropping in. |

Swidgen
Republic University Minmatar Republic
22
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 22:37:00 -
[518] - Quote
CCP Explorer wrote:EVE is not a simple game, but at least there will now be charts describing how it behaves!  Please make sure the GMs are aware of these charts, how things are supposed to work, and that all these flags and timers are Logged. You're doing a re-design of a huge part of the game. "The Logs Show Nothing" will no longer be an acceptable excuse 
Also, wardecs. Since war targets are always legal to shoot at, what flags will combat trigger and for how long? The Charts Show Nothing. The word "wardec" doesn't even appear on them. Will parties at war still be able to employ neutral remote-reppers without any consequences? |

Bienator II
madmen of the skies
952
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 22:45:00 -
[519] - Quote
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. thats awesome! a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105
You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |

Mike deVoid
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
19
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 23:06:00 -
[520] - Quote
Sec Status and mobility
Can you comment on the rumour that suspect-flag behaviour (i.e. low-sec PVP ) will only lower your sec status to -4.99 and will not lock you out of highsec?
Can you comment on the rumours that Highsec sec status faction navy aggro is being changed to a flat -5 value for all systems and that you are ditching the current sliding scale that exists?
Can you comment on the rumour that faction navy NPC aggro will only apply to sec status and completely ignore faction standings?
|
|

Kano Takada
Interkosmos
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 23:16:00 -
[521] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz 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
I really don't get why losing an 800mil ship is not enough of a penalization. Also, what is the point of ejecting if you can't do it when there is an emergency. Isn't that what an "escape pod" is for? Perhaps you should just make T3s not have this penalty, their cost is already huge, losing them is already penalty enough when you pop.
Ahahahahaha
If you cant afford to lose it then dont fly it.
And escape pod is to save your 'clone' not your skillpoints, which at max is like a 4day train.  |

WickedBlade
North Star Trading Co
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 23:34:00 -
[522] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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.
I like everything in this blog except the changes to ejecting. There are more reasons to eject then just to save your SP while flying a T3 & this prevents all of them. Bad change IMHO. |

Tsukinosuke
Id Est
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 23:37:00 -
[523] - Quote
Kano Takada wrote:Warde Guildencrantz 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
I really don't get why losing an 800mil ship is not enough of a penalization. Also, what is the point of ejecting if you can't do it when there is an emergency. Isn't that what an "escape pod" is for? Perhaps you should just make T3s not have this penalty, their cost is already huge, losing them is already penalty enough when you pop. Ahahahahaha If you cant afford to lose it then dont fly it. And escape pod is to save your 'clone' not your skillpoints, which at max is like a 4day train.  
unnecessary copy-paste old EvE motto with ridiculous comment.. if you are using a clone to save your skill points and have to upgrade it, how could you talk like this nonsense? Actually, random skill remove is ridiculous as much as you.. Tranining frozen for a period of time should be enough if there must be a punishment of choosing a new Tech ship to fly.. |

DJ Xaphod
Eve Radio Corporation
16
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 23:37:00 -
[524] - Quote
I do think that the Limited Engagements would benefit greatly from further exploration; I think any system that is based entirely on a relationship between one character and another will suffer from being far too simplistic considering the mechanics of combat in Eve.
To go from the example in the blog: B is a suspect or criminal. A attacks B. C then helps A out with cap or shields or whatever. C is now suspect flagged and can be shot by D-Z.
This doesn't seem to be very evenly balanced to me, and in my opinion what would make more sense would just be to add C to the limited engagement.
I understand that this would likely be more complex to code, but in this instance I feel the necessity warrants this additional complexity.
One of the main benefits of this system is that it gives more people the ability to dip their toes into PVP, but in this particular instance you're essentially requiring pirate-hunters to eschew the benefits of logistics, and I think that's a mistake. -áGëí>Gëí Radio, Bringing Music to the Masses. http://eve-radio.com I play Rock & Metal Thursday Nights 2200 GameTime Sunday Evenings 1800 GameTime |

Alx Warlord
Security Task Force
172
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 23:40:00 -
[525] - Quote
Kano Takada wrote:Warde Guildencrantz 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
I really don't get why losing an 800mil ship is not enough of a penalization. Also, what is the point of ejecting if you can't do it when there is an emergency. Isn't that what an "escape pod" is for? Perhaps you should just make T3s not have this penalty, their cost is already huge, losing them is already penalty enough when you pop. Ahahahahaha If you cant afford to lose it then dont fly it. And escape pod is to save your 'clone' not your skillpoints, which at max is like a 4day train.  
I just hope that in the NEXT expansion that will be industry oriented, ships get less expensive and thy fix the POS system ( something like this post on my signature would be good.... would reflect on ship prices drop and more pvp) [Discussion] - New POS system ( Construction Block Built - Starbasecraft) <<< Please CCP read this! |

Bart Starr
Aggressive Structural Steel Expediting Services
98
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 23:42:00 -
[526] - Quote
What I don't understand is this:
Why is it illegal to board a new ship for 60 seconds with a weapons timer?
Suppose a ninja in a frigate is attacked by a mission runner.
Ninja is able to survive the new NPC AI - and no outside help arrives for the mission runner.
Ninja is capable of holding the mission runner - but not breaking the tank. (a common situation)
Boarding a new ship (with more DPS) is key to breaking the mission runner. What happens to the bait ship is largely unimportant.
Lets go pre-Orca oldschool: Suppose an alt brings a Typhoon to the mission space, and ejects. Under CW 2.0, the ninja is not allowed to board the Typhoon. Why is this?
Even in the context of Crimewatch, this restriction makes no sense.
-Ninja's bait ship isn't leaving the field of battle or evading the consequences of combat. (locked = not scoopable) -His Typhoon clearly isn't going anywhere until the battle is over. -There is no 'hiding and escaping' going on, just bringing more firepower to the table to kill the carebear.
Its a simple matter of the carebear starting a fight that didn't end up being the fight intended.
Yet, for some reason - its now illegal.
I see a lot of smokescreens about T3's and 'evading consequences with Orcas.' But none of this justifies arbitrarily preventing a player from boarding a new ship for 60 seconds.
But it seems that this is really about completely defanging ninjas (those who bait mission runners into shooting.)
Because forcing a ninja to turn off his guns for 60 seconds before being allowed to bring more DPS to the fight - well, the mission runner is going to dock up.
Is this really about providing consequences for 'criminals'? Or really - just coddling carebears?
|

MisterAl tt1
Pretenders Inc W-Space
11
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 23:43:00 -
[527] - Quote
/me is emiting some long sentences containing mostly swearing...
"Stealing from a container will expose you to potential attacks from all players (but not from sentry guns). " - CCP is effectively killing the ninja-looters? I have come in this game stealing peoples loot and I don't see why the hell newbies cannot do that? Say "chao" to on of the player-invented newbie profession. A sandbox is such a sandbox, right?
And now, the top of the pie! The cherry! "It is possible to be prevented from switching ships or ejecting (whilst in space) by your actions" ""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" First CCP claims "Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line.", then nerfs HMLs, now this. Are you crazy there??? With all this each and any T3 will be worthless ships at high price. I do live in wormholes as I see this as the only sane environment in EVE to live, I fly T3 cos I like them and I find it nice to fly ships that are actully produced by my corporation, not to pay some nullsec blobers for each and every ship.
That IS a challange to eject in the right moment, so that your ship is not taken by the winning party. That is a chance to get a free T3 when catching one and, people, have you ever been in WH? Everyone flies T3 here and I bet many have this idea "I will eject in time".
With all these "innovations" you are killing wormholes! Noone would need T3 in numbers they are produced now. Prices go low, T3 reservers go down the toilet, people escape wormholes since the best ships to fly there (at least now) go beyond the floor. Do you know guys in WH also like to PVP? Do you know how difficult it is to find PVP here? You want WH-pvpers to be left in the middle of a scorched desert? Or are you clearing up for octopus0like farmers with a bunch of capitals who log in here just to farm?
Sorry for bla-bla-bla post, I'm seriously angry.
I have to seriously consider canceling accounts with all such "changes". And no, you won't have my shinies.
/me is emiting some long sentences containing mostly swearing... |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
586
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 23:51:00 -
[528] - Quote
DJ Xaphod wrote:I do think that the Limited Engagements would benefit greatly from further exploration; I think any system that is based entirely on a relationship between one character and another will suffer from being far too simplistic considering the mechanics of combat in Eve.
To go from the example in the blog: B is a suspect or criminal. A attacks B. C then helps A out with cap or shields or whatever. C is now suspect flagged and can be shot by D-Z.
This doesn't seem to be very evenly balanced to me, and in my opinion what would make more sense would just be to add C to the limited engagement.
I understand that this would likely be more complex to code, but in this instance I feel the necessity warrants this additional complexity.
One of the main benefits of this system is that it gives more people the ability to dip their toes into PVP, but in this particular instance you're essentially requiring pirate-hunters to eschew the benefits of logistics, and I think that's a mistake.
No..... Your method encourages the use of logistics... and I think this new system is about discouraging the use of logistics (which is used too much by risk-adverse pewpewers as is!!).
If the pirates bring along logi, and that logi reps the pirate, then it can ALSO be shot by D-Z... so both teams are on the same foot, except logistics (especially in highsec), is suddenly much more risky to use!!!
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
587
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 23:56:00 -
[529] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote:What I don't understand is this:
Why is it illegal to board a new ship for 60 seconds with a weapons timer?
Suppose a ninja in a frigate is attacked by a mission runner.
Ninja is able to survive the new NPC AI - and no outside help arrives for the mission runner.
Ninja is capable of holding the mission runner - but not breaking the tank. (a common situation)
Boarding a new ship (with more DPS) is key to breaking the mission runner. What happens to the bait ship is largely unimportant.
Lets go pre-Orca oldschool: Suppose an alt brings a Typhoon to the mission space, and ejects. Under CW 2.0, the ninja is not allowed to board the Typhoon. Why is this?
Even in the context of Crimewatch, this restriction makes no sense.
-Ninja's bait ship isn't leaving the field of battle or evading the consequences of combat. (locked = not scoopable) -His Typhoon clearly isn't going anywhere until the battle is over. -There is no 'hiding and escaping' going on, just bringing more firepower to the table to kill the carebear.
Its a simple matter of the carebear starting a fight that didn't end up being the fight intended.
Yet, for some reason - its now illegal.
I see a lot of smokescreens about T3's and 'evading consequences with Orcas.' But none of this justifies arbitrarily preventing a player from boarding a new ship for 60 seconds.
But it seems that this is really about completely defanging ninjas (those who bait mission runners into shooting.)
Because forcing a ninja to turn off his guns for 60 seconds before being allowed to bring more DPS to the fight - well, the mission runner is going to dock up.
Is this really about providing consequences for 'criminals'? Or really - just coddling carebears?
Interesting point.... Although I consider this a small sacrifice to prevent people from evading t3 skill loss and evading ship losses using orca's & carriers. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
587
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 00:00:00 -
[530] - Quote
MisterAl tt1 wrote:/me is emiting some long sentences containing mostly swearing...
"Stealing from a container will expose you to potential attacks from all players (but not from sentry guns). " - CCP is effectively killing the ninja-looters? I have come in this game stealing peoples loot and I don't see why the hell newbies cannot do that? Say "chao" to on of the player-invented newbie profession. A sandbox is such a sandbox, right?
And now, the top of the pie! The cherry! "It is possible to be prevented from switching ships or ejecting (whilst in space) by your actions" ""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" First CCP claims "Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line.", then nerfs HMLs, now this. Are you crazy there??? With all this each and any T3 will be worthless ships at high price. I do live in wormholes as I see this as the only sane environment in EVE to live, I fly T3 cos I like them and I find it nice to fly ships that are actully produced by my corporation, not to pay some nullsec blobers for each and every ship.
That IS a challange to eject in the right moment, so that your ship is not taken by the winning party. That is a chance to get a free T3 when catching one and, people, have you ever been in WH? Everyone flies T3 here and I bet many have this idea "I will eject in time".
With all these "innovations" you are killing wormholes! Noone would need T3 in numbers they are produced now. Prices go low, T3 reservers go down the toilet, people escape wormholes since the best ships to fly there (at least now) go beyond the floor. Do you know guys in WH also like to PVP? Do you know how difficult it is to find PVP here? You want WH-pvpers to be left in the middle of a scorched desert? Or are you clearing up for octopus0like farmers with a bunch of capitals who log in here just to farm?
Sorry for bla-bla-bla post, I'm seriously angry.
I have to seriously consider canceling accounts with all such "changes". And no, you won't have my shinies.
/me is emiting some long sentences containing mostly swearing...
Your statement is ridiculous...
You're threatening to quit because CCP won't let you eject from a ship to evade SP loss when your specifically flying a ship that has the penalty of SP loss when you lose it?? And do you really think the changes to HML's, which are no longer going to be effected by TD's, and can be enhanced by TC's and TE's are going to hurt the t3 market.... get real...
And quick FYI.... You can still eject from that t3 and save your SP.... simply don't shoot your aggressors and you wont have the Weapons Flag, which means you can eject all you like!!!! |
|

Nalha Saldana
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
315
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 00:04:00 -
[531] - Quote
Swidgen wrote:CCP Explorer wrote:EVE is not a simple game, but at least there will now be charts describing how it behaves!  Please make sure the GMs are aware of these charts, how things are supposed to work, and that all these flags and timers are Logged. You're doing a re-design of a huge part of the game. "The Logs Show Nothing" will no longer be an acceptable excuse  Also, wardecs. Since war targets are always legal to shoot at, what flags will combat trigger and for how long? The Charts Show Nothing. The word "wardec" doesn't even appear on them. Will parties at war still be able to employ neutral remote-reppers without any consequences?
If I understood it correctly shooting a war target is like shooting a legal target and gets you into a Limited Engagement with him so any 3rd party remote effects would make the 3rd party a suspect. |

MisterAl tt1
Pretenders Inc W-Space
11
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 00:11:00 -
[532] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Your statement is ridiculous...
You're threatening to quit because CCP won't let you eject from a ship to evade SP loss when your specifically flying a ship that has the penalty of SP loss when you lose it?? And do you really think the changes to HML's, which are no longer going to be effected by TD's, and can be enhanced by TC's and TE's are going to hurt the t3 market.... get real...
And quick FYI.... You can still eject from that t3 and save your SP.... simply don't shoot your aggressors and you wont have the Weapons Flag, which means you can eject all you like!!!!
*edit* and stealing from a can makes you engageable by all players... which in no way inhibits or prevents you from doing it.... you just have to be smarter about it...
Go live in WH for a year and then tell me stories. |

Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
320
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 00:11:00 -
[533] - Quote
I understand you are trying to fix the orca swap trick in both highsec and on gates, but the way you have it implemented is rather ham-fistedand breaks a bunch of other things, like ejected from a ship before a sabre bubbles you |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
587
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 00:13:00 -
[534] - Quote
Nalha Saldana wrote:Swidgen wrote:CCP Explorer wrote:EVE is not a simple game, but at least there will now be charts describing how it behaves!  Please make sure the GMs are aware of these charts, how things are supposed to work, and that all these flags and timers are Logged. You're doing a re-design of a huge part of the game. "The Logs Show Nothing" will no longer be an acceptable excuse  Also, wardecs. Since war targets are always legal to shoot at, what flags will combat trigger and for how long? The Charts Show Nothing. The word "wardec" doesn't even appear on them. Will parties at war still be able to employ neutral remote-reppers without any consequences? If I understood it correctly shooting a war target is like shooting a legal target and gets you into a Limited Engagement with him so any 3rd party remote effects would make the 3rd party a suspect.
Actually, Limited Engagements only occur when a player attacks a GLOBALLY flagged character...
So, LE's are not applicable to legal engagments....
In truth, this dev blog completely omitted what happens in LEGAL fighting (ie. from war decs, killrights, corp mates), and more importantly, how flags will be delegated to Neutral parties that provide assistance in these fights.
^^ This needs to be addressed!!!!! |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9748
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 00:21:00 -
[535] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote:Why is it illegal to board a new ship for 60 seconds with a weapons timer? Because the ability to do so is being abused to unduly protect against ship losses and to stay in a fight that has long since been lost.
Have a look in any of the more heavily travelled (and camped) lowsec pockets and you'll quickly see the extent of the problem. It has nothing to do with protecting highsec carebears and everything to do with removing undue protection from people who want the best offence without the risk and costs that come with it. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
588
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 00:25:00 -
[536] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:I understand you are trying to fix the orca swap trick in both highsec and on gates, but the way you have it implemented is rather ham-fistedand breaks a bunch of other things, like ejected from a ship before a sabre bubbles you
Perhaps the self destruct timer should be reduced to a few seconds....
Essentially, the pros and cons of preventing ejecting:
Pro: --- T3 Skill losses will become much more common place (as was INTENDED). --- You can't save ships by scooping them into an orca/carrier hangar bay... --- People can't eject from a ship to potentially avoid embarrassing losses.
Cons: --- In nullsec, people sometimes hold your ship in place and bring in a dictor to get your pod.... you typically can't prevent this by eject/warping... (although more pod losses are a pro IMO). --- If people typically can't eject from their ship, capturing ships will become much less common (I've caught many ships because of this tactic, including freighters and BS's... I'll miss them). --- People can't switch ships to "bait'n'switch" a mission runner that was successfully baited into aggressing when they shouldn't have...
What are we missing??? In my opinion, those pros outweigh those cons! |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9749
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 00:27:00 -
[537] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:What are we missing??? In my opinion, those pros outweigh those cons! GǪand with the idea of lock-to-prevent scoop, and revised W-flagging rules to go with it, some of those cons would be gone anyway.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|

Ulair Memmet
Infinite Covenant Tribal Band
36
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 00:31:00 -
[538] - Quote
Changes look very good to me, but i something bothers me:
Quote:Weapons Flag: This flag is activated by using offensive modules against another player (or simply by activating certain non-targeted weapons such as smartbombs).
Does this mean, when i'm sitting 10km away from the gate and (for whatever reason) activate my smartbomb/ECM-Burst without hitting anything, will i still get a Weapons Flag (=> will not be able to jump for 1 minute)? The activation itself is triggering the flag? This sounds kinda illogical to me. |

Nalha Saldana
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
315
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 00:34:00 -
[539] - Quote
Ulair Memmet wrote:Changes look very good to me, but i something bothers me: Quote:Weapons Flag: This flag is activated by using offensive modules against another player (or simply by activating certain non-targeted weapons such as smartbombs). Does this mean, when i'm sitting 10km away from the gate and (for whatever reason) activate my smartbomb/ECM-Burst without hitting anything, will i still get a Weapons Flag (=> will not be able to jump for 1 minute)? The activation itself is triggering the flag? This sounds kinda illogical to me.
Yes that is correct, you get weapons but not pvp flag. Kinda makes sense because you (in most cases) were obviously trying to do something. |

Ulair Memmet
Infinite Covenant Tribal Band
36
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 00:39:00 -
[540] - Quote
Nalha Saldana wrote:Ulair Memmet wrote:Changes look very good to me, but i something bothers me: Quote:Weapons Flag: This flag is activated by using offensive modules against another player (or simply by activating certain non-targeted weapons such as smartbombs). Does this mean, when i'm sitting 10km away from the gate and (for whatever reason) activate my smartbomb/ECM-Burst without hitting anything, will i still get a Weapons Flag (=> will not be able to jump for 1 minute)? The activation itself is triggering the flag? This sounds kinda illogical to me. Yes that is correct, you get weapons but not pvp flag. Kinda makes sense because you (in most cases) were obviously trying to do something.
But i didn't  |
|

Hoarr
RPS holdings
51
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 00:41:00 -
[541] - Quote
I made a thing about CCP Masterplan: |

Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
1205
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 00:49:00 -
[542] - Quote
That's really the only reason people are complaining about the new crimewatch imho. It's not that CW2 isn't awesome (it is) it's simply that CCP does a really bad job of articulating in practical terms what some of the potential effects will be.
crimewatch vid at 22:00. 'Nuff said. 
|

ugh zug
80
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 00:51:00 -
[543] - Quote
It works.
yay for optimized code, and low resource demand~!
please be sure to continue optimization of code after launch. Want me to shut up?-á Send me ISK and i'll stop giving suggestions to CCP that make sense. Remove content from my post, 15 bil. Remove my content from a thread I have started 30bil. |

Tanaka Aiko
ICE is Coming to EVE Goonswarm Federation
118
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 00:51:00 -
[544] - Quote
what happen when you loot a yellow wreck ? is it the same flags as can flipping ? cause I did it by mistake on my first day on EVE, and I wouldn't be surprised lots of others noobs also do it, and it could become a blood bath if anyone can shoot them while they weren't understanding their acts... |

Dirael Papier
Nevermined Inc
15
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 00:55:00 -
[545] - Quote
Tanaka Aiko wrote:what happen when you loot a yellow wreck ? is it the same flags as can flipping ? cause I did it by mistake on my first day on EVE, and I wouldn't be surprised lots of others noobs also do it, and it could become a blood bath if anyone can shoot them while they weren't understanding their acts... Well, the noobs will have a safety switch turned on by default, so they won't be able to loot yellow wrecks unless they decide to turn the safety switch off. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9749
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 00:57:00 -
[546] - Quote
Ulair Memmet wrote:Nalha Saldana wrote:Yes that is correct, you get weapons but not pvp flag. Kinda makes sense because you (in most cases) were obviously trying to do something. But i didn't  GǪand you're also not really punished for it. You're just given a bit of time to think things over and calm down.  GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|

Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
46
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 00:58:00 -
[547] - Quote
CCP Masterplan
What about pilots in lowsec, with neg sec status, shooting other people with neg sec status, not incurring a sec hit, and therefore, able to shoot each other on gates without pesky gate guns getting involved? Just in lowsec. |

Powers Sa
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
319
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 00:59:00 -
[548] - Quote
Challenge Accepted. |

Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
737
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 01:05:00 -
[549] - Quote
CCP MasterPlan:
I am really liking the outline you've laid out so far, but woefully absent is any mention of the interaction between wars and these mechanics. What is the effect of repairing or otherwise assisting someone who is at war in empire? Is it different depending on whether they have a PVP timer? For that matter, what timers are given for engaging a war target in empire space? Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |

Reticle
Sight Picture
33
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 01:20:00 -
[550] - Quote
Powers Sa wrote:Challenge Accepted. lol |
|

Reticle
Sight Picture
33
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 01:21:00 -
[551] - Quote
Is in corp ganking still a retribution-less action? |

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
2491
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 01:21:00 -
[552] - Quote
Gogela wrote:That's really the only reason people are complaining about the new crimewatch imho. It's not that CW2 isn't awesome (it is) it's simply that CCP does a really bad job of articulating in practical terms what some of the potential effects will be. crimewatch vid at 22:00. 'Nuff said. 
I think that is why they put an emphasis on having those big, primary colored icons pop up at the top of your screen. There should be no doubt as to what repercussions your actions are about to have.
Frankly, this system is much, much easier to figure out. The only thing that is making this thread complicated are the dozens of what-if scenarios being thrown about, all of which have the same somewhat simple answers. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |

Reticle
Sight Picture
33
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 01:24:00 -
[553] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Gogela wrote:That's really the only reason people are complaining about the new crimewatch imho. It's not that CW2 isn't awesome (it is) it's simply that CCP does a really bad job of articulating in practical terms what some of the potential effects will be. crimewatch vid at 22:00. 'Nuff said.  I think that is why they put an emphasis on having those big, primary colored icons pop up at the top of your screen. There should be no doubt as to what repercussions your actions are about to have. Frankly, this system is much, much easier to figure out. The only thing that is making this thread complicated are the dozens of what-if scenarios being thrown about, all of which have the same somewhat simple answers. the inmates are testing the bars. its a natural process |

Matuk Grymwal
Bite Me inc Elysian Empire
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 01:28:00 -
[554] - Quote
Sorry if this has been asked already, but I'd like to see some extra detail around how flag propagation works when you are logged off. So it should describe the possible flags you have when you are logged off, and how/if they can be propagated and by what actions. The current comments only describe whether the current flag can be extended once logged off. E.g. if a player logs off with the NPC flag, can they get shot and be given the PVP flag?
Looks good, the new NPC flag is awesome  |

Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
1205
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 01:30:00 -
[555] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Gogela wrote:That's really the only reason people are complaining about the new crimewatch imho. It's not that CW2 isn't awesome (it is) it's simply that CCP does a really bad job of articulating in practical terms what some of the potential effects will be. crimewatch vid at 22:00. 'Nuff said.  I think that is why they put an emphasis on having those big, primary colored icons pop up at the top of your screen. There should be no doubt as to what repercussions your actions are about to have. Frankly, this system is much, much easier to figure out. The only thing that is making this thread complicated are the dozens of what-if scenarios being thrown about, all of which have the same somewhat simple answers. That's true, but I was talking more about the decisions of a pirate cloaked off a null sec gate trying to decide weather or or not to attack. The new crimewatch is actually going to require that cloaked ship to do a bit more in the way of variable reduction when making that decision than the former system. For example, if there are 6 otherwise unrelated ships on a gate and you are thinking about diving in, the differences between attacking someone with a suspect flag or no flag could be the difference between you facing off against one target or all the ships on that gate. This is relevant because while in practice we kind of have the suspect flag now, it's limited to the owner of the wreck you took from and corp or whatever. I think seeing someone with a suspect flag is going to get a LOT more common around eve. ...and that's just one example.
I don't think any blog is going to impress upon the community how much this will affect the playstyle of those of us who do stuff in lowsec. Other-sec's I don't know... but in low it'll be pretty cool...
|

Dirael Papier
Nevermined Inc
15
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 01:42:00 -
[556] - Quote
Matuk Grymwal wrote:Sorry if this has been asked already, but I'd like to see some extra detail around how flag propagation works when you are logged off. So it should describe the possible flags you have when you are logged off, and how/if they can be propagated and by what actions. The current comments only describe whether the current flag can be extended once logged off. E.g. if a player logs off with the NPC flag, can they get shot and be given the PVP flag? Looks good, the new NPC flag is awesome  You don't get any new flags at all while you're logged off.
If you already have the PvP flag before you log out, the PvP flag can be extended. If you don't have the PvP flag before you log off, then you won't get it while you're logged off. |

captain foivos
State War Academy Caldari State
37
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 01:48:00 -
[557] - Quote
Hey Masterplan, if players are the new police, why the hell do we still need CONCORD to be so strong? |

Reticle
Sight Picture
36
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 01:53:00 -
[558] - Quote
captain foivos wrote:Hey Masterplan, if players are the new police, why the hell do we still need CONCORD to be so strong? excellent question |

Haas Tabris
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
29
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 02:07:00 -
[559] - Quote
So, you're taking a system that doesn't make much sense in its present form and making it more complicated and convoluted? I think there's a word for that in software development: ********.
How about we leave well enough alone and go fix some of the real problems in this game. Like the technetium mess, FW exploits, high-sec griefing, the POS system, some UI glitches, the fact the goons still exist... You know, real problems with EVE online.
But if that's too hard, and you just HAVE to change the aggression system, how about this: Just make the sec status penalties in lowsec a lot smaller. Really small. It will encourage more PvP and reduce grinding for a lot of players. Just a thought.
|

Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
63
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 02:12:00 -
[560] - Quote
Ok, can-flipping question here.... When you incur your Suspect flag, does it retro-actively affect every can/wreck you have in space? Or does it only affect cans/wrecks that are jettisoned AFTER you get the flag?
Because the way a "professional can-flipper" (ie. griefer) works, is you fly up to the can, jettison your own can, then move everything from their can to yours. Depending on how the flags are handled determines whether or not you can effectively steal from another player solo. Cuz if the flag is retro-actively applied, then they can just take back their items with no problems at all. That effectively negates thievery from the game... which ain't very "sandbox". Cuz you should be able to steal other kids toys.
Note this is easily overcome if you steal as a duo. Form a fleet, one player drops a can, other player does the can-flipping. But that is far too much effort for something as lame as can-flipping. |
|

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
321
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 02:12:00 -
[561] - Quote
Reticle wrote:captain foivos wrote:Hey Masterplan, if players are the new police, why the hell do we still need CONCORD to be so strong? excellent question A better question might be "Is this actually intended as a shift toward player policing?" It still leaves concord as the consequence for acts that would create a GCC under the current system and provides no incentive for people to engage suspects. Really all it does as far as behaviors is allow people who might have wanted to involve themselves in a non-concord invoking conflict but weren't able to before to be able to now and also be able to retaliate against assisting parties considered neutral and protected prior. |

Havegun Willtravel
Mobile Alcohol Processing Units
54
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 02:13:00 -
[562] - Quote
I'll reserve judgement unitl Super Friends blog comes out, but atm it's being implied that just the simple act of shooting first results in Kill Rights. 
So if someone who's -4.9 charges me in a low sec belt and I do the intelligent thing and shoot, no matter the outcome they get kill rights ?
Thus, even in low sec, the only way i can avoid looking over my sholder for a month is to flip a can ? Or put myself at a distinct disadvantage by always having to wait for someone else to shoot first ?
Sorry, but if left unchanged you've very severly damaged low sec pvp.
The existing system, quite frankly, works perfectly. If you never get a chance to defend yourself ( ie: you get blobbed ) you can get payback 1 v 1. These proposed changed completely inbalance that.
I can see a great many people who principaly live in high sec, but who do random roams into LS, stopping under these circumstances. The risk to their main activities would be to great to warrant giving out kill rights to every target.
Low sec doesn't need fewer people pvp'ing it needs more, and this is a recipe for to kill that. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9754
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 02:16:00 -
[563] - Quote
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:Ok, can-flipping question here.... When you incur your Suspect flag, does it retro-actively affect every can/wreck you have in space? Or does it only affect cans/wrecks that are jettisoned AFTER you get the flag? By the sounds of it, it will will be retroactive, yes. A can is a can is a can, and I seriously doubt that they're going to individually track each and every one of them GÇö they'll just look at your current flagging and see if you're a legal target or not. If at any point in time you are, your cans are free game at that point in time as well.
The new trick will lie in making people pick up cans they don't own, thereby S-flagging themselves so you can shoot them. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
321
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 02:19:00 -
[564] - Quote
Havegun Willtravel wrote:So if someone who's -4.9 charges me in a low sec belt and I do the intelligent thing and shoot, no matter the outcome they get kill rights ? Seems the best option would simply be letting them take the first shot and retaliating accordingly. that way you get killrights and if all goes well a killmail at the end of the fight as well.
|

Dirael Papier
Nevermined Inc
16
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 02:21:00 -
[565] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Vladimir Norkoff wrote:Ok, can-flipping question here.... When you incur your Suspect flag, does it retro-actively affect every can/wreck you have in space? Or does it only affect cans/wrecks that are jettisoned AFTER you get the flag? By the sounds of it, it will will be retroactive, yes. A can is a can is a can, and I seriously doubt that they're going to individually track each and every one of them GÇö they'll just look at your current flagging and see if you're a legal target or not. If at any point in time you are, your cans are free game at that point in time as well. The new trick will lie in making people pick up cans they don't own, thereby S-flagging themselves so you can shoot them. I thought I remember someone saying it'll actually abandon all of your cans once you're flagged, but I can't find any of the dev posts saying that in this thread and have no clue where else I would've seen it. So I could just be delusional. |

Mars Theran
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
333
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 02:29:00 -
[566] - Quote
Okay, couple things.
ECM and ECM burst against a pod = who cares. Why would you get an upgraded flag from firing one off, to hitting a pod vs. a ship. It doesn't kill or damage, it just blocks them from targeting. ECM penalties are maybe necessary as it is 'technically' an aggressive module, but it has no bearing on a pod, (or even a shuttle), as it doesn't have weapons or modules. It just grants a lock to look function.
Wipe that penalty. Anything that does nothing to something and incurs a penalty is kind of rediculous.
Move ECM and EWAR, (with exception to Warp Disruption), to an assisting module rather than a weapons module. It is more like Logistics than weapons, and should be treated as such. Just because it is used, doesn't mean it is used with criminal intent or for aggressive purposes, just like logistics.
ECM and EWAR, (Not including Jamming or Disrupting Warp), are primarily passive-aggressive modules and function more in a defensive role than an attack role in my opinion. They should be treated as such.
Example of use:
Webbed targeted ship, no other players involved - Ship is webbed; it aligns faster. Helpful action, and not likely to be used before an attack as it gives the target the ability to escape faster. Still results in Weapons Flag, but no PvP flag.
Webbed Targeted ship, NPCs involved - Action causes ship to become vulnerable to NPC attacks; should be considered Criminal in Highsec or Suspect in Lowsec.
Webbed Targeted ship, players involved - Remote assistance penalties apply as you are aiding the attackers.
ECM can't be helpful, but aside from use to prevent a target defending itself, can't be considered particularly harmful either. Weapon Disruption also fall into this category.
Target Painting would fall into the webbing category, with the unique exception that it can be used to increase a targets sig for the purpose of logistics locking time reduction, which would result in assistance.
..anyway, whatever. I'm just thinking. I got Concorded once for dropping ECM, (only), on a Brutix that was ganking my friends Orca in a Wardec. I was in fleet I believe, but not in Corp at the time, and the action was a legal one under the Wardec system for the attacker, but I wasn't able to help without losing my ship. Kinda felt that was a bit extreme under the circumstances, and I'd like to see that changed.
I do understand that, but at the same time, that person could have used Neutral logistics without penalty if they thought they neded it. Old system, I know, but something to consider for the current one. Not all actions are black and white, and there should be some consideration for that.
Maybe something to save for a later iteration of Crimewatch, or maybe not. Up to you ultimately, and the players who read this of course.
Ultimately, I'd still drop a Scorp on a ship attacking a friends ship, even in a Wardec I wasn't part of, only next time I'd probably bring guns if the situation called for the same action. ..and a Web. Maybe I was actually sleeping in front of my computer and dreamed I posted. Certainly, it's not there now. |

Cpt Gobla
No Bullshit Jokers Wild.
129
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 02:31:00 -
[567] - Quote
Just one question,
Having either a PvP or PvE flag and crashing does your ship still warp off?
Which happens?
Situation A: Pilot with flag crashes, warps off 100.000km (if not scrammed), sits in space for 15min.
Or
Situation B: Pilot with flag crashes, sits in space for 15min.
I'm suspecting it's B but I'm hoping it's A as this would allow careful pilots to focus-fire on scrambling frigates first and then engage in PvE without worry of disconnections.
Furthermore, when crashing and remaining in space will your drones still be automatically recalled as they currently are? |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9754
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 02:35:00 -
[568] - Quote
Cpt Gobla wrote:Just one question,
Having either a PvP or PvE flag and crashing does your ship still warp off? Yes. The only change they've mentioned so far is that they're separating the flags into coherent units rather than have everything fall under a single flag with tons of special rules and exceptions, and that the PvE flag actually has some effects (viz. making you stay in space). The rest is pretty much business as usual: you e-warp off if you can; after the timer runs out (if you're not a pile of debris at that point), the ship disappears. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|

Chitsa Jason
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
150
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 02:38:00 -
[569] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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 is **** then. You need more pilots to bubble both sides of the gate. Nerf to small gang pvp.
Also SP loss for loosing T3 is stupid in the first place.
Other changes seem good.
Now that rage is out.. i can go to sleep o/ |

Cloora
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
106
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 03:03:00 -
[570] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz 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
I really don't get why losing an 800mil ship is not enough of a penalization. Also, what is the point of ejecting if you can't do it when there is an emergency. Isn't that what an "escape pod" is for? Perhaps you should just make T3s not have this penalty, their cost is already huge, losing them is already penalty enough when you pop.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAA!!!!!
TDG tears because they can't engage in thier riskless PvP anymore. Boo hoo hoo! CEO and Major ShareholderAPEX ConglomerateMaker of Starsi softdrinks and Torped-Os! Cereal http://www.altaholics.blogspot.com
|
|

Sabriz Adoudel
Resurgent Threat
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 03:05:00 -
[571] - Quote
Two concerns, assuming I read things correctly (a hostile action of any sort against a player pod, even where that pod escapes, now causes the same serious sec status loss you get for actually participating in podding someone now)
#1: Ransoming player pods in lowsec sounds like it will now cause a massive sec status loss as the warp scram will count as podding them. #2: (leaving aside thoughts about the tactical merit of using this module) Setting off ECM bursts in lowsec gang encounters may hit multiple pods, again causing massive sec status loss even though those pods will in all likelihood escape. |

Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
321
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 03:16:00 -
[572] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Michael Harari wrote:I understand you are trying to fix the orca swap trick in both highsec and on gates, but the way you have it implemented is rather ham-fistedand breaks a bunch of other things, like ejected from a ship before a sabre bubbles you Perhaps the self destruct timer should be reduced to a few seconds.... Essentially, the pros and cons of preventing ejecting: Pro: --- T3 Skill losses will become much more common place (as was INTENDED). --- You can't save ships by scooping them into an orca/carrier hangar bay... --- People can't eject from a ship to potentially avoid embarrassing losses. Cons: --- In nullsec, people sometimes hold your ship in place and bring in a dictor to get your pod.... you typically can't prevent this by eject/warping... (although more pod losses are a pro IMO). --- If people typically can't eject from their ship, capturing ships will become much less common (I've caught many ships because of this tactic, including freighters and BS's... I'll miss them). --- People can't switch ships to "bait'n'switch" a mission runner that was successfully baited into aggressing when they shouldn't have... What are we missing??? In my opinion, those pros outweigh those cons!
You can easily get pods in lowsec with these changes, just instead of a dictor, bring a smartbomb battleship. |

Eon Ending
Inquisition FiS Division Surely You're Joking
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 03:22:00 -
[573] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:Eon Ending wrote:Question to CCP Masterplan from the WH crowd: Char A tracks down and shoots Char B & destroys Char B. Char A now has a 15 minute flag. Char A wants to fly to his POS, grab a indy and pick up said epic lewtz. Char A can't under the new system as he's got the flag and can't change ships.
Is that the new reality under this system?? The flag that prevents you from ejecting and swapping ships is the weapons flag, which only lasts for one minute. Bearing in mind that it'd probably take at least 20-odd seconds to warp to your POS from the grid where the fight happened, I really don't think it's going to be a huge deal.
Didn't see that it was only 1 minute.
/hats off to you Tsubutai.
Great work CCP. |

Rhavas
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
62
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 03:38:00 -
[574] - Quote
My detailed take on these changes is on my blog, here.
Here's the TL;DR -
In my opinion, CCP has made a solid start, at least at the things I use regularly. I particularly am very happy with the changes to separate Suspect from Criminal in Lowsec (although I think further tweaks to gate guns are required to fully address the issue) I would like to see them do the following to polish it off before release:
- Remove the eject lock, at least for T3s. Forcing people to stay in and lose skills is BS, and cuts off a great Gǣsteal the T3GǦ gameplay mechanic.
- Reduce the Criminal timer to 5 minutes plus a full 15-minute Suspect timer after that.
- Eliminate any affect to sec status below -2.0 (see Hans JagerblitzenGÇÖs original election proposal) for triggering the Suspect timer. Only Criminal acts should drive you under -2.0.
- Do not trigger Criminal flags unless the pod dies. Shooting it without killing keeps you at Suspect only.
- Review neutral RR approach flagging approach to ensure loopholes are closed.
More on the eject lock in a separate reply. |

Bart Starr
Aggressive Structural Steel Expediting Services
100
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 03:41:00 -
[575] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Bart Starr wrote:Why is it illegal to board a new ship for 60 seconds with a weapons timer? Because the ability to do so is being abused to unduly protect against ship losses and to stay in a fight that has long since been lost. Have a look in any of the more heavily travelled (and camped) lowsec pockets and you'll quickly see the extent of the problem. It has nothing to do with protecting highsec carebears and everything to do with removing undue protection from people who want the best offence without the risk and costs that come with it.
I might need more details here.
I can understand why ejecting from a ship, then stuffing it into an Orca could be considered an abuse.
What I am talking about is simply boarding a new ship.
If scooping ships into an Orca is a problem, fix it. And fix it in lowsec, not just in highsec (like was done previously).
Fixing it by almost completely removing the ability to eject (which totally screws people who are disproportionately affected by explosion/session change lag....) - or telling players that they can't board a new ship for 60 seconds after shooting (for what purpose? why? - its not an abuse)
Universal 'suspect' flag. Fine, whatever, as a ninja I can deal. Safety condoms? This, more than anything will probably kill the profession by making MR aggression extremely rare. But preventing someone from jumping into a new ship (even if the old ship remains a target in space....) WTF. Makes no sense.
Unless the whole concept of mission runner baiting is 'the abuse' that they are trying to phase out. In which case, I wish they would have the guts to say it outright.....I can find other things to do with my time. |

Rhavas
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
64
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 03:47:00 -
[576] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Michael Harari wrote:I understand you are trying to fix the orca swap trick in both highsec and on gates, but the way you have it implemented is rather ham-fistedand breaks a bunch of other things, like ejected from a ship before a sabre bubbles you Perhaps the self destruct timer should be reduced to a few seconds.... Essentially, the pros and cons of preventing ejecting: Pro: --- T3 Skill losses will become much more common place (as was INTENDED). --- You can't save ships by scooping them into an orca/carrier hangar bay... --- People can't eject from a ship to potentially avoid embarrassing losses. Cons: --- In nullsec, people sometimes hold your ship in place and bring in a dictor to get your pod.... you typically can't prevent this by eject/warping... (although more pod losses are a pro IMO). --- If people typically can't eject from their ship, capturing ships will become much less common (I've caught many ships because of this tactic, including freighters and BS's... I'll miss them). --- People can't switch ships to "bait'n'switch" a mission runner that was successfully baited into aggressing when they shouldn't have...
I agree with Michael on this one (as noted above). Find a different way to prevent ship-scooping and bait-and-switch (use the PVP flag).
Not having the choice to bail out and leave capturable stuff rather than a killmail is bad. Choices are good. Losing skillpoints by force rather than choice in a T3 is bad. Choices are good. Skill loss will not become more common, T3 PVP pilots, especially Skill 5 pilots, will become less common. That's bad.
The weight here is on a ham-handed nerf to the ninja crowd, but cascades to many other Unforseen (Bad) Consequences. |

Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
321
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 03:51:00 -
[577] - Quote
Idea to prevent scooping
New Rule: Flags are tied to ships, not to players. When you leave a ship, your pod gains all the flags of your old ship. When you board a ship, the ship you board gains all the flags of your pod while keeping all its current flags. |

Liafcipe9000
Smeghead Empire
64
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 03:53:00 -
[578] - Quote
some of the consequences in the charts just don't make any sense whatsoever. in wormhole or nullsec space, there is NOTHING to stop you from doing whatever it is you want to do. for example, when you're in a wormhole system or a nullsec system, after you destroyed someone else's ship, then you try to dock and change ship(even to one that's in a corp hangar) there's no sense in denying you this action since that hangar is owned by your corporation and so is the rest of the facility where this hangar is located. Also, there is no CONCORD personnel or CONCORD-piloted ships to be found anywhere near the facility that houses the corp hangar. there's a reason why NPCs call it LAWLESS space - there are no laws at all.
Also, I've read that flags will override other flags which I did not quite understand and I'm left with the quetion of how will this work and if it's level-based, what are the level(s) for each flag?
and finally, this will cause a problem with 1v1 fights. in hisec space, 1v1 fights are started by one player stealing from the can of the other person with whom he agreed to a 1v1 fight. Retribution's crimewatch changes will make it so that anyone can interfere with these fights without CONCORD intervention which will ruin the whole fight - basically killing 1v1 fights completely. |

Rastuasi
Crunchy Crunchy Peregrine Nation
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 03:54:00 -
[579] - Quote
Odin Shadow wrote:Rayemmi B'tes wrote:Odin Shadow wrote:so ill ask again.
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? That's what happens when you D/C while scrammed now, if I'm not mistaken. So nothing changing there. nah, currently you vanish after 30 sec's, might be 60. but you do vanish
If a mission rat scrams you, you in fact are stuck now. You only disappear if you had no scrams on you. I have proof of this due to losing a few ships in missions due to ISP issues and the mission dps was far under a normal problem had I been there to monitor the cap/shield booster. I came back to a loss mail with a point listed on one of the frigs. |

Nomistrav
High Flyers RED.OverLord
92
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 04:02:00 -
[580] - Quote
Nomistrav wrote:Has then been any thought to changing the system so that Smuggling of illegal goods in a particular faction's space is viable?
- If CONCORD/Faction scans you down and finds illegal goods
Are there any Suspect/Criminal flags given to the Smuggler when he/she is scanned and illegal goods are found?
Are Customs Scans still going to be nigh-impossible to avoid?
If not, where on the road-map are features planned to get past Customs Scans?
If Smuggler is a Suspect - do they still get hit with fine/standings loss while potentially being shot at by other players?
Does the Sec Status penalty brought on from having illegal goods trigger Sentry Guns in high-sec, as stated in the chart?
Does the Smuggler still retain a Suspect/Criminal flag - if any - if he jettisons his/her cargo?
No comments on this, CCP? |
|

Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
738
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 04:21:00 -
[581] - Quote
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:Ok, can-flipping question here.... When you incur your Suspect flag, does it retro-actively affect every can/wreck you have in space? Or does it only affect cans/wrecks that are jettisoned AFTER you get the flag?
Because the way a "professional can-flipper" (ie. griefer) works, is you fly up to the can, jettison your own can, then move everything from their can to yours. Depending on how the flags are handled determines whether or not you can effectively steal from another player solo. Cuz if the flag is retro-actively applied, then they can just take back their items with no problems at all. That effectively negates thievery from the game... which ain't very "sandbox". Cuz you should be able to steal other kids toys.
Note this is easily overcome if you steal as a duo. Form a fleet, one player drops a can, other player does the can-flipping. But that is far too much effort for something as lame as can-flipping. Just have a hauler right there in fleet or whatever to whoosh the goods away as soon as they appear if you really want them. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |

Swidgen
Republic University Minmatar Republic
23
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 04:38:00 -
[582] - Quote
Jarin Arenos wrote: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... Ummmm.... no? |

Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
1208
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 04:47:00 -
[583] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote:Vladimir Norkoff wrote:Ok, can-flipping question here.... When you incur your Suspect flag, does it retro-actively affect every can/wreck you have in space? Or does it only affect cans/wrecks that are jettisoned AFTER you get the flag?
Because the way a "professional can-flipper" (ie. griefer) works, is you fly up to the can, jettison your own can, then move everything from their can to yours. Depending on how the flags are handled determines whether or not you can effectively steal from another player solo. Cuz if the flag is retro-actively applied, then they can just take back their items with no problems at all. That effectively negates thievery from the game... which ain't very "sandbox". Cuz you should be able to steal other kids toys.
Note this is easily overcome if you steal as a duo. Form a fleet, one player drops a can, other player does the can-flipping. But that is far too much effort for something as lame as can-flipping. Just have a hauler right there in fleet or whatever to whoosh the goods away as soon as they appear if you really want them. Yah... but that right there is what they are trying to get rid of. You aren't getting PvP you are tricking someone into a mechanic they don't know about yet because they are nubs. That's not pvp that's just asshattery. The only people that would fall for that are nub and are not making much isk anyway. If you know enough to know that mechanic you wouldn't need to steal from nubs to make a lot more isk. The only reason people do that is for the lulz... and if that's what you want go gank someone. Leave the nubs to mine their veldspar in .7
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
592
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 04:52:00 -
[584] - Quote
Rhavas wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Michael Harari wrote:I understand you are trying to fix the orca swap trick in both highsec and on gates, but the way you have it implemented is rather ham-fistedand breaks a bunch of other things, like ejected from a ship before a sabre bubbles you Perhaps the self destruct timer should be reduced to a few seconds.... Essentially, the pros and cons of preventing ejecting: Pro: --- T3 Skill losses will become much more common place (as was INTENDED). --- You can't save ships by scooping them into an orca/carrier hangar bay... --- People can't eject from a ship to potentially avoid embarrassing losses. Cons: --- In nullsec, people sometimes hold your ship in place and bring in a dictor to get your pod.... (or a smart bombing BS in lowsec)... you typically can't prevent this by eject/warping... (although more pod losses are a pro IMO). --- If people typically can't eject from their ship, capturing ships will become much less common (I've caught many ships because of this tactic, including freighters and BS's... I'll miss them). --- People can't switch ships to "bait'n'switch" a mission runner that was successfully baited into aggressing when they shouldn't have... I agree with Michael on this one (as noted above). Find a different way to prevent ship-scooping and bait-and-switch (use the PVP flag). Not having the choice to bail out and leave capturable stuff rather than a killmail is bad. Choices are good. Losing skillpoints by force rather than choice in a T3 is bad. Choices are good. Skill loss will not become more common, T3 PVP pilots, especially Skill 5 pilots, will become less common. That's bad. The weight here is on a ham-handed nerf to the ninja crowd, but cascades to many other Unforseen (Bad) Consequences.
A couple of thoughts: 1.) If your t3 ship is blown up... you should lose the SP... IMO, the ONLY way you should NOT lose SP, is if the enemy boards your T3 and makes it their own!
2.) Scooping ships into the SMA of another ship, to save it from distruction, is a very cheesy and broken mechanic, and should be fixed.
So, if you can code in the above 2 principles while still allowing people to eject from their ships, then let it be done... If you can't, then perhaps a change to the self destruct mechanism is appropriate. Reduce the self destruct to a few seconds in length, and then let the remaining pod warp away and/or board another ship. |

T'Shorin
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 05:05:00 -
[585] - Quote
If I am reading the charts and discussion correctly, using ECM creates a W flag, preventing jumping/docking/ejecting. But isn't ECM a defensive action, or is it only ECM bursts? |

OT Smithers
BLOMI
194
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 05:09:00 -
[586] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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.
Disappointing. Why not give them a flag until such time as this can be better dealt with? |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
594
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 05:12:00 -
[587] - Quote
T'Shorin wrote:If I am reading the charts and discussion correctly, using ECM creates a W flag, preventing jumping/docking/ejecting. But isn't ECM a defensive action, or is it only ECM bursts?
ECM, and almost all EWAR is not a DEFENSIVE action.... Sure, it doesn't directly blow up an enemies ship, but that doesn't make it defensive... as it usually puts that ship in a position where it'll die easy... |

OT Smithers
BLOMI
194
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 05:12:00 -
[588] - Quote
Jita Bloodtear wrote:What's the reason for giving 15 min logout timers to ships with npc aggression?
What reason did you guys feel compelled to change all player structure shoots to pvp aggression when armed pvp structures already cause pvp aggression?
I like it. It will make hunting players in null sec a whole lot more enjoyable. |

OT Smithers
BLOMI
194
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 05:18:00 -
[589] - Quote
Steven Hackett wrote:I can see why one might want to penalize T3 losses with skillloss.. After all, EVE is not about PVP, but about ratting and RMT'ing the isk.. right?  Anyway.. I see why ejecting before a T3 loss is not the way it should be.. But.. Removing ejecting also removes the dynamic small scale PVP.. Ex. preventing me from switching ship mid fight from my carrier friend to counter whatever just entered grid.. I see this as a big loss tbh. And i believe a Mastermind could find a better solution to his needs for punishing PVP'ers who risk the isk ;b Edit: also, i presume the 1min no-jump timer still doesn't count for w-space right? :) If that is not the case, I might need to dig out the pitchfork ;b
You listed the one possible "good" application of this. In practice what it really created was a bunch of garbage, with carriers and orcas serving as instant "get out of jail free" PvP escape pods. Under this, if you want to shoot other people you will have to put your ship on the line.
My only complaint so far is that off grid boosters do not get flagged as well. |

Mara Rinn
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
1888
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 05:18:00 -
[590] - Quote
T'Shorin wrote:If I am reading the charts and discussion correctly, using ECM creates a W flag, preventing jumping/docking/ejecting. But isn't ECM a defensive action, or is it only ECM bursts?
Judging from the forums, I would class ECM as offensive. Heck, class ECM as indecent
Please explain how someone warping into my mission or anomaly and jamming my logistics/tracking link a lot is not an offensive action?
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
|

Pipa Porto
1127
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 05:56:00 -
[591] - Quote
Quote:Stealing from a container will expose you to potential attacks from all players (but not from sentry guns). 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), but we are adding one additional rule: If I can legally attack the owner of a container, then I can legally take from the container.
Is there a specific reason why you want to be rid of Freighter ganking as a profitable enterprise? (To be more specific, it puts the safe cargo limit at 10+B ISK*, which is more or less the same thing)
Secondly, is there a specific reason why you want to get rid of can flipping as a way to initiate combat**?
Are either of those answers going to differ significantly from "we want to make HS safe?"
*Cost of Ganking + Sacrificial Freighter to pick up the loot (in the same corp as real looting freighter) + The fact that the loot has to survive two ship explosions.
**Hampered as it already is by other recent changes. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Nycodemis
National Institute of Mental Health
14
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 06:09:00 -
[592] - Quote
I've not read the 30 pages yet, but as I understand it;
HIC's get a Weapons flag even if no one is on grid. Fire a gun, missile, smartbomb, etc with not a soul in sight (or cloaked) and you get a mandatory 60 second time-out. Really? What the hell? This helps anyone how? The Weapons flag should not be used unless someone/something is directly affected by the offensive system activated. Otherwise it's just a way to slow things down, **** people off and waste resources.
That raises another question... Does a Weapons flag affect jumping through holes? If it does that means HIC's can no longer use their bubbles to reduce their mass on the hole. Even if that's not the case, the Weapons flag without affecting other players or the environment is asinine regardless of the offensive system in use. |

Cannibal Kane
The Angel of Death
592
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 06:15:00 -
[593] - Quote
Nycodemis wrote:I've not read the 30 pages yet, but as I understand it;
HIC's get a Weapons flag even if no one is on grid. Fire a gun, missile, smartbomb, etc with not a soul in sight (or cloaked) and you get a mandatory 60 second time-out. Really? What the hell? This helps anyone how? The Weapons flag should not be used unless someone/something is directly affected by the offensive system activated. Otherwise it's just a way to slow things down, **** people off and waste resources.
That raises another question... Does a Weapons flag affect jumping through holes? If it does that means HIC's can no longer use their bubbles to reduce their mass on the hole. Even if that's not the case, the Weapons flag without affecting other players or the environment is asinine regardless of the offensive system in use.
You can jump through Wormholes even while you aggressing somebody. It is meant for gates, wh cannot deny you jump because they don't know your shooting somebody. Gates do.
On that note, I like what I am reading so far. Should be interesting. I'm not a Pirate, I'm a Terrorist.
The Crazy Space Poor South African.
*Hair done by LGÇÖOr+¬al, because I'm worth it. |

Nycodemis
National Institute of Mental Health
14
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 06:17:00 -
[594] - Quote
I've not read the 30 pages yet, but as I understand it;
HIC's get a Weapons flag even if no one is on grid. Fire a non-targeted offensive device with not a soul in sight (or cloaked) and you get a mandatory 60 second time-out. Really? What the hell? This helps anyone how? The Weapons flag should not be used unless someone/something is directly affected by the offensive system activated. Otherwise it's just a way to slow things down, **** people off and waste resources.
That raises another question... Does a Weapons flag affect jumping through holes? If it does that means HIC's can no longer use their bubbles to reduce their mass on the hole. Even if that's not the case, the Weapons flag without affecting other players or the environment is asinine regardless of the offensive system in use.
Otherwise... Sexy!
CCP Masterplan wrote:Note that we're not attempting to dumb down the system, or restrict what you can or cannot do. Does movement count? |

Chanina
ASGARD HEAVY INDUSTRIES A Point In Space
19
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 06:23:00 -
[595] - Quote
Dev Blog wrote: NPC Flag: This flag is activated when a player uses offensive modules against an NPC (or vice-versa). Having this flag will prevent a ship from being removed from space if the pilot logs off. This flag functions in all areas of space.
Does the ship warp "save" or does it stay where it is?
Little scenario: Ratting with an alt, pvp char somewhere on standby. PvP incoming, warping ratting ship under POS and logging off to PvP.
Finding out that the enemy has managed to scan down your ratting ship because it warped "save" out of the FF and got killed. Wouldn't be much of a problem but you HAVE to KNOW if it is the case.
If ships don't stay where they are you would always have to stop any activity 15 min before you really want to log off. Unnecessary wait times won't be that good. |

Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 06:23:00 -
[596] - Quote
Hmmm...my overall impression is that CrimeWatch 2 has very little to do with controlling crime --
and a WHOLE lot to do with FORCING PVP encounters to a decisive conclusion if I understand correctly.
#1 Once an aggressor shoots a target ship that target can no longer duck back into a station regardless of whether its a legal target or not. So you are also warp jammed -- you better have the superior combat ship.
Hmmm..can pirate T1 BCs tank station guns long enough to kill Mackinaws and Hulks once redocking is no longer an option for mining pilots?
Will CCP make station guns destructible again to encourage this sort of engagement? Didn't I see a blog where CCP said intensified PVP conflict was its main overall improvement goal for EVE as whole and hi sec in particular over the next year or so? Something about raising combat losses to where T2 ships would become far less common once more.
#2 Haulers can no longer escape ambushes by jumping gates. Mainly affects freighters and Orcas. Other haulers can simply warp away from GCC attackers which now have front-loaded warp disable. Although being unable to dock at stations will keep especially valuable cargoes vulnerable to additional attackers for 60 seconds.
NEGATIVE ASPECTS:
Mining players who do escape combat encounters are prohibited from switching ships and returning as part of intruder response group. This heavily favors the aggressor groups in sparsely populated null or wh space. However, this does logically follow a physics module which says weapons firing and impacts create dangerous high energy charges on the exterior of both involved ships.
|

Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
65
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 06:39:00 -
[597] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote:Just have a hauler right there in fleet or whatever to whoosh the goods away as soon as they appear if you really want them. Meh. A single hauler load is hardly worth stealing. You want an entire can-full to flip, which is multiple hauler loads. You want to have taken enough of their time, that they and their entire corp will come gunning for you.
You can easily steal a hauler load of ore with this new system if that is all you are after. Just cruise around cloaked, bookmark cans, swap to a hauler, warp to can, loot and warp off. But that's not the point. Miners won't care. A hauler load is just a few minutes of mining time lost. That's not worth risking their ship over. But if you take a half-hour, or an hour, of their work. Then they get pissed. And that's when they get their combat ships. And that IS the point.
This new system (if the Suspect flag is retro-active) eliminates that. Can/wreck flipping just becomes an "Open PvP Flag - On" button, with no real meaning or context. You can only take what you can fit into your cargo, and that really ain't much in the overall scheme of things. Nobody is going to care. And in the end it will reduce another form of player interaction (albeit rather violent interaction). And that is not a good thing. Things that promote conflict on the other hand are good. Conflict is what drives this game. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
595
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 06:45:00 -
[598] - Quote
Proddy Scun wrote:Hmmm...my overall impression is that CrimeWatch 2 has very little to do with controlling crime --
and a WHOLE lot to do with FORCING PVP encounters to a decisive conclusion if I understand correctly.
#1 Once an aggressor shoots a target ship that target can no longer duck back into a station regardless of whether its a legal target or not. So you are also warp jammed -- you better have the superior combat ship.
Hmmm..can pirate T1 BCs tank station guns long enough to kill Mackinaws and Hulks once redocking is no longer an option for mining pilots?
Will CCP make station guns destructible again to encourage this sort of engagement? Didn't I see a blog where CCP said intensified PVP conflict was its main overall improvement goal for EVE as whole and hi sec in particular over the next year or so? Something about raising combat losses to where T2 ships would become far less common once more.
#2 Haulers can no longer escape ambushes by jumping gates. Mainly affects freighters and Orcas. Other haulers can simply warp away from GCC attackers which now have front-loaded warp disable. Although being unable to dock at stations will keep especially valuable cargoes vulnerable to additional attackers for 60 seconds.
NEGATIVE ASPECTS:
Mining players who do escape combat encounters are prohibited from switching ships and returning as part of intruder response group. This heavily favors the aggressor groups in sparsely populated null or wh space. However, this does logically follow a physics module which says weapons firing and impacts create dangerous high energy charges on the exterior of both involved ships.
What are you talking about.....
1.) If you don't aggress someone, nor provide remote assistance to someone that's aggressing someone, you won't get a weapons flag, meaning you can dock, jump, warp (assuming your not scrammed), or whatever... So, those macks and hulks can redock just fine... unless they do something really stupid...
2.) See point 1.... and think about it...
Go re-read the dev blog and get a clue....
|

Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
29
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 06:47:00 -
[599] - Quote
Proddy Scun wrote:Hmmm...my overall impression is that CrimeWatch 2 has very little to do with controlling crime --
and a WHOLE lot to do with FORCING PVP encounters to a decisive conclusion if I understand correctly.
What's wrong with that?
EVE needs more crime and PVP to keep things lively. Not less.
So what's missing from the CCP concept if this is their goal?
#1  Weapons flag should prevent entry inside POS shield - not just storing and switching ships. Completes symmetry of being unable to dock at NPC stations.
Why? Same old residual weapon firing or being hit effects. Charge can't pass shields or is radiating too much damaging energy to allow inside.
No big deal except if attacker faces POS guns he can finish off weak, near dead ships which have 60 seconds to wait before they stop bouncing off POS shields.
More conclusive and decisive PVP and fewer cowards able to succesfully run to POS for cover.
#2  Weapons flags disables warp on both shooter and any targets shooter actually hits.
New physics model or new weapons tech says the residual charges from weapons firing and explosions messes up warp drive and warp computers (doubly jammed). Warp jamming modules are still good for targets turrets are not immediately hitting.
This makes a lot more sense than MAGIC warp disable on GCC flagged folks alone.
No PVP escape - all combat to the death. Once combat starts anyone firing or hit cannot leave grid until combat is complete. MWD might work as warp drive in degraded mode.
|

Shilalasar
Dead Sky Inc. Talocan United
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 06:55:00 -
[600] - Quote
Linking the weaponsswitch with the ejectbutton is not optimal imo. Not even minmatar would design something like that.
Ejecting is a viable thing to do in w-space: -T3 SPloss: While it is fine if you loose one ship once a month there are people looking for fights all the time. And if you loose the wrong skill you won-¦t be able to fly your favorite ship for another 5 days. And we are often forced to use T3 because we have masslimits on holes and the need for tanky cloaked tackle. Because Sleepers f.e. If you point a ratter in a bomber/recon you are dead most times before your buddies finish warp. -PODsaving: The best fights happens if something shiny gets pointed and both sides are having a slugfest and just reship after they exploded. I remember fights when pilots reshipped 4 times and just kept coming. Not possible anymore because many people stated already it-¦s so easy to get a pod when you know when he is going to go pop. Also it-¦s not like we can just come back home via clonejump or something like that. If you loose your POD in a fight and your friends loose the entrie fight you are out of your home without a way back in unless the wining side decides to not stick around. So people will often not fight anymore because of this. -Changed ships because new targets arrived: So you are rolling your hole and a bomber uncloaks and points something. OFC everyone shoots it. Then his friends arrive and you warp off to change ships and hlep your buddies on the hole. Or not, since you-¦ll be sitting at your POS of 60 sec, unable to change ship. We are forced to use certain kinds of ships for holerolling and are already at a disadvantage. -Storing ships in a carrier/orca midfight: In w-space this is called expensive orcakillmail. Because we have (almost) no timers and we like it that way. Also how many times does an orca get pointed then launches a combatship from the sma, jumps into that and fights the attackers. The winner gets to keep the orca and make fun of the looser. Was always fun. |
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
595
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 06:56:00 -
[601] - Quote
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:Iam Widdershins wrote:Just have a hauler right there in fleet or whatever to whoosh the goods away as soon as they appear if you really want them. Meh. A single hauler load is hardly worth stealing. You want an entire can-full to flip, which is multiple hauler loads. You want to have taken enough of their time, that they and their entire corp will come gunning for you. You can easily steal a hauler load of ore with this new system if that is all you are after. Just cruise around cloaked, bookmark cans, swap to a hauler, warp to can, loot and warp off. But that's not the point. Miners won't care. A hauler load is just a few minutes of mining time lost. That's not worth risking their ship over. But if you take a half-hour, or an hour, of their work. Then they get pissed. And that's when they get their combat ships. And that IS the point. This new system (if the Suspect flag is retro-active) eliminates that. Can/wreck flipping just becomes an "Open PvP Flag - On" button, with no real meaning or context. You can only take what you can fit into your cargo, and that really ain't much in the overall scheme of things. Nobody is going to care. And in the end it will reduce another form of player interaction (albeit rather violent interaction). And that is not a good thing. Things that promote conflict on the other hand are good. Conflict is what drives this game.
We both know why you'd flip the can of ore... to get a fight... and, frankly, the suspect flag mechanics make it a LOT easier to get a fight.... Flip a can, and anyone in the area can shoot you.... now "good Samaritan" type players can patrol belts and try to gank suspects, which will probably create some good and fun fights for you.
Sure, if you lose ownership of a can, you no longer get attack rights when they take the loot back... but so what... getting fights in highsec should be much easier, as EVERYONE can shoot you...
|

Lumifragger Ghentenaar
Antwerpse Kerels R O G U E
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 07:01:00 -
[602] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz 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
I really don't get why losing an 800mil ship is not enough of a penalization. Also, what is the point of ejecting if you can't do it when there is an emergency. Isn't that what an "escape pod" is for? Perhaps you should just make T3s not have this penalty, their cost is already huge, losing them is already penalty enough when you pop.
Don't fly what you can't afford.
And sorry you can no longer only fly RMT faction tengus anymore |

Drago Misharie
Leeroy Jenkin's Slaughterhouse
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 07:03:00 -
[603] - Quote
Sounds great, but the not letting your ship leave space due to NPC is a problem with the current system.
I have lost many ships because I am in a mission area, belt, or site and my ship is just unable to warp due to debris.
If this behavior of leaving space doesn't change, at least something should be done about the debris so ships that aren't pointed can warp regardless upon log-off. |

Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 07:07:00 -
[604] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Proddy Scun wrote:Hmmm...my overall impression is that CrimeWatch 2 has very little to do with controlling crime --
and a WHOLE lot to do with FORCING PVP encounters to a decisive conclusion if I understand correctly.
#1 Once an aggressor shoots a target ship that target can no longer duck back into a station regardless of whether its a legal target or not. So you are also warp jammed -- you better have the superior combat ship.
Hmmm..can pirate T1 BCs tank station guns long enough to kill Mackinaws and Hulks once redocking is no longer an option for mining pilots?
Will CCP make station guns destructible again to encourage this sort of engagement? Didn't I see a blog where CCP said intensified PVP conflict was its main overall improvement goal for EVE as whole and hi sec in particular over the next year or so? Something about raising combat losses to where T2 ships would become far less common once more.
#2 Haulers can no longer escape ambushes by jumping gates. Mainly affects freighters and Orcas. Other haulers can simply warp away from GCC attackers which now have front-loaded warp disable. Although being unable to dock at stations will keep especially valuable cargoes vulnerable to additional attackers for 60 seconds.
NEGATIVE ASPECTS:
Mining players who do escape combat encounters are prohibited from switching ships and returning as part of intruder response group. This heavily favors the aggressor groups in sparsely populated null or wh space. However, this does logically follow a physics module which says weapons firing and impacts create dangerous high energy charges on the exterior of both involved ships.
What are you talking about..... 1.) If you don't aggress someone, nor provide remote assistance to someone that's aggressing someone, you won't get a weapons flag, meaning you can dock, jump, warp (assuming your not scrammed), or whatever... So, those macks and hulks can redock just fine... unless they do something really stupid... 2.) See point 1.... and think about it... Go re-read the dev blog and get a clue....
Good point I was reading the stuff on the PVP flag line instead of weapons flag line in the chart. Thought I had read somewhere above that the weapons flag did that too.
Still it would an interesting way to push up the conflicts without distorting the behaviors rules...just make it a consequence of physics for both parties. |

ArmyOfMe
Probable Cause.
113
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 07:08:00 -
[605] - Quote
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?
make it so that targeted ships cant be scooped? Would fix the problem as sentrys target everything with a gcc
Suleiman Shouaa> And you still think you're taking risks? NightmareX> I do. I take risks every day. But i do whatever i can to make sure i'm not ending up in a loss.
|

Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 07:15:00 -
[606] - Quote
Lumifragger Ghentenaar wrote:Warde Guildencrantz 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
I really don't get why losing an 800mil ship is not enough of a penalization. Also, what is the point of ejecting if you can't do it when there is an emergency. Isn't that what an "escape pod" is for? Perhaps you should just make T3s not have this penalty, their cost is already huge, losing them is already penalty enough when you pop. Don't fly what you can't afford. And sorry you can no longer only fly RMT faction tengus anymore
T3 are fairly expensive for new players who are not converting RL cash to ISK by selling PLEX.
But they really aren't that expensive for serious players who either been around or who are willing to drop a little RL cash to boost things along.
I'd bet most players who have played regularly for 2-3 years and belong to a decent corp or alliance have an income of at least 1-2B ISK per month. If they don't PLEX an extra account or two then they can spend it on T3. If you lose 10-12 Tengu per year...you are probably doing something wrong or your corp/alliance should be gaining enough territory and loot to reimburse you for being a key hard core player.
|

Lev Arturis
Dark-Rising
9
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 07:16:00 -
[607] - Quote
Drago Misharie wrote:Sounds great, but the not letting your ship leave space due to NPC is a problem with the current system.
I have lost many ships because I am in a mission area, belt, or site and my ship is just unable to warp due to debris.
If this behavior of leaving space doesn't change, at least something should be done about the debris so ships that aren't pointed can warp regardless upon log-off.
....stuck petition and a GM is your friend in that case. |

Cerulean Ice
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 07:22:00 -
[608] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:Logistics on killmails will not be happening in this release, sorry.
Logi don't need to be on killmails. We're better than that.
CCP Masterplan wrote: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.
But there are no innocents in EVE...
CCP Masterplan wrote: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!
Will players in the same corporation still be able to shoot each other? Back in my uni days, we shot each other for practice :3 |

Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 07:31:00 -
[609] - Quote
Cerulean Ice wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote:Logistics on killmails will not be happening in this release, sorry. Logi don't need to be on killmails. We're better than that. CCP Masterplan wrote: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. But there are no innocents in EVE... CCP Masterplan wrote: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! Will players in the same corporation still be able to shoot each other? Back in my uni days, we shot each other for practice :3
Did not read anything about changing corp ships to illegal targets. I think illegal targets remain the same unless they gain a flag that makes them legal. However CrimeWatch flags are not the only way to become legal target -- WarDec system and corp membership are there too. |

Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Project Wildfire
441
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 07:36:00 -
[610] - Quote
I like these proposed changes but I'm not to clear on the whole ejection thing...
Let's say you are in null sec or w-space doing a pve site and you get jumped and tackled by someone. You then spot a HIC and a small fleet on d-scan and you decide that you can't win the fight so it's better to save your pod and eject. Are we still going to be able to do this?
Am I right in thinking that because you have been shooting NPC's and maybe the player in an attempt to get away, you won't be able to eject from your ship for 60 seconds?
All those tengu pilots that get jumped in a sleeper site are really going to feel it when they loose their ship, skill points and their pod... I don't thing all players should be punished just because some people are using the ejection mechanic to exploit the game. They see me trolling, they hating... |
|

Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 07:45:00 -
[611] - Quote
ArmyOfMe 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?
make it so that targeted ships cant be scooped? Would fix the problem as sentrys target everything with a gcc
Hee hee I have seen a lot of low sec gate camps where they used masses of cheaper ships over "expensive, quality" ships.
However, why not tag ship as well as pilot with GCC and treat scooping as any other assistance? ....make GCC flagging of ship permanent and save overhead of timers on GCC ships. Pilot pods aren't attacked anyway so its really GCC on ships that counts for destruction. Any property used during GCC is lost would be very similar to public laws in real world.
So now that alt-flown Orca has the GCC too. And it cannot jump gate. Or if system lags in preventing that Orca from jumping gate - the Orca just jumped from frying pan (sentry guns alone) to fire (sentry guns of other side plus CONCORD etc)
LOL - that way you can remove restriction on switching ships. Every ship you board as GCC pilot is another ship tagged with GCC. Could be humorous too. |

Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1924
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 07:52:00 -
[612] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz 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
I really don't get why losing an 800mil ship is not enough of a penalization. Also, what is the point of ejecting if you can't do it when there is an emergency. Isn't that what an "escape pod" is for? Perhaps you should just make T3s not have this penalty, their cost is already huge, losing them is already penalty enough when you pop.
800M is a cost, exactly like flying another 1B ship costs, well, 1B. The additional penalty is an attached string for being allowed to fly an overpowered hull that gave you advantages - enough to outclass T2 specialized ships with a generalist ship. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |

Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1782
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 07:53:00 -
[613] - Quote
Jarin Arenos wrote:Solstice Project wrote:Jarin Arenos wrote:Quote:can i have your stuff when you leave 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. That's true, but the mission runners simply won't leave .......... My point is that those highsec players that you hate so much fund the continued development of this game. Look at the statistics on users-by-security some time. And even THAT doesn't tell the story, because a huge chunk of null is financed via PLEX from highsec characters. And you are one of those plenty people who ignore that this statistic is only a momentarily snapshot and also isn't about PLAYERS (aka users, as you say) but only looks at characters.
You're also ignoring that plenty of these characters are nullsec alts or alts from PvPers to fund themselves.
My fault, tbh, because i didn't distinguish between carebears and players who actually matter. Inappropriate signature removed. Spitfire |

Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 08:08:00 -
[614] - Quote
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:Iam Widdershins wrote:Just have a hauler right there in fleet or whatever to whoosh the goods away as soon as they appear if you really want them. Meh. A single hauler load is hardly worth stealing. You want an entire can-full to flip, which is multiple hauler loads. You want to have taken enough of their time, that they and their entire corp will come gunning for you. You can easily steal a hauler load of ore with this new system if that is all you are after. Just cruise around cloaked, bookmark cans, swap to a hauler, warp to can, loot and warp off. But that's not the point. Miners won't care. A hauler load is just a few minutes of mining time lost. That's not worth risking their ship over. But if you take a half-hour, or an hour, of their work. Then they get pissed. And that's when they get their combat ships. And that IS the point. This new system (if the Suspect flag is retro-active) eliminates that. Can/wreck flipping just becomes an "Open PvP Flag - On" button, with no real meaning or context. You can only take what you can fit into your cargo, and that really ain't much in the overall scheme of things. Nobody is going to care. And in the end it will reduce another form of player interaction (albeit rather violent interaction). And that is not a good thing. Things that promote conflict on the other hand are good. Conflict is what drives this game.
Hmmm...jetcan 27500m3 Rigged Iteron V 38000+ m3
I can steal a whole jetcan if nobody is guarding it.
LOL - I have had entire cans flipped and stolen them back from under the nose of the can flipper (risky if one of you gets timing wrong).
If you just want to cost them time...I think you can still flip their jetcan and then shoot it destroying the load. Or is it only your own wrecks? Been so long since I intentionally destroyed my own loot cans. But I can remember seeing people do that in mission sites and complexes to keep ninjas from getting loot years ago. |

Tusko Hopkins
HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded
10
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 08:27:00 -
[615] - Quote
A quick question: lets say I take my Tornado and gank a hauler in high-sec. Several flags fly off and I end up getting C-flagged and CONCORD comes in to screw me up. Unlike earlier I cannot warp off and get killed at a distant location either. Sooner or later CONCORD comes out vicorious and I end up in a pod.
Do I understand the rules correctly that the flags I received are passed on my pod? With a C flag on my pod, will I be a sitting duck for 15 minutes, unable to warp or jump the gate being a legal target to anyone? Does this mean a 99.9% probabilitity to get podded upon a highsec gank as well? Or I don't need to worry about the C flag anyways because CONCORD is going to get me?
|

Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
738
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 08:27:00 -
[616] - Quote
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:Iam Widdershins wrote:Just have a hauler right there in fleet or whatever to whoosh the goods away as soon as they appear if you really want them. Meh. A single hauler load is hardly worth stealing. You want an entire can-full to flip, which is multiple hauler loads. You want to have taken enough of their time, that they and their entire corp will come gunning for you. You can easily steal a hauler load of ore with this new system if that is all you are after. Just cruise around cloaked, bookmark cans, swap to a hauler, warp to can, loot and warp off. But that's not the point. Miners won't care. A hauler load is just a few minutes of mining time lost. That's not worth risking their ship over. But if you take a half-hour, or an hour, of their work. Then they get pissed. And that's when they get their combat ships. And that IS the point. This new system (if the Suspect flag is retro-active) eliminates that. Can/wreck flipping just becomes an "Open PvP Flag - On" button, with no real meaning or context. You can only take what you can fit into your cargo, and that really ain't much in the overall scheme of things. Nobody is going to care. And in the end it will reduce another form of player interaction (albeit rather violent interaction). And that is not a good thing. Things that promote conflict on the other hand are good. Conflict is what drives this game. Then just flip the can into your can and shoot it. I don't care. I was just suggesting a way to make it so they can't get their ore back; be creative. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |

Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
65
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 08:30:00 -
[617] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: We both know why you'd flip the can of ore... to get a fight... and, frankly, the suspect flag mechanics make it a LOT easier to get a fight.... Flip a can, and anyone in the area can shoot you.... now "good Samaritan" type players can patrol belts and try to gank suspects, which will probably create some good and fun fights for you.
Sure, if you lose ownership of a can, you no longer get attack rights when they take the loot back... but so what... getting fights in highsec should be much easier, as EVERYONE can shoot you... I think you are seriously overestimating the denizens of hi-sec. The vast majority will avoid confrontation unless they have a personal stake in the matter. There may be a few who jump into fights, but that will generally only happen like it does in most other EvE PvP.... when they know they have an overwhelming superiority.
All this system seems to do is, like I said before, flip an "Open PvP Flag" to the on-posiiton. It just mindless flying around waiting to get shot at. There is no context or meaning to the fight. There is nothing to fight over or defend. It's just pointless arena PvP. That's not game-driving conflict. That's just shooting each other. And that doesn't make for good gameplay.
Don't get me wrong. I like that the Suspect flag makes you open game. It makes sense. It's good for alliance ops with mixed corps. It allows solo miners to shout for help in local. But if I can't take something of substantial worth from the victim, they won't bother to take on the risk of combat. Thus, there will never be meaningful conflict.
Iam Widdershins wrote:Then just flip the can into your can and shoot it. I don't care. I was just suggesting a way to make it so they can't get their ore back; be creative. LOL that's just a d1ck maneuver! And yeah you can pull off theivery with a second person. But that's just kind of lame. You either need to do it by dual-boxing (which makes a lame pastime even lamer), or try to convince somebody to tag along to steal a few million ISK of ore so they can watch you get into a fight (good luck with that). |

Daedra Blue
Atomic Biohazard
24
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 08:37:00 -
[618] - Quote
Hello,
I've read trough the changes and i personally think this is a great change in the right direction.
One thing i find problematic is like most people pointed out the eject interdiction.
I personally do not see any reason a eject interdiction should exist under any circumstance.
Eject idea/principle/mechanic. It is considered as a unpredictable mechanism triggered by a player to aid in damage mitigation, in our case a player can eject at any time to save his pod(implats)/(T3 skillpoints). By this idea the eject function should be usable under any circumstances. The mechanic is at the player side ejection is a personal action nobody can prevent you you have the buttons.
Why interdict ejection? I see no proper reasons to do it but i can think of something remotely plausible like trying to keep people committed but i think your are forcing overcommitment.
Why not have interdicted ejection? Well first because its the players decision and it should not be take away. It prevents people from fighting back until they think they can't win because once you fight back you can't run. Fights will be a black and white thing. People either decide to fight and die horribly if they can't make it or they instantly eject and run. (It might lead to more ships captured but this will be a gain for pirates only and will make T3 highly unpopular in PvP if that is what your target is.
Workaround/Justification
I understand the principle of keeping people committed to a fight but why not let fights get fought and make it interesting because people should be able to chose if they want to risk the pod and fight till the end or see that they can't win and save what they can. In each case the ship is lost but further mitigation is in the hands of the player giving depth of skill a room to grow. And its great for people to earn experience while not having to sacrifice everything.
I can see an alternative by witch one you have weapon aggro times if you eject from a ship you cannot jump into another ship. To prevent people from hopping in and out of ships while in combat so do not prevent ejection prevent jumping into ships. This mechanic should not apply to people who sit till the end in the ship, they should be able to instantly hop in another ship if they are in a pod because of ship destruction but if they ejected from the ship while in combat they should be unable to jump in another ship for as long as the weapon timer lasts. This mechanic would fix the existing mechanic and allow for skill depth to develop and also save the T3 mechanic of skillloss without removing the benefit of interdiction wacky maneuvers in pvp.
T3 skillloss mechanic should be player preventable if you are skilled enough and odds are in your favor. Even like that i could not understand the condemnation of every other ship to pod kill to force a pretty shady mechanic onto players. |

SunTsu Rae
Legio VIII Augusta The Ancients.
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 08:39:00 -
[619] - Quote
I have not gone through all of the posts here , so if I repeat something , forgive me.
I have an Idea that can help the mutual PvP.
Use a similar function to forming a fleet. Once the player drops the "fleet" a timer counts down , for lets say 15 seconds, that continues the allowable rounds or ordinance to hit you. It also should break the lock of the "fleet" on the one who dropped out. thus preventing issues and allowing the "warning" notices to post and be recognized as such. 
Yes, I still see ganking occuring, " oh bring in your shiny new Nightmare to test against me " , " sorry to see you dropped mutual PvP , oh btw I know you're in structure , heres a blob of thrashers for ya. "  SunTsu Rae Ensuring Rights, Recognition, and Remembrance. (Gulf War 1991) [url]http://www.vfw.org[/url] |

Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 08:42:00 -
[620] - Quote
Tusko Hopkins wrote:A quick question: lets say I take my Tornado and gank a hauler in high-sec. Several flags fly off and I end up getting C-flagged and CONCORD comes in to screw me up. Unlike earlier I cannot warp off and get killed at a distant location either. Sooner or later CONCORD comes out vicorious and I end up in a pod.
Do I understand the rules correctly that the flags I received are passed on my pod? With a C flag on my pod, will I be a sitting duck for 15 minutes, unable to warp or jump the gate being a legal target to anyone? Does this mean a 99.9% probabilitity to get podded upon a highsec gank as well? Or I don't need to worry about the C flag anyways because CONCORD is going to get me?
really I saw no change for after your ship is destroyed by CONCORD. As any ganker knows only gank wearing a JC with implants you don't mind losing too badly.
As now while in pod you are not legal target for anyone and are not restricted from docking or any other activity pods can do.
As now being in pod will not lose the flags. They are there in case should you board another ship. Under current system, you can already dock in pod and leave station in new ship with timer still going and get blown up immediately by station guns.
Now it is true that a pod is much easier to kill than ship. So yes some unscrupulous players might take advantage -- similar to your taking advantage of essential unarmed miner. I hope you don't have a bounty or didn't **** off that miner with combat ship in system off too bad.
|
|

xvart
ARK-CORP En Garde
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 08:53:00 -
[621] - Quote
What is the deal with corp hangars, why the hate.
This is a high/low sec fix and only interferes with null, most of this junk should have the if (secstatus < 1) return; at the start.
Why am I restricted from using my pos the way I want, station fine gate no issue, but not my pos. If you supply and maintain it for free then go for it, but you don't so leave it alone.
Don't care about high sec/low sec game stuff but the additional rules for null are just dumb.
I can see it now, Ok guys reship to bombers -> warp to pos-> go have coffee, **** talk to wife-> oh great now after 60 seconds intended to stop morons playing station games in high sec I can finally board my bomber-> warp back, oh look they left because after 60 seconds they can jump... nice one break null even more.
|

Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Project Wildfire
441
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 08:54:00 -
[622] - Quote
Daedra Blue wrote: T3 skillloss mechanic should be player preventable if you are skilled enough and odds are in your favor. Even like that i could not understand the condemnation of every other ship to pod kill to force a pretty shady mechanic onto players.
No it shouldn't. Loosing skill points is a risk you take when flying a T3. That said, i agree that we should be able to eject whenever we want. They see me trolling, they hating... |

Securis Unus
Public Intoxication
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 08:57:00 -
[623] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=156804&find=unread
So was this never a bug and just a precursor to this new system? If not what do you do when it happens in the new system as it won't allow you to eject in the new system? |

Cerulean Ice
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 08:57:00 -
[624] - Quote
Echoing some other comments, I'd like to know why ejecting from a ship is being restricted by the W flag. Can you explain the reason for this, CCP? Part of it is making sure T3 losses have a skill point loss, I'm sure, but how does it impact the rest of the ships? |

SunTsu Rae
Legio VIII Augusta The Ancients.
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 09:02:00 -
[625] - Quote
Hint to CCP , drop the non-eject clause . . . . .  SunTsu Rae Ensuring Rights, Recognition, and Remembrance. (Gulf War 1991) [url]http://www.vfw.org[/url] |

TheBlueMonkey
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
178
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 09:04:00 -
[626] - Quote
SunTsu Rae wrote:Hint to CCP , drop the non-eject clause . . . . . 
but retraining the same skills everytime you lose a ship is fun  |

Angarchanin
Monkey Attack Squad Goonswarm Federation
29
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 09:09:00 -
[627] - Quote
not enough "Weapons Flag - not to get under the field POS for 15 minutes after receiving the flag" for all levels of security |

SunTsu Rae
Legio VIII Augusta The Ancients.
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 09:10:00 -
[628] - Quote
Another Hint , Crimewatch items should be non-operative in Null/WH space. 
The wait to reship after aggression would be obnoxious to those defending. 
I agree the timers should not reset if activated in High/Low Sec. , but in Null/WH they should be nothing but background noise. SunTsu Rae Ensuring Rights, Recognition, and Remembrance. (Gulf War 1991) [url]http://www.vfw.org[/url] |

Lemming Alpha1dash1
Lemmings Online
10
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 09:12:00 -
[629] - Quote
Current Crimewatch: I have the Dumb
Improved Crimewatch FTW 
Limited Engagements in Hisec makes sense thanks for that. |

Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1782
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 09:15:00 -
[630] - Quote
TheBlueMonkey wrote:SunTsu Rae wrote:Hint to CCP , drop the non-eject clause . . . . .  but retraining the same skills everytime you lose a ship is fun  Consequences ... damn ! Inappropriate signature removed. Spitfire |
|

Tusko Hopkins
HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded
10
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 09:19:00 -
[631] - Quote
Proddy Scun wrote:As now being in pod will not lose the flags. They are there in case should you board another ship. Under current system, you can already dock in pod and leave station in new ship with timer still going and get blown up immediately by station guns.
I know the current system, but have you seen it anywhere in CCP Mastermind's blog that pods are exempt from being treated as a ship when they have flags?
|

Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 09:20:00 -
[632] - 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.
Suspect flag for assistance to good guy is foul idea.
Why not just copy the flags from the ship assisted?
Copying the LE flag from the "good guy" citizen attacker would then allow the criminal to attack the assister as a legal target.
Assisting the "bad guy" would copy criminal or suspect flags.
Or do LE flags also keep any additional ships from attacking the "bad guy" directly with weapons? Forcing good guys to line up for 1v1 combat queue with bad guy would just seem bizarrely like fairy tale knight's trial by combat. Especially since I bet CONCORD doesn't comply. |

Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1924
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 09:30:00 -
[633] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:This 15 minute NPC timer means death for any ratter who has an internet outage. You can't balance a game around the assumption that people have awful ISPs because that only ever opens the door for new and fun exploits. If you have an outage, do what you would normally do: get back online ASAP.
"Play from the USA, UK or Germany or GTFO".
Sounds great, expecially for the majority of the worldwide population stuck with monopolist / bad technology nations. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |

Veronika Kastrato
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 09:31:00 -
[634] - Quote
SpreadSheeeeetsss!!! |

Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 09:36:00 -
[635] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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
Is LE intended to limit combat with Suspect and Criminals to 1v1 encounters?
That is can I shoot flagged ship if someone is already shooting it? or do I have to wait my turn?
Or does Suspect flag for LE interference only apply to indirect assistance?
It seems like copying LE flag from assisted ship to indirect assister would solve things without excluding assist ship from battle or risk of being shot.
Or does this solution stem from issues with later flag propagation if assisted good guy ship later performs criminal act while assistance continues? I thought CCP solved that by having new flags also cause assistance interruption. Guess you can't just break lock of all former friendlies once player-player flagging is gone. But a quick flag check by assisting ships before each module cycle should reveal changes with fairly low overhead. |

Katarina Reid
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
234
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 09:42:00 -
[636] - Quote
Losing t3 skills is good but not being able to eject from your ship to save your pod sucks. |

Cerulean Ice
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 09:45:00 -
[637] - Quote
Why do people equate ejecting with saving the pod? It's pretty easy to save your pod when your ship explodes if you know what you're doing, and it's pretty easy to lose your pod after ejecting if you don't know what you're doing. Or you'll just lose it either way, because bubbles <3 |

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1496
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 09:47:00 -
[638] - Quote
@ Herr Wilkus
I see you posting a lot. I think its time for the ninjas to get back to baiting and killing in the same ship TK is recruiting |

Ray Hellguard
X-COM
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 09:51:00 -
[639] - Quote
Quote: "A lot of work has gone in to making sure we can keep your client up-to-date at all times, whilst minimizing the overhead on the servers."
I hope you considered the security related to phyton injection. So people won't be able to hit & "inject" runs. Or maybe, injections are history anyway. idk. |

Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1925
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 10:05:00 -
[640] - Quote
Could I please get more clarification about the 15 mins NPC timer?
There are whole countries where your only choices are: analog modem or ADSL and there's just 1 large national ISP.
Those ISPs cyclically change the DHCP address of those contected (with a rate that some times seems every very few hours) with the effect those people get disconnected 5-6 times a day, with no prior warning.
Now you CCP come say all those players are boned and should just rat / do L4 missions in a disposable Drake?
Is the ship being always pinned in there for the whole duration or will it emergency warp (if not scrammed) like today? Is it pinned and the modules also turned off? I can see the technological why of that, but that spells death to everything that is active tanked.
I just made myself a Vargur, shall I just dump it on the market before they tank to zero value?
Solstice Project wrote:John Henke wrote:Solstice Project wrote:Steijn wrote:Quote:NPC Flag: This flag is activated when a player uses offensive modules against an NPC (or vice-versa). Having this flag will prevent a ship from being removed from space if the pilot logs off. This flag functions in all areas of space. thats just shafted anyone who does missions and not PVP because they have a weak internet connection. It's fair because COMBAT is COMBAT, no matter against whom. The PvPer could have a weak internet connection too, but of course, mission runners want a special piece of the cake everybody gets ... But in a PvP-Situation i consider my ship lost before i undock. If i am lucky or know, what i am doing, i will return with it and consider as a win. Combat is combat ... think about it. There's no real reason to distinguish between NPCs and players. They're still ships and it's still combat. Issues with disconnects can happen to both PvE and PvP people. Mission runners aren't special snowflakes ... Edit: Oh i forgot to note ... they didn't write that the ship won't go into emergency warp, so ......................
There are two large differences.
Small scale / solo PvP combat is usually quite short lived, it's statistically rare to get disconnected exactly during that time. Large scale PvP is longer lived but in that case you are just "one in the blob", this alone helps against insta death due to DC.
PvE instead is always 1-2 vs an NPC blob and it takes from 20 minutes to 4 hours (depending on how long is the mission and which setup is used, a guy in a Drake will take a lot). During 20 minutes to 4 hours, disconnect is much more probable than during 5-10 mins and there's just one pilot all the NPCs target, not a spread of target in an opponent's blob.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|

Jade Lynkinstorm
Stillwater Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 10:10:00 -
[641] - Quote
Greetings,
Thanks for all the work CCP Masterplan
But Im sure this has been brought up several times now. Still. More feedback is good feedback.
1) Why Didn't you guys take this chance to overhaul low sec engagment?
- Why have gates ( stations I can live with ) attack us on aggression? People should be aware that low sec is low sec, not Happy pony land where everything is safe. - By still having gates attack ships, all that frigate changes means even less. People would love to use their frigates for low sec gangs, but they can't on gates. - Why still incurr Security status penalties? Further comments on this below
2) Perhaps like said above, a time for overhauling security status could be now?
3 ) Theres little meaning or reason for a normal high sec dweller to come down to low sec, having more Planets with interesting resources only attracts cloaky haulers or the occassional newbie with a Mammoth. These changes only make it more punishing for people to come down to low sec ( I mean, 15 min aggression log out timer for ratting, goodbye targets of opportunity).
Rats are not worth much, there's almost no high level mission hubs in low sec and PI alone won't cut it. Why do all these changes seem to kill even more Low sec ?
In a winter expansion targeted at overhauling frigates, still having in place a mechanism punishing the use of frigates is ridiculous.
Please reconsider taking another pass at some changes.
Please try to revive Low Sec instead of further neuting it into a barrenland filled with BLOBS.
It's not much to ask is it?
Also, in your chart, you mention Targetting assistance and Drone assistance -AGAINST- outlaws/suspects/criminals will give you a security loss. Is this right? If I shoot or deploy drones against an outlaw or criminal I get a security loss?
Thanks. And please reconsidering reviving Low Sec. |

Sedilis
Lead Farmers Kill It With Fire
23
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 10:27:00 -
[642] - Quote
Thank you thank you thank you.
No more capitals logging off in sites when a new wormhole opens up to the system.
<3 you CCP |

Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 10:36:00 -
[643] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Tippia wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:This 15 minute NPC timer means death for any ratter who has an internet outage. You can't balance a game around the assumption that people have awful ISPs because that only ever opens the door for new and fun exploits. If you have an outage, do what you would normally do: get back online ASAP. "Play from the USA, UK or Germany or GTFO". Sounds great, expecially for the majority of the worldwide population stuck with monopolist / bad technology nations.
(1) Yeah reverse that statement. You can't balance game based on everyone having perfect connections either.
(2) 15 minutes is probably too long a NPC timer especially if you are not warp disabled.
If you are NOT being attacked or targeted for 30 seconds then your ship beat the original NPC attack and could warp out if you were still connected. Its not a case of escape by plugging the plug unless its an environmental no warp zone (special site)
So how about 30 seconds NPC timer that doesn't count down as long as you are being shot? That and a limited self-defense AI (reload & shoot back at anything that shoots your ship first) when disconnected or logged off?
(3) Yes that leaves a exploit situation where plug pulling is actually done to avoiding PVP when someone enters low sec, null or wh space and no safe haven (POS/station/etc) exists in system. But why key no escape timer to NPC fighting alone? Why not mining flag? Or sitting anywhere unsafe?
The issue in this case is not your ship remaining in system - but your ship sitting still at a vulnerable spot.
Add automatic docking (user station/POS choice) or auto-pilot patrol a limited list of system safe points as default action on disconnect/logoff. No advantage will be gained over staying logged on but true disconnects or RL need to log off NOW will not result in a total give'me.
Obviously 30 second no NPC combat timer has to reached before auto-evade clicks on. Or at least the ability to warp away. |

Katarina Reid
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
235
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 10:42:00 -
[644] - Quote
When you log with aggression u do warp but you just dont disappear for the aggression timer. So you will still warp out of the mission you just wont disappear from space. |

Pipa Porto
1132
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 10:42:00 -
[645] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Could I please get more clarification about the 15 mins NPC timer?
There are whole countries where your only choices are: analog modem or ADSL and there's just 1 large national ISP.
Those ISPs cyclically change the DHCP address of those contected (with a rate that some times seems every very few hours) with the effect those people get disconnected 5-6 times a day, with no prior warning.
Now you CCP come say all those players are boned and should just rat / do L4 missions in a disposable Drake?
Is the ship being always pinned in there for the whole duration or will it emergency warp (if not scrammed) like today? Is it pinned and the modules also turned off? I can see the technological why of that, but that spells death to everything that is active tanked.
I just made myself a Vargur, shall I just dump it on the market before they tank to zero value?
From what's been presented, it's the same as the current 15m aggression timer (except that it can't be refreshed). If you can e-warp, you will e-warp. If you can't, you wont. Either way, your modules turn off after their cycle ends and you sit in space for 15m.
Also, I seem to remember hearing something a while ago about NPC scramming no longer stopping e-warp, but I can't commit to that, as I haven't tested it. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Dierdra Vaal
Koshaku Gentlemen's Agreement
192
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 11:05:00 -
[646] - Quote
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!)
Veto #205 * * * Director Emeritus at EVE University * * * CSM1 delegate, CSM3 chairman and CSM5 vice-chairman |

Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Project Wildfire
441
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 11:09:00 -
[647] - Quote
Cerulean Ice wrote:Why do people equate ejecting with saving the pod? It's pretty easy to save your pod when your ship explodes if you know what you're doing, and it's pretty easy to lose your pod after ejecting if you don't know what you're doing. Or you'll just lose it either way, because bubbles <3
Yeah like when you're in your pod and someone puts an interdiction bubble on you, it's super easy to get away... Stupid  They see me trolling, they hating... |

Pipa Porto
1143
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 11:10:00 -
[648] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Cerulean Ice wrote:Why do people equate ejecting with saving the pod? It's pretty easy to save your pod when your ship explodes if you know what you're doing, and it's pretty easy to lose your pod after ejecting if you don't know what you're doing. Or you'll just lose it either way, because bubbles <3 Yeah like when you're in your pod and someone puts an interdiction bubble on you, it's super easy to get away... Stupid 
How does ejecting help you escape from bubbles? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Project Wildfire
441
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 11:13:00 -
[649] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Cerulean Ice wrote:Why do people equate ejecting with saving the pod? It's pretty easy to save your pod when your ship explodes if you know what you're doing, and it's pretty easy to lose your pod after ejecting if you don't know what you're doing. Or you'll just lose it either way, because bubbles <3 Yeah like when you're in your pod and someone puts an interdiction bubble on you, it's super easy to get away... Stupid  How does ejecting help you escape from bubbles?
You can eject before the bubble goes up and warp? They see me trolling, they hating... |

Anessa Smith
Interference Research Inc Beyond Event Horizon.
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 11:15:00 -
[650] - Quote
Current system does not allow you to pod player with GCC in high-sec without concord interdiction. It also leads to security status hit. Question: How is it going to work with CW2? will players be allowed to legally attack and kill pods with C/S flags? Will it result in security status reduction? |
|

Adhar Khorin
Black Rise Escape Hatch Zero Hour Alliance
11
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 11:16:00 -
[651] - Quote
Ok, my initial review - cross posted from my blog.
Overall very very cool.
- It's not all that easy to pick up a suspect flag without n++alson++ incurring a security status hit. Stealing from a container/wreck will do it, and assisting another player in a Limited Engagement. CCP might consider adding ninja-salvaging added to this list, because those wrecks are yellow until they're abandoned.
- Assisting an Outlaw in low-sec doesn't incur any penalty. In looking at the legality progression, it seems it might incur a suspect flag - that would provide a boost to the vigilante gang's legal target sphere. Aiding and abetting, and all that.
- The ship/capsule difference is the difference between property crime and personal crime (civil/criminal) - I'm sure the law enforcement types out there can steer me straight on this one, but it does explain the difference in legality status (suspect vs. criminal) and the magnitude of the sec status hit. I'm not sure what that says about CONCORD's regard for the hapless crew on all of those whacked ships, though.
Thanks for the good work CCP! |

Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 11:17:00 -
[652] - Quote
Katarina Reid wrote:When you log with aggression u do warp but you just dont disappear for the aggression timer. So you will still warp out of the mission you just wont disappear from space.
oh so you read it as no change.
I took it as remains in current space location due the comments about ship destruction under NPC flags. But I can see now that might mean probing and destruction by PVP.
Still pretty annoying flags given the NPC/PVP flags stay with you for 15 minutes -- even if you won (finished) or escaped prior combat.
Now its 15 minutes of enforced idleness to be safe from probes...even if severe storms or its now time to go to work. Can't really mine because rats might attack even in hi sec.
15 minute PVP flag alone wouldn't be quite so burdensome in most system. although if you can evade for 6-10 minutes you can probably evade indefinitely...unless that 15 minutes is for really slow combat probe operator or badly organized fleet slowly flooding system. |

Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
202
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 11:19:00 -
[653] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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!
Also... insert the ability to place bets on who wins, even be able to invite spectaters who can gamble on the outcome. please. Please. Pretty please! |

Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Project Wildfire
441
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 11:25:00 -
[654] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: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! Also... insert the ability to place bets on who wins, even be able to invite spectaters who can gamble on the outcome. please. Please. Pretty please!
Maybe a robotic arm could extend from your ship and slap the other ship with a dueling glove.  They see me trolling, they hating... |

Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 11:27:00 -
[655] - Quote
Adhar Khorin wrote:Ok, my initial review - cross posted from my blog. Overall very very cool.
- It's not all that easy to pick up a suspect flag without n++alson++ incurring a security status hit. Stealing from a container/wreck will do it, and assisting another player in a Limited Engagement. CCP might consider adding ninja-salvaging added to this list, because those wrecks are yellow until they're abandoned.
- Assisting an Outlaw in low-sec doesn't incur any penalty. In looking at the legality progression, it seems it might incur a suspect flag - that would provide a boost to the vigilante gang's legal target sphere. Aiding and abetting, and all that.
- The ship/capsule difference is the difference between property crime and personal crime (civil/criminal) - I'm sure the law enforcement types out there can steer me straight on this one, but it does explain the difference in legality status (suspect vs. criminal) and the magnitude of the sec status hit. I'm not sure what that says about CONCORD's regard for the hapless crew on all of those whacked ships, though.
Thanks for the good work CCP!
Not sure on the rationale for no penalty for assisting outlaws in low sec...but I am betting CCP is basing it on the Bart Simpson principle "In low sec there are no CONCORD sensors to see you doing it. Only black boxes to squeal out ship/pod death data." |

Lord Okinaba
28
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 11:40:00 -
[656] - Quote
Jade Lynkinstorm wrote:Greetings,
Thanks for all the work CCP Masterplan
But Im sure this has been brought up several times now. Still. More feedback is good feedback.
1) Why Didn't you guys take this chance to overhaul low sec engagment?
- Why have gates ( stations I can live with ) attack us on aggression? People should be aware that low sec is low sec, not Happy pony land where everything is safe. - By still having gates attack ships, all that frigate changes means even less. People would love to use their frigates for low sec gangs, but they can't on gates. - Why still incurr Security status penalties? Further comments on this below
Low sec means just that, Low security. Not no security.
If you want to freely attack targets, move to Nul sec, No security. |

Pipa Porto
1143
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 11:42:00 -
[657] - Quote
Proddy Scun wrote:Now its 15 minutes of enforced idleness to be safe from probes...even if severe storms or its now time to go to work. Can't really mine because rats might attack even in hi sec.
Dock Up POS Up Fit a Cloak and Minimize EVE for 15m EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Matt Grav
Wrath of the Pea
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 11:42:00 -
[658] - Quote
Having thought about these changes I think that on the whole they are going to be good for Eve.
So as a T3 pilot I need to de-aggress for 60 seconds before I can eject. That seems fine to me. If I'm attacked and want to avoid the skill penalty then I just need to plan for the ejection rather than use it at the last minute to escape.
I have a concern over the use of the suspect flag in HiSec for newer players though. Lower skill level pilots have always been able to be selective in whom they give aggression rights too by choosing who to steal from. A 1 month old pilot may be happen to give a 6 month old pilot the option to fight but not want to go near a 2 year+ player. So I do think that this might limit the PVP possibilities for them. Of course it may turn out that lots of other new players get flagged as suspects and the newer players can just hunt each other, but being open to attack and podding from all those older players feels like it may be bad for the newer players.
Personally now I've got a few more skills trained I'll be happy to see who wants to come after me.
Podding in HiSec will probably reduce the number of players willing to even get involved in a fight, as many HiSec dwellers will want to protect their learning and missioning implants. I think if the pods were still more protected in HiSec then we may actually have seen a much larger increase in HiSec pvp. For me it will just mean 24 hrs planning before changing between pvp & pve.
The only thing that I think might be bad news is the use of the suspect flag with sec hits in LowSec. If the flag is global does that mean that a pirate (or gang) can use an alt sitting at a safe spot to get themselves flagged as suspects out of sight of the gate guns and then as long as they maintain that suspect flag just sit at the gates attacking anything that comes through without the gate guns ever getting involved? Its sounds to me as if the gate guns need to open fire every time the suspect flag is reset by attacking someone. But at the moment the gate guns seem to be linked to the sec hit and not the suspect flagging.
Quote:I think someone else asked this earlier, but I haven't seen the answer:
If you shoot at someone at a gate in lowsec, warp off grid before he dies (point is held by your cohort), and you warp back on grid, and then proceed to shoot the original target some more, do you :
a) Get another sec status hit, and gain new sentry aggro? b) Get no further sec hit, sentries ignore you? c) Get no further sec hit, sentries shoot at you anyway because they witnessed a sec status type action?
Answering my own question with a guess from reading other responses, but the real answer is important since sec status hits are now front-loaded.
I think the answer is C. B would be exploitable and A is a double-whammy on sec status hits.
This ^ is what I mean.
As I do like to fly around LowSec solo, the gate guns being on my side has always made a big difference to what I can do and I would be sad if a well tanked ship just needed to hold me in place while his friends attack me, warp off to get rid of the gate gun aggression and are then able to fly back in and freely attack me with the gate guns firing at them. That just seems like a massive nerf to the LowSec gate guns.
Now if I was stupid enough to fire at all of them and get into multiple Limited Engagements with them, well then that would be different. |

Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 11:51:00 -
[659] - 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!)
Wow! Did that mean a -5 cap on how far sec status could drop no matter how many ships you killed? That would be huge change. For some reason I was thinking ships kills dropped you a fixed amount (-3?) but were cumulative and that was to remain true.
Although why protect pods specially? Ships tend to cost more than Implants and clone unless toon is an alt of rich toon. In which case implant loss is an equalizer with other new toons and a well understood risk.
I did see mention of -5 in high sec...but I thought that blog was rounding or dropping fractions on secstatus to allow more players to stay just on border line for travel in some hi sec systems. Whereas at -5 you are outlaw everywhere now.
Frankly if the change is that big - its probably time to go whole hog and totally remove sec status and CONCORD. Force players to join up with decent sized corps and alliances from day 1. Null sec everywhere! |

Naibasak
The Business People
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 11:51:00 -
[660] - Quote
Will this mean no way of getting 1v1 frigate fights outside stations in highsec while waiting for trade orders to go through unless youGÇÖre in the same corp?
If so, that's kinda dull. |
|

Maraner
The Executioners Capital Punishment.
212
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 11:56:00 -
[661] - Quote
I have to say I like what I see for the most part.
The logi aggro makes me nervous tbh but I think I can live with it (as an almost daily logi pilot), I've been expecting this for a while and been flying my scimi's off gate routinely. They're going to be everyone's favourite primary, in small gang warfare ships that can web and hold down off gate logi are going to be vital. As for the guardians and basi's - could be in deep trouble, have to see how it goes.
Hopefully both will be up for a buff pretty soon. I suspect that I may chose to fly t1 logi for a week or two post winter expansion to see how they roll.
as to the other high points, the NPC aggro - fantastic. Thanks CCP for that one. Also liking the T3 no eject option. and thank **** finally those ass-holes swapping their agressed ships into Orca's and carriers.... the fire is coming for you.
All in all an exciting change up, more than willing to see how this rolls.
Cheers CCP Masterplan. It looks like it is. |

TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
64
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 12:06:00 -
[662] - Quote
Naibasak wrote:Will this mean no way of getting 1v1 frigate fights outside stations in highsec while waiting for trade orders to go through unless youGÇÖre in the same corp?
If so, that's kinda dull.
lol high sec pvp
lol |

Sturmwolke
295
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 12:12:00 -
[663] - Quote
Generally nice changes, but the NPC timer at 15mins is probably too long. I can understand why this was implemented, but seriously, if someone's hunting a PVE fitted ship, 5 mins is more than plenty to drop combat probes (scan within 1mil km) and tag the ship with a PVP flag. The longer period penalizes legit disconnects, increasing the likelyhood bad things happening to your ship while you struggle to get back online (if at all possible).
|

Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Project Wildfire
441
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 12:12:00 -
[664] - Quote
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
I have no issue with loosing skill point but i do not like the idea of not being able to eject to save your pod no matter what ship you are in.
With T3's why not make it to where if you eject from a T3 and thatT3 gets destroyed while the pilot has a pvp flag, that pilot automatically loses skill points.
The are many engagements in eve where one player will almost certainly lose their ship and their pod if they don't perform specific actions...
For example, a hauler may get tackled by a combat ship and the only option he has available is to attempt to ecm jam the aggressor, and if that doesn't work, eject to save their pod. With your proposed change, that hauler would be an fool to attempt to escape using ecm as he will gain a weapons flag and be unable to eject for 60 seconds. You have just reduced that pilots options to - sit there and take it or lose everything.
How is that an improvement? They see me trolling, they hating... |

Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 12:16:00 -
[665] - Quote
Naibasak wrote:Will this mean no way of getting 1v1 frigate fights outside stations in highsec while waiting for trade orders to go through unless youGÇÖre in the same corp?
If so, that's kinda dull.
Naw that is one of the points they said that they are working on at end of blog - and its nickname is already Dueling system. Apparently they are thinking of LE flags mutually set by players through chat option. -- like trade option.
LE flags apparently just mark you as legal target for specific pilot and carry no penalties themselves.
I think it should work as long well as long as they copy LE flags to any neutral assistance ships. Neutral repper becomes legal target for whatever ships have LE flags on the ship its tries to assist. ( I am thinking LE flag includes identity of ships that can legally attack the target ship - no supsect or criminal flags as long as target has LE flag matching attacker - copy to indirect assisting ships).
But maybe they will do it different. |

Maraner
The Executioners Capital Punishment.
212
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 12:23:00 -
[666] - Quote
As someone who has shot up a few ships over the years people very rarely seem to eject. I notice it on the T3's ofc but apart from them it's a reasonably infrequent event. Haulers in 0.0 have no chance usually.
Given how bloody hard it is to tackle most T3's and that the majority are cloaky with nullifiers then I can't but agree with this change. I fly the T3's myself, so....
Oh and as to the people complaining about the NPC aggro I am sure you will be able to adapt your Bots quite quickly around it, at least the rest of us will get half a chance to nail you for a little while.
|

Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 12:26:00 -
[667] - Quote
Rek Seven 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
I have no issue with loosing skill point but i do not like the idea of not being able to eject to save your pod no matter what ship you are in. With T3's why not make it to where if you eject from a T3 and that T3 gets destroyed while the pilot has a pvp flag, that pilot automatically loses skill points? The are many engagements in eve where one player will almost certainly lose their ship and their pod if they don't perform specific actions... For example, a hauler may get tackled by a combat ship and the only option he has available is to attempt to ecm jam the aggressor, and if that doesn't work, eject to save their pod. With your proposed change, that hauler would be an fool to attempt to escape using ecm as he will gain a weapons flag and be unable to eject for 60 seconds. You have just reduced that pilots options to - sit there and take it or lose everything. How is that an improvement?
It expedites the outcome of combat with obvious outcomes - eject early and don't spoil a perfect ambush by petty revenge using drones to kill their drones or tackler. |

Dierdra Vaal
Koshaku Gentlemen's Agreement
193
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 12:29:00 -
[668] - Quote
Proddy Scun 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!) Wow! Did that mean a -5 cap on how far sec status could drop no matter how many ships you killed? That would be huge change. For some reason I was thinking ships kills dropped you a fixed amount (-3?) but were cumulative and that was to remain true.
This was my understanding. But I'd like to hear from CCP if they're still planning this. Keep in mind that ship killing in high sec would still drop you below -5.
Veto #205 * * * Director Emeritus at EVE University * * * CSM1 delegate, CSM3 chairman and CSM5 vice-chairman |

Reicine Ceer
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
84
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 12:32:00 -
[669] - Quote
But what if i want to lock two people fighting off a station/gate/etc, just to see how the fight is balancing up? I got bored reading at page 13 so have not seen this answered yet.... would it give me a criminal/suspect flag just because i want to watch two randoms fight? |

War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1285
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 12:35:00 -
[670] - Quote
Reicine Ceer wrote:But what if i want to lock two people fighting off a station/gate/etc, just to see how the fight is balancing up? I got bored reading at page 13 so have not seen this answered yet.... would it give me a criminal/suspect flag just because i want to watch two randoms fight?
Merely locking someone has never given any kind of aggression or flag. That shouldn't change.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
|

Myra Rodan
Borderlands corp True Reign
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 12:35:00 -
[671] - Quote
so...
For T3 cruisers, if you are piloting the ship when it explodes, you lose a related skill level.
You used to be able to eject to avoid the loss of SP in any situation, but now that will not work if engaged in pvp? Is that intentional?
In my experience, most people prefer to go down fighting, and not eject for the pride factor, but still.
/edit I did not read any of the thread, so this may well have been answered before |

War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1285
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 12:36:00 -
[672] - Quote
Sturmwolke wrote:Generally nice changes, but the NPC timer at 15mins is probably too long. I can understand why this was implemented, but seriously, if someone's hunting a PVE fitted ship, 5 mins is more than plenty to drop combat probes (scan within 1mil km) and tag the ship with a PVP flag. The longer period penalizes legit disconnects, increasing the likelyhood bad things happening to your ship while you struggle to get back online (if at all possible).
Problem is, CCP Masterplan says that you can't apply any new flags if the target is logged off.
So you can't apply the PvP flag after you probe them out - you have to probe them and kill them all in one 15min NPC flag timer.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |

Za'kerak
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 12:36:00 -
[673] - Quote
If you replace usage of loot-theft as a way to initiate consensual 1v1s, it could be another way to do "friendly PVPs" for example with friends from alliance or friendly alliances.
Otherwise great job. bd |

Tychus Von
Posthuman Society Elysian Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 12:37:00 -
[674] - Quote
TheBlueMonkey wrote:SunTsu Rae wrote:Hint to CCP , drop the non-eject clause . . . . .  but retraining the same skills everytime you lose a ship is fun 
I don't see you loosing BS 5 each time you get killed in navy apoc... |

War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1285
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 12:38:00 -
[675] - Quote
Myra Rodan wrote:so...
For T3 cruisers, if you are piloting the ship when it explodes, you lose a related skill level.
You used to be able to eject to avoid the loss of SP in any situation, but now that will not work if engaged in pvp? Is that intentional?
In my experience, most people prefer to go down fighting, and not eject for the pride factor, but still.
/edit I did not read any of the thread, so this may well have been answered before
Yes, they confirmed that was very intentional, back in the first few pages of CCP replies.
The best way to catch up, at least on CCP replies, in a thread like this is to go click on all the blue bars underneath the CCP portraits and read all the CCP replies.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |

Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 12:40:00 -
[676] - Quote
Dierdra Vaal wrote:Proddy Scun 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!) Wow! Did that mean a -5 cap on how far sec status could drop no matter how many ships you killed? That would be huge change. For some reason I was thinking ships kills dropped you a fixed amount (-3?) but were cumulative and that was to remain true. This was my understanding. But I'd like to hear from CCP if they're still planning this. Keep in mind that ship killing in high sec would still drop you below -5.
Heh! that would make all their work on the wardec system fairly useless anywhere but hi sec. Not sure I see much use for hi sec only wardec system as that probably means only baby corps in general. mature corps would prefer lo sec for semi-surprise attacks. But I guess getting everyone to move PVP to lo sec is the CCP objective. |

Tychus Von
Posthuman Society Elysian Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 12:40:00 -
[677] - Quote
Sedilis wrote:Thank you thank you thank you.
No more capitals logging off in sites when a new wormhole opens up to the system.
<3 you CCP
Pretty much what I thought too  Caps and wrecks on d, dropping combats, someone is dying.
Great change... |

Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 12:45:00 -
[678] - Quote
crazy idea - if you are throwing suspect flags on any one assisting LE combatants...how about warping anyone bumping ships with PVP flags to random point in system off grid? Bumpers provide lots of assistance in ganking large ships at zero risk. Too much accidental bumping at stations and busy gates to put suspect or criminal flags on. But safety system emergency warp would limit bumper fleet action. |

OMGFRIGATES WARPOUT
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
36
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 12:51:00 -
[679] - Quote
Myra Rodan wrote:so...
For T3 cruisers, if you are piloting the ship when it explodes, you lose a related skill level.
You used to be able to eject to avoid the loss of SP in any situation, but now that will not work if engaged in pvp? Is that intentional?
In my experience, most people prefer to go down fighting, and not eject for the pride factor, but still.
/edit I did not read any of the thread, so this may well have been answered before
Then stop being a lazy ******. |

Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Project Wildfire
441
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 12:53:00 -
[680] - Quote
Proddy Scun wrote:Rek Seven 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
I have no issue with loosing skill point but i do not like the idea of not being able to eject to save your pod no matter what ship you are in. With T3's why not make it to where if you eject from a T3 and that T3 gets destroyed while the pilot has a pvp flag, that pilot automatically loses skill points? The are many engagements in eve where one player will almost certainly lose their ship and their pod if they don't perform specific actions... For example, a hauler may get tackled by a combat ship and the only option he has available is to attempt to ecm jam the aggressor, and if that doesn't work, eject to save their pod. With your proposed change, that hauler would be an fool to attempt to escape using ecm as he will gain a weapons flag and be unable to eject for 60 seconds. You have just reduced that pilots options to - sit there and take it or lose everything. How is that an improvement? I suppose you can argue it expedites the outcome of combat with obvious outcomes - and that those pilots should eject early and don't spoil a perfect ambush by petty revenge using drones to kill their drones or tackler. PVP bait situations are even worse. Pilot goes after lone intruder and once he fires on it he gets tackled, can't eject and a ton of reinforcments begin arriving. if he could eject as soon as tackled or as first reinforcements show on directional...he could escape most bait tacklers that only have one warp jammer.
I don't know, i considered the eject function to be an emergency escape option... What i wrong?
Why would my own ship not allow we to eject when i wanted to?
They see me trolling, they hating... |
|

OT Smithers
BLOMI
194
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 12:59:00 -
[681] - Quote
Swidgen wrote:CCP Explorer wrote:EVE is not a simple game, but at least there will now be charts describing how it behaves!  Please make sure the GMs are aware of these charts, how things are supposed to work, and that all these flags and timers are Logged. You're doing a re-design of a huge part of the game. "The Logs Show Nothing" will no longer be an acceptable excuse  Also, wardecs. Since war targets are always legal to shoot at, what flags will combat trigger and for how long? The Charts Show Nothing. The word "wardec" doesn't even appear on them. Will parties at war still be able to employ neutral remote-reppers without any consequences?
The only flags you get for shooting at a legal WAR target:
A. Weapons tag -- just as it is today. You cannot redock / jump for 60 sec B. PvP flag -- if you log in space you will remain in space for 15 minutes |

DJ Xaphod
Eve Radio Corporation
17
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 13:06:00 -
[682] - Quote
I'm interested to see what happens if you repair or transfer cap to someone who isn't globally flagged but is nonetheless a valid target for someone else. -áGëí>Gëí Radio, Bringing Music to the Masses. http://eve-radio.com I play Rock & Metal Thursday Nights 2200 GameTime Sunday Evenings 1800 GameTime |

Lathaniel
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 13:08:00 -
[683] - Quote
ok why do you hate interdictors so much? first you bug them then fix it then you go and change this sigh |

OT Smithers
BLOMI
194
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 13:31:00 -
[684] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote:What I don't understand is this:
Why is it illegal to board a new ship for 60 seconds with a weapons timer?
Suppose a ninja in a frigate is attacked by a mission runner.
Ninja is able to survive the new NPC AI - and no outside help arrives for the mission runner.
Ninja is capable of holding the mission runner - but not breaking the tank. (a common situation)
Boarding a new ship (with more DPS) is key to breaking the mission runner. What happens to the bait ship is largely unimportant.
Lets go pre-Orca oldschool: Suppose an alt brings a Typhoon to the mission space, and ejects. Under CW 2.0, the ninja is not allowed to board the Typhoon. Why is this?
Even in the context of Crimewatch, this restriction makes no sense.
-Ninja's bait ship isn't leaving the field of battle or evading the consequences of combat. (locked = not scoopable) -His Typhoon clearly isn't going anywhere until the battle is over. -There is no 'hiding and escaping' going on, just bringing more firepower to the table to kill the carebear.
Its a simple matter of the carebear starting a fight that didn't end up being the fight intended.
Yet, for some reason - its now illegal.
I see a lot of smokescreens about T3's and 'evading consequences with Orcas.' But none of this justifies arbitrarily preventing a player from boarding a new ship for 60 seconds.
But it seems that this is really about completely defanging ninjas (those who bait mission runners into shooting.)
Because forcing a ninja to turn off his guns for 60 seconds before being allowed to bring more DPS to the fight - well, the mission runner is going to dock up.
Is this really about providing consequences for 'criminals'? Or really - just coddling carebears?
It's about removing a whole bunch of really lame asshatery folks have been using to exploit the current system. In high-sec in particular, games like you are talking about are penalized in two obvious ways:
1. Your prey will be better able to evaluate the threat. If you arrived in a Rifter that's what you will have to stay in. 2. It will now be possible for mission runners in high sec mission-hubs to have anti-ninja protection on stand-by. White Hat corporations will be able to set up shop in mission hubs offering protection (for a fee of course) to mission runners. If you flag suspect on one of their protected corps, they will then be able to warp in and kill you.
You will be able to recieve remote assistance from anyone you like as well, but anyone providing that assistance will inherit your suspect tag. |

Zahn Seul
Deep Axion Ushra'Khan
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 13:33:00 -
[685] - Quote
Changes look great, I love it. Simpler, sensible and readily understandable, without changing the actual operation too much.
The difficult obstacle is, as you point out, limited engagements and allowing the dastardly among us to defend themselves. What about a system which gives an ID to each engagement, with a "green light" system indicating "okay to attack target" or even better, a global check to tell a pilot when some other pilot is "green light." to engage. You would then have two types of flags, the global flags, and a single "Incident" flag.
So say Evil Jack loots from Nice Bob's jetcan in hisec. Evil Jack can now be shot by all because he is a suspect. Nice Bob shoots Evil Jack to defend his loot. Evil Jack is naturally scared of becoming a criminal. Say when Evil Jack steals the loot, the "suspect" act gets an "incident ID" number. Let's say given the location, time and whatever is relevant it's ID#43. Evil Jack gets the global "suspect flag" when he steal from Nice Bob's jetcan, and the incident ID #43 is genrated. He gets that flag too. Nice Bob shoots Evil Jack and gets a weapon flag, and also inherits the suspect flag #43. He is now "in" the incident #43. He does not get a "suspect flag" because he's done nothing wrong, but because he's flagged with the same Incident ID as Evil Jack, he is "green light" for Jackto shoot. Nice Bob will not progress to criminal for defending himself.
Now, corps should probably be able to help each other, but you don't really want one junior member of your corp to steal from another and put your whole corp in a virtual 15 minute wardec, that would be abuuuuuused! Maybe lets take it one logical step further. Let's say there's an "Opt-In" system. "Yellow Light" and "Green Light."
Evil Jack steals from Nice Bob generating event flag ID 43. Nice Bob's corp- mate Amicable Bert is hanging around nearby Their friend, but not corp-mate Mundane Malcolm is also there. Evil Jack is yellow-light to Nice Bob and his whole corporation, so he can opt in, and so can Amicable Bert. Nice bob and Amicable Bert are nothing to Evil Jack. Nice Bob shoots Evil Jack and is now Green Light, in the fight. He is now Green Light to Evil Jack. They fight like hardcore pvp folk fight. Evil Jack's corp-mate Nefarious Ned warps in. Now, because Nice Bob is Green Light for incident #43, Nefarious Ned can help Evil Jack, and can shoot Nice Bob (who is yellow flag, opt in to him). He decides to go get some popcorn however, and Amicable Burt is really annoyed! He could shoot Evil Bob if he wanted (Evil Jackhas engaged in the incident) but Nefarious Ned, while he could opt-into the fight has gone to get popcorn. Nefarious Ned comes back, and shoots Nice Bob. He is now Green Light to incident 43, and Yellow Light to all Nice Bob"s corpies. He is no-flag to Mundne Michael, because he's not in Bob or Burt's corporation. You could extend this to alliance of course.
So, that sounds stupidly complex to me. I suspect I've done a crap job of explaining what I mean. But basically any crime creates an incident ID, and anyone partaking of the opportunity to blap a participant in that crime also inherits participation in the incident, but not the associated 'global' flags. I think that's a sensible logic |

Griffin Omanid
IntersteIIar Moneymakers
13
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 13:50:00 -
[686] - Quote
Sounds nice, the new system make it better to assist other players, who got attacked. But its obviously a little bit harder for ganker to strike now, cause they need to be sure that no other combat ship is near them when they attack a miner.
Also one on one fights no longer will be in front of some stations, they have to fly to a save spot to use can flipping to start a battle. |

Lyric Lahnder
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
110
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 13:52:00 -
[687] - Quote
Two questions
1. Will this help with undock games at all?
2. Nothing was mentioned about how these flags effect contraband or the responses from npc police, will we finally have the promised system for smuggling boosters etc. this winter?
Noir. and Noir Academy are recruiting apply at www.noirmercs.comI Noir Academy: 60 days old must be able to fly at least one tech II frigate. I Noir. Recruits: 4:1 k/d ratio and can fly tech II cruisers. |

Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
12
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 13:58:00 -
[688] - Quote
Solstice Project wrote:Steijn wrote:Quote:NPC Flag: This flag is activated when a player uses offensive modules against an NPC (or vice-versa). Having this flag will prevent a ship from being removed from space if the pilot logs off. This flag functions in all areas of space. thats just shafted anyone who does missions and not PVP because they have a weak internet connection. It's fair because COMBAT is COMBAT, no matter against whom. The PvPer could have a weak internet connection too, but of course, mission runners want a special piece of the cake everybody gets ...
The reason MIGHT just be that people refrain from voluntarily participating in PvP as long as they are subject to a potentially weak internet connnection?
I've lost numerous drones to disconnections already. If I start losing SHIPS, I will unscubscribe. It's as simple as that, really.
|

OT Smithers
BLOMI
194
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 14:09:00 -
[689] - Quote
Havegun Willtravel wrote:I'll reserve judgement unitl Super Friends blog comes out, but atm it's being implied that just the simple act of shooting first results in Kill Rights.  So if someone who's -4.9 charges me in a low sec belt and I do the intelligent thing and shoot, no matter the outcome they get kill rights ? Thus, even in low sec, the only way i can avoid looking over my sholder for a month is to flip a can ? Or put myself at a distinct disadvantage by always having to wait for someone else to shoot first ? Sorry, but if left unchanged you've very severly damaged low sec pvp. The existing system, quite frankly, works perfectly. If you never get a chance to defend yourself ( ie: you get blobbed ) you can get payback 1 v 1. These proposed changed completely inbalance that. I can see a great many people who principaly live in high sec, but who do random roams into LS, stopping under these circumstances. The risk to their main activities would be to great to warrant giving out kill rights to every target. Low sec doesn't need fewer people pvp'ing it needs more, and this is a recipe for to kill that. ** Edit: Perhaps I've answered my own question. " Performing an action against another player that gets you a Criminal flag will also award a kill-right " On a more careful reading, Criminal flag would only apply to High sec agression ? So a failed suicide gank would carry the consequence of dealing killrights, but low sec agression would fall under the new PvP/LE flag and kill rights would apply only if the target couldn't/didn't defend themselves ?
Respectfully, you are over-complicating this. It is simpler, it's intuitive, and in-game it will be OBVIOUS who you can and cannot engage and what the repurcussions will be. It only becomes complicated when one tries to write it all out in text form. |

OT Smithers
BLOMI
194
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 14:20:00 -
[690] - Quote
Rhavas wrote:My detailed take on these changes is on my blog, here. Here's the TL;DR - In my opinion, CCP has made a solid start, at least at the things I use regularly. I particularly am very happy with the changes to separate Suspect from Criminal in Lowsec (although I think further tweaks to gate guns are required to fully address the issue) I would like to see them do the following to polish it off before release: [list=1] Remove the eject lock, at least for T3s. Forcing people to stay in and lose skills is BS, and cuts off a great Gǣsteal the T3GǦ gameplay mechanic.
Debatable. The loss in SP is one of the disadvantages that accompany the many advantages you gain from flying a T3.
Quote: Reduce the Criminal timer to 5 minutes plus a full 15-minute Suspect timer after that.
The GCC (criminal) flag is 15 minutes now. Why reduce it?
Quote: Eliminate any affect to sec status below -2.0 (see Hans JagerblitzenGÇÖs original election proposal) for triggering the Suspect timer. Only Criminal acts should drive you under -2.0.
This is essentially already in place.
Quote: Do not trigger Criminal flags unless the pod dies. Shooting it without killing keeps you at Suspect only.
Why? Let me reverse this. Today you get GCC (criminal flag) the second you activate your modules. As soon as you turn on your guns Concord is coming. In any case this is a bad idea. It would allow you to scram a pod and lock them permanently in place.
Quote: Review neutral RR approach flagging approach to ensure loopholes are closed.
More on the eject lock in a separate reply.
The neutral RR changes are okay, and too long delayed as is. The eject and dock changes are fine and as they should be.
|
|

Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 14:21:00 -
[691] - Quote
I'm liking these changes a lot. I'd like it even more if I didn't get a sec hit when attacking an illegal ship in low sex and therefore got no sentries, but being able to warp off and murder some other poor victim without waiting 15min now is tit_s.
As for there being no way to do a 1v1 in HS now, F%$% YEAH!!!! You want to buff low sex, this is the way it should stay, if people want to pvp, make them come to low sec (I'm ronery).
Quick question, will sentry guns still attack drones? Eliminating this (which makes total sense) would make drone boats far more viable for gangs. It would also eliminate my favourite holding point on something in my rapier without dying to gg's trick which is to release a swarm of ecm drones and watch their cheap arses being popped while I take no damage.
Speaking of ecm drones, how about getting rid of those.... |

OT Smithers
BLOMI
194
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 14:22:00 -
[692] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote:Tippia wrote:Bart Starr wrote:Why is it illegal to board a new ship for 60 seconds with a weapons timer? Because the ability to do so is being abused to unduly protect against ship losses and to stay in a fight that has long since been lost. Have a look in any of the more heavily travelled (and camped) lowsec pockets and you'll quickly see the extent of the problem. It has nothing to do with protecting highsec carebears and everything to do with removing undue protection from people who want the best offence without the risk and costs that come with it. I might need more details here. I can understand why ejecting from a ship, then stuffing it into an Orca could be considered an abuse. What I am talking about is simply boarding a new ship. If scooping ships into an Orca is a problem, fix it. And fix it in lowsec, not just in highsec (like was done previously). Fixing it by almost completely removing the ability to eject (which totally screws people who are disproportionately affected by explosion/session change lag....) - or telling players that they can't board a new ship for 60 seconds after shooting (for what purpose? why? - its not an abuse) Universal 'suspect' flag. Fine, whatever, as a ninja I can deal. Safety condoms? This, more than anything will probably kill the profession by making MR aggression extremely rare. But preventing someone from jumping into a new ship (even if the old ship remains a target in space....) WTF. Makes no sense. Unless the whole concept of mission runner baiting is 'the abuse' that they are trying to phase out. In which case, I wish they would have the guts to say it outright.....I can find other things to do with my time.
You might not be aware of this, but if you turn off your wallet and email notification flashes your pod lag largely goes away. Everyone still gets it sometimes, but it does go a long way towards eliminating this problem. |

OT Smithers
BLOMI
194
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 14:27:00 -
[693] - Quote
Rhavas wrote:
I agree with Michael on this one (as noted above). Find a different way to prevent ship-scooping and bait-and-switch (use the PVP flag).
Not having the choice to bail out and leave capturable stuff rather than a killmail is bad. Choices are good.
You still have that option.... just turn off your guns for 60 seconds. OR, alternatively, offer the hull as ransom.
Quote:Losing skillpoints by force rather than choice in a T3 is bad. Choices are good.
You made the choice when you boarded the ship. There's actually a warning pop-up advising you of the risk.
Quote:Skill loss will not become more common, T3 PVP pilots, especially Skill 5 pilots, will become less common. That's bad.
Not really, no. If you want the advantages you have to accept the risks.
Quote:The weight here is on a ham-handed nerf to the ninja crowd, but cascades to many other Unforseen (Bad) Consequences.
After reading almost thirty pages of questions and complaints I am still not seeing this "bad." Rather, I am seeing CCP simplifying a complex system, improving PvP and increasing PvP opportunities, and eliminating a fair number of exploits and loopholes risk-averse players currently use to kill with impunity.
That, and a whole lot of folks who need to reread the initial post. |

BrewGuy
Drunken Debauchery
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 14:33:00 -
[694] - Quote
I like that this system was made similar and I applaud the work done here. I think it would be nice to have some flags impact insurance payouts for ships. As I see it, you should have your insurance payouts impacted when your ship is destroyed while you have certain flags such as the criminal flag. It wouldn't really have much of an effect on more expensive ships with poor payouts, but may cause some folk to rethink using a t1 fitted/fully insured ship for ganking. I don't think we should remove ganking in high sec, but it would be nice if we could do more to make people rethink its value. |

OT Smithers
BLOMI
194
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 14:47:00 -
[695] - Quote
Proddy Scun wrote:Hmmm...my overall impression is that CrimeWatch 2 has very little to do with controlling crime --
and a WHOLE lot to do with FORCING PVP encounters to a decisive conclusion if I understand correctly.
(Ignore - Totally confused PVP flag with weapons flag - read line too low in chart)
#1 Once an aggressor shoots a target ship that target can no longer duck back into a station regardless of whether its a legal target or not. So you are also warp jammed -- you better have the superior combat ship.
The target can dock at any time so long as it has not activated its weapons. JUST LIKE IT IS TODAY.
Quote:#2 Haulers can no longer escape ambushes by jumping gates. Mainly affects freighters and Orcas. Other haulers can simply warp away from GCC attackers which now have front-loaded warp disable. Although being unable to dock at stations will keep especially valuable cargoes vulnerable to additional attackers for 60 seconds.
You only get a weapon's flag when you engage your weapons. You do NOT get a weapons flag simply because someone shoots at you. Again, this is not changed.
Better, you won't need to memorize it or even understand it. In game it will be perfectly clear.
Quote:Mining players who do escape combat encounters are prohibited from switching ships and returning as part of intruder response
Incorrect. A miner who does not activate his weapons can dock, eject, switch ships, or do anything he likes immediately. The ONLY "restriction" he has is one he has today, he is PvP flagged, which means if he pulls the plug his ship will remain in space for 15 minutes.
|

OT Smithers
BLOMI
194
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 14:53:00 -
[696] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:I like these proposed changes but I'm not to clear on the whole ejection thing...
Let's say you are in null sec or w-space doing a pve site and you get jumped and tackled by someone. You then spot a HIC and a small fleet on d-scan and you decide that you can't win the fight so it's better to save your pod and eject. Are we still going to be able to do this?
Am I right in thinking that because you have been shooting NPC's and maybe the player in an attempt to get away, you won't be able to eject from your ship for 60 seconds?
All those tengu pilots that get jumped in a sleeper site are really going to feel it when they loose their ship, skill points and their pod... I don't thing all players should be punished just because some people are using the ejection mechanic to exploit the game.
If you activate your weapons against another player (not sure about the rat thing, but it is possible) you are stuck in that hull for 60 seconds. |

OT Smithers
BLOMI
194
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 15:03:00 -
[697] - Quote
Proddy Scun wrote: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. Suspect flag for assistance to good guy is foul idea.
You do not get a suspect flag for helping the good guy. You get a weapons flag (and depending upon the situation a PvP flag).
Quote:Why not just copy the flags from the ship assisted?
That's basically what they are doing.
|

OT Smithers
BLOMI
194
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 15:12:00 -
[698] - Quote
Reicine Ceer wrote:But what if i want to lock two people fighting off a station/gate/etc, just to see how the fight is balancing up? I got bored reading at page 13 so have not seen this answered yet.... would it give me a criminal/suspect flag just because i want to watch two randoms fight?
Of course not. |

Denidil
Evocations of Shadow Eternal Evocations
531
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 15:14:00 -
[699] - Quote
neutral RR is dead, yay! Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design. |

OT Smithers
BLOMI
194
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 15:15:00 -
[700] - Quote
Tychus Von wrote:TheBlueMonkey wrote:SunTsu Rae wrote:Hint to CCP , drop the non-eject clause . . . . .  but retraining the same skills everytime you lose a ship is fun  I don't see you loosing BS 5 each time you get killed in navy apoc...
If you don't like the skill loss don't fly the bloody ship. |
|

steave435
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
80
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 15:28:00 -
[701] - Quote
Tychus Von wrote:TheBlueMonkey wrote:SunTsu Rae wrote:Hint to CCP , drop the non-eject clause . . . . .  but retraining the same skills everytime you lose a ship is fun  I don't see you loosing BS 5 each time you get killed in navy apoc... Which is why the subsystem skills are rank 1 while BS skills are rank 8. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9763
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 15:33:00 -
[702] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Proddy Scun wrote:Suspect flag for assistance to good guy is foul idea. You do not get a suspect flag for helping the good guy. You get a weapons flag (and depending upon the situation a PvP flag). Yes you do. Helping the good guy (who is flagged as engaged in an LE) means you're butting in on the LE, and flags you as suspect. Helping the bad guy (who is flagged as suspect) means you're aiding and abetting, and flags you as suspect.
If you want to help the good guy, attack the bad guy.
Quote:Quote:Why not just copy the flags from the ship assisted? That's basically what they are doing. Not in the case of LEs. They copy weapons and PvP flags for most assist acts, yes, but for trying to interfere with an on-going conflict, they also hand out brand new flags.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|

BOLEVINE
Cold Blue Steel Wrong Hole.
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 15:58:00 -
[703] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Bart Starr wrote:What I don't understand is this:
Why is it illegal to board a new ship for 60 seconds with a weapons timer?
Suppose a ninja in a frigate is attacked by a mission runner.
Ninja is able to survive the new NPC AI - and no outside help arrives for the mission runner.
Ninja is capable of holding the mission runner - but not breaking the tank. (a common situation)
Boarding a new ship (with more DPS) is key to breaking the mission runner. What happens to the bait ship is largely unimportant.
Lets go pre-Orca oldschool: Suppose an alt brings a Typhoon to the mission space, and ejects. Under CW 2.0, the ninja is not allowed to board the Typhoon. Why is this?
Even in the context of Crimewatch, this restriction makes no sense.
-Ninja's bait ship isn't leaving the field of battle or evading the consequences of combat. (locked = not scoopable) -His Typhoon clearly isn't going anywhere until the battle is over. -There is no 'hiding and escaping' going on, just bringing more firepower to the table to kill the carebear.
Its a simple matter of the carebear starting a fight that didn't end up being the fight intended.
Yet, for some reason - its now illegal.
I see a lot of smokescreens about T3's and 'evading consequences with Orcas.' But none of this justifies arbitrarily preventing a player from boarding a new ship for 60 seconds.
But it seems that this is really about completely defanging ninjas (those who bait mission runners into shooting.)
Because forcing a ninja to turn off his guns for 60 seconds before being allowed to bring more DPS to the fight - well, the mission runner is going to dock up.
Is this really about providing consequences for 'criminals'? Or really - just coddling carebears?
It's about removing a whole bunch of really lame asshatery folks have been using to exploit the current system. In high-sec in particular, games like you are talking about are penalized in two obvious ways: 1. Your prey will be better able to evaluate the threat. If you arrived in a Rifter that's what you will have to stay in. 2. It will now be possible for mission runners in high sec mission-hubs to have anti-ninja protection on stand-by. White Hat corporations will be able to set up shop in mission hubs offering protection (for a fee of course) to mission runners. If you flag suspect on one of their protected corps, they will then be able to warp in and kill you. You will be able to recieve remote assistance from anyone you like as well, but anyone providing that assistance will inherit your suspect tag.
Yes lets make the game super safe for all you cute and cuddley little care bears so no bad people can bother you and steal your loot. These rules will simply kill this game as there will no more pvp in high sec. Low sec pvp will suck even worse then it does now. All that will be left is to join the "Borg like" environment in null where it take 0 skill to follow around a blob and press the button when told. 3 yrs invested in this game and now the care bears will finally completely ruin it. Game over... |

Axium Cog
Genco Fatal Ascension
27
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 16:03:00 -
[704] - Quote
If this has been addressed already i apologize, i skimmed the rest of the thread simply because there was an inordinate amount of non related commentary and conversation.
My concern is with Strategic Cruiser (Strats) and the "You will not be able to eject."
One key feature of flying Strats is that when you lose your ship you lose SP in the related skills. This was mitigated by the pilot being able to abandon the ship in order to prevent loss of SP. A good fleet can identify when this happens and cease fire and loot the strat rather than destroy it, which was always a nice lump of isk.
However if the pilot cant eject anymore, fleets cant steal the strats, and the pilot is forced to lose SP.
I believe this is unacceptable, and not unreasonably so.
Other than that, i love the new flag system, just dont want to see a significant part of flying strats be taken away because of it. |

War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1285
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 16:15:00 -
[705] - Quote
BOLEVINE wrote: Yes lets make the game super safe for all you cute and cuddley little care bears so no bad people can bother you and steal your loot. These rules will simply kill this game as there will no more pvp in high sec. Low sec pvp will suck even worse then it does now. All that will be left is to join the "Borg like" environment in null where it take 0 skill to follow around a blob and press the button when told. 3 yrs invested in this game and now the care bears will finally completely ruin it. Game over...
The sky is falling. Eve is dying.
Stop drinking Dinsdale Pirannha's kool-aid.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |

Jarin Arenos
Card Shark Industries
45
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 16:34:00 -
[706] - Quote
Solstice Project wrote:And you are one of those plenty people who ignore that this statistic is only a momentarily snapshot and also isn't about PLAYERS (aka users, as you say) but only looks at characters.
You're also ignoring that plenty of these characters are nullsec alts or alts from PvPers to fund themselves.
My fault, tbh, because i didn't distinguish between carebears and players who actually matter. I really don't understand this deep-seated hatred that people like you have for "carebears" in this game. What arrogance to say that you have the only right way to play the game. I don't claim that piracy/PvP/whatever is a bad way to play the game. EVE is about playing the way you want to. Why do you have to dictate that PvE players play the way you want them to? |

Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Fairlight Avionics -affliction-
15
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 16:36:00 -
[707] - Quote
Aiden Mourn wrote: ... Conversely, the new Crimewatch 2.0 in some ways actually makes being a fresh new player even harder. Lets look at can-flipping, which has been pretty much every budding PvPers first foray into fighting other players. In the past, feisty new guy steals from a can and either A.) kills the common-sense-deprived retriever that actually shoots back or B.) retriever runs off and comes back in a PvP ship to stomp on him. Anybody with an IQ north of 70 would typically go with B and either go get a PvP ship or more commonly, request help from another corpmate nearby. Whatever the outcome though, our feisty new guy learned a lot about fighting a real person, got his adrenaline pumping, and went out looking for more.
That, it seems, all goes out the window with CW2, because now when you steal from a can that isn't yours, everybody pretty much anywhere can now shoot at you. In our brave new world, when our new guy grabs a can, he no longer gets a 1v1 and a valuable lesson, he gets a 1v30 and says "**** this". The lesson learned here now is that large blob mentality wins, and he should probably go off and join one of the biggest null alliances in the game and join rank with thousands of others who now realize that doing anything without at least a fleet behind them is a waste of their time and ship. So much for encouraging solo and small gang work.
+1. This goes too far in penalizing the flipper ('suspect'). A more reasonable approach would be a) only those in view of the theft can join in and aggress the theif (he's a suspect right, not a proven criminal...only those who 'saw' the theft should be free to engage). or b) the 'gang bang' flag should only live for 1min, not 15. Giving everyone in system and nearby time to refit in an uber spank pvp ship and go after the suspect (who they didn't personally witness stealing anything) is overkill and again stacks the deck too far vs. the flipper
Also, in the matrix -- what about stealing from a *wreck* in someones mission pocket? Stealing from a can triggers a suspect flag and 15mins of gang bang pwnage...but what about stealing from a wreck?
Killboard |

Mogden Lordsmith
Hedion University Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 16:40:00 -
[708] - Quote
Do I understand correctly, that neutral assistance in legal engagements (for example war decs) is still risk free?
According to the chart from the devblog a neutral assistor will receive a weapons flag if the assistee has a weapons flag receive a pvp flag if the assistee has a pvp flag receive a criminal flag when assisting a criminal receive a suspect flag when assisting a suspect or outlaw receive a suspect flag if the assistee is in a limited engagement
Now the first two flags (pvp and weapons) as far as I can tell don't allow anyone to attack the assistor. So the only way of a an assistor to becone attackable is by receiving a suspect flag because of interfering in a limited engagement or by assisting a crimina, a suspect or an outlaw.
Now a limited engagement is as defined in the devblog: An engagement where character A attacks character B, and where B is globally-attackable due to being a Suspect, Criminal or Outlaw.
Now in a legal engagement such as in an engagement sanctioned by a wardec or by killrights none of the participants have a criminal flag, a suspect flag or are outlaws. Neither is a wardec sanctioned engagement a limited engagement as defined in the devblog. I can only draw the following conclusion:
Players A and B can legally attack each other due to being part of a wardec. Player C is not involved directly in the wardec, but is a friend of player A. Player A engages player B and player B shoots back. Both players receive pvp and weapons flags. However the engagement is not a limited engagement (because none of the players is globally attackable due to being Suspect, Criminal or Outlaw). Player C starts repairing player A and consequently receives pvp and weapons flags. However as far as I can tell player C does not become attackable by player B. He is not assisting a player with a suspect, criminal or outlaw flag, nor is he assisting someone in a limited engagement.
It seems to be that neutral repping in legal engagements just got a huge boost with no possible consequences.
Did I understand something completely wrong? |

Reticle
Sight Picture
41
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 16:48:00 -
[709] - Quote
If the sec status hit is "front loaded" so that the penalty applies whether or not the target is killed, that implies that the sec status hit is going to be changed. Right now you get a lesser penalty for aggression and a heavier penalty for the kill. If you get a front loaded hit, then crimewatch will not be distinguishing between aggression and kills. Since kill rights are being given for criminal actions whether or not a kill results, a single shot at a target in high sec that resulted in you getting Concorded will get you a significant sec status hit, kill rights for the player you aggressed, and 3 flags (maybe more). Please note that this is for a single shot... like say a noob with hot weapons who hasn't turned off the Auto Target Back function.
It's good to have consequences, but there should be a valid path for becoming a high sec villain. Full penalties for a failed gank is a bit much. Kill rights for every criminal flag is a step too far. It should be kill rights for kills only. |

Raging Beaver
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 17:08:00 -
[710] - Quote
It's probably been mentioned more than once in this thread (didn't read it all, certainly won't do it now) but let me just voice my opinion on 2 changes mentioned in the Devblog.
1. I approve of the change to logi aggression mechanics but the way you propose to do it makes no sense to me. What I'm expecting if this ghoes live is a sudden decrease in logi numbers, also the current tactic of jumping the combat ships out first and then logi will no longer be valid - Don't do it or at least rethink it....twice. 2. Cannot eject from a ship when under attack - I will try to put this in as civilized way as humanly possible - THIS IS THE MOST F....D UP AND ******** IDEA I've seen from CCP for a VERY long time. Why the hell shouldn't the pilot be able to eject in combat? I thought this option was PRECISELY for that usage! To save one's ass(implants, skills) while sacrificing the ship. I take it CCP would like to see T3 pilots to lose skill every time their ship is destroyed. I ain't going to threaten you to cancel my subscription, I'll only say that the day this change goes live on TQ will be the last time I ever fly a T3. |
|

Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Fairlight Avionics -affliction-
16
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 17:31:00 -
[711] - Quote
Jarin Arenos wrote: I really don't understand this deep-seated hatred that people like you have for "carebears" in this game. What arrogance to say that you have the only right way to play the game. I don't claim that piracy/PvP/whatever is a bad way to play the game. EVE is about playing the way you want to. Why do you have to dictate that PvE players play the way you want them to?
Its not carebears themselves per se', its the nerfing of the sandbox that makes EVE great they continually call for that we hate.
So you have it backwards, PVP players don't have issues with passive carebears doing their thing and dealing with EVE life as it comes (although I agree life in hisec shouldn't be as profitable as it is today as more incentive to move to lo and null....but I digress...)
Its actually the activist carebears who's lobbying for nerfdom is futzing with enforcing THEIR vision on PVP players that is fail...
As I look at crimewatch changes that protect carebears from can/mission flippers now with global 'suspect' flagging and blob pwnage of flippers...it becomes more clear the road to nerfdom is being pursued by CCP, while pretending its still a 'sandbox'. i.e. They let you steal, but make it conceptually a non viable activity by the pwnage that will come your way if you do it; illusion, form over function....we are a sandbox, but not REALLY...welcome to WoW behind the looking glass...
Might as well make theft impossible and be done with it, don't give tease me with an illusion and give me piracy blue balls never to be fulfilled; I can go to WoW for that.... Killboard |

Jarin Arenos
Card Shark Industries
45
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 17:37:00 -
[712] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Its not carebears themselves per se', its the nerfing of the sandbox that makes EVE great they continually call for that we hate.
So you have it backwards, PVP players don't have issues with passive carebears doing their thing and dealing with EVE life as it comes; although I agree life in hisec shouldn't be as profitable as it is today as more incentive to move to lo and null....but I digress...
Its actually the activist carebears who's lobbying for nerfdom is futzing with enforcing THEIR vision on PVP players that is fail...
As I look at crimewatch changes that protect carebears from can/mission flippers now with global 'suspect' flagging and blob pwnage of flippers...it becomes more clear the road to nerfdom is being pursued by CCP, while pretending its still a 'sandbox'. i.e. They let you steal, but make it conceptually a non viable activity by the pwnage that will come your way if you do it; illusion, form over function....we are a sandbox, but not REALLY...welcome to WoW behind the looking glass...
Just make theft impossible and be done with it, dont give tease me with an illusion and give me piracy blue balls never to be fulfilled; I can go to WoW for that.... They DID say that they're looking at making personal theft an LE flag, not a Suspect flag, which would fix most of your complaints, and is the path I hope they follow. Likewise, making neutral RR get Suspect is a questionable choice... how do you join a LE engagement, then? Make the logi fit civvy turrets and shoot at the hostiles before repping?
I'd like to comment on your digression there, actually, as this is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of highsec players. For the vast majority of highseccers, the incentive doesn't matter. Making life difficult enough in highsec won't drive them to low/null, it will drive them to other games. Nothing I've seen mentioned by CCP has pushed much in this direction, though, so it's mostly a misunderstanding from low/null players, not the devs. |

ThisIsntMyMain
Republic University Minmatar Republic
134
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 17:37:00 -
[713] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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.
Sorry Masterplan, but you are not correct.
There was EXTENSIVE discussion at the time that the dictor ship class was introduced. The final decision agreed to by the players and the CCP design team was that dictor bubbles DO NOT CAUSE AGRESSION UNLESS SOMEONE ATTEMPTS TO WARP.
Please lets not go through this whole discussion yet again, but if we must .....
The original discussion around the design of the dictor bubble was whether dictor pilots would get on the kill mail. arguments for and against were made by players and CCP alike. The final decision was that the dictor pilot only gets on the kill mail if the target tries to warp inside the bubble but is killed instead. If the target dies but does not attempt to warp, the dictor pilot gets no part of the kill.
This was implemented by making the launching of a dictor bubble a NON AGRESSIVE act. Any player attempting to warp while inside the bubble triggers the agression flag.
Sorry, but CCP clearly BROKE dictor agression mechanics last year and have only just fixed them. Please do not break them yet again. |

Brunaburh
Aurora Security
62
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 18:04:00 -
[714] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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 seems like too simplistic a solution (and probably bad), but what if Aggression Flags run up the chain of command in a fleet?
So the applicable Squad/Wing/Fleet Commander gets aggression if someone down the chain aggresses. I'm not sure boosters have to be in command positions, but that rule + this seems to provide the requested off-grid aggression flag for boosters. |

Brunaburh
Aurora Security
62
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 18:11:00 -
[715] - Quote
Raging Beaver wrote:It's probably been mentioned more than once in this thread (didn't read it all, certainly won't do it now) but let me just voice my opinion on 2 changes mentioned in the Devblog.
Cannot eject from a ship when under attack - I will try to put this in as civilized way as humanly possible - THIS IS THE MOST F....D UP AND ******** IDEA I've seen from CCP for a VERY long time. Why the hell shouldn't the pilot be able to eject in combat? I thought this option was PRECISELY for that usage! To save one's ass(implants, skills) while sacrificing the ship. I take it CCP would like to see T3 pilots to lose skill every time their ship is destroyed. I ain't going to threaten you to cancel my subscription, I'll only say that the day this change goes live on TQ will be the last time I ever fly a T3.
You didn't read enough. The ejection lock only occurs when you aggress, according to masterplan |

Idris Helion
University of Caille Gallente Federation
143
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 18:38:00 -
[716] - Quote
BOLEVINE wrote:OT Smithers wrote:Bart Starr wrote:What I don't understand is this:
Why is it illegal to board a new ship for 60 seconds with a weapons timer?
Suppose a ninja in a frigate is attacked by a mission runner.
Ninja is able to survive the new NPC AI - and no outside help arrives for the mission runner.
Ninja is capable of holding the mission runner - but not breaking the tank. (a common situation)
Boarding a new ship (with more DPS) is key to breaking the mission runner. What happens to the bait ship is largely unimportant.
Lets go pre-Orca oldschool: Suppose an alt brings a Typhoon to the mission space, and ejects. Under CW 2.0, the ninja is not allowed to board the Typhoon. Why is this?
Even in the context of Crimewatch, this restriction makes no sense.
-Ninja's bait ship isn't leaving the field of battle or evading the consequences of combat. (locked = not scoopable) -His Typhoon clearly isn't going anywhere until the battle is over. -There is no 'hiding and escaping' going on, just bringing more firepower to the table to kill the carebear.
Its a simple matter of the carebear starting a fight that didn't end up being the fight intended.
Yet, for some reason - its now illegal.
I see a lot of smokescreens about T3's and 'evading consequences with Orcas.' But none of this justifies arbitrarily preventing a player from boarding a new ship for 60 seconds.
But it seems that this is really about completely defanging ninjas (those who bait mission runners into shooting.)
Because forcing a ninja to turn off his guns for 60 seconds before being allowed to bring more DPS to the fight - well, the mission runner is going to dock up.
Is this really about providing consequences for 'criminals'? Or really - just coddling carebears?
It's about removing a whole bunch of really lame asshatery folks have been using to exploit the current system. In high-sec in particular, games like you are talking about are penalized in two obvious ways: 1. Your prey will be better able to evaluate the threat. If you arrived in a Rifter that's what you will have to stay in. 2. It will now be possible for mission runners in high sec mission-hubs to have anti-ninja protection on stand-by. White Hat corporations will be able to set up shop in mission hubs offering protection (for a fee of course) to mission runners. If you flag suspect on one of their protected corps, they will then be able to warp in and kill you. You will be able to recieve remote assistance from anyone you like as well, but anyone providing that assistance will inherit your suspect tag. Yes lets make the game super safe for all you cute and cuddley little care bears so no bad people can bother you and steal your loot. These rules will simply kill this game as there will no more pvp in high sec. Low sec pvp will suck even worse then it does now. All that will be left is to join the "Borg like" environment in null where it take 0 skill to follow around a blob and press the button when told. 3 yrs invested in this game and now the care bears will finally completely ruin it. Game over...
Game over, man! Game over!
Cry some more. I almost have enough for some delicious pirate-tear tea.
|

Kristen Andelare
Abacus Industries Group Aerodyne Collective
25
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 18:40:00 -
[717] - Quote
Rayemmi B'tes wrote:Aiden Mourn wrote:Rayemmi B'tes wrote:Masterplan, any comment on our bit about offgrid boosters getting agression? Shhhhh!! The first rule of off-grid boosting club is.... Death to the offgrid boosters in pvp! Someone actually found a couple when we got wardec'd last time...our solution was alpha nados I believe :P can't find the killmail, but it would be nice to be able to kill our enemies' booster without a concordokken. And MP, thanks for the response. However, boosting should be considered an 'assist module' in the same way that a repper is. They do just as much, if not more, harm to the enemy fleet by augmenting their own in a vast way.
My thought here is that there are some serious unintended consequences here, that we'd certainly want to be wary of.
Off-grid boosting is a fleet mechanic, and affects all members of the fleet hierarchy that are in system. And you don't know what they are doing, necessarily, as you don't even have to be able to see them. It is passive in nature. Unlike Repping, where you have to specifically target that recipient of your good will and activate the module only on them.
Think about incursions. A bunch of guys that don't necessarily know each other get together and form a 20-man fleet to run a site on an incursion in highsec. They bring along one who's flying an off-gird boosting Tengu, or even a vulture mixed in to their fleet. One guy is a plant, he's a griefer to the core and just wants to cause havoc. He (pick your poison) gains a ciminal flag during the course of existence of the fleet. CONCORD warps in and kills him. And ANY boosters that are applying boosts to him at that moment. Have a nice day. The end of boosting as a relevant use for incursions.
This would also affect people's decisions to allow anyone in to their mining fleets that they don't trust implicitly. Orca's popping because someone makes a mistake using aggressive drones makes for a very bad day, and also reduces the willingness for inter-corp cooperation and recruitment efforts. |

Irregessa
Obfuscation and Reflections
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 18:50:00 -
[718] - Quote
So which, if any, of these flags are set by a Dread or destroyer performing an Orbital Bombardment in conjuction with Dust514? |

Kristen Andelare
Abacus Industries Group Aerodyne Collective
25
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 18:50:00 -
[719] - Quote
Sturmwolke wrote:Generally nice changes, but the NPC timer at 15mins is probably too long. I can understand why this was implemented, but seriously, if someone's hunting a PVE fitted ship, 5 mins is more than plenty to drop combat probes (scan within 1mil km) and tag the ship with a PVP flag. The longer period penalizes legit disconnects, increasing the likelyhood bad things happening to your ship while you struggle to get back online (if at all possible).
I agree with this. 15 minutes is a ridiculously long time. The whole point of the e-warp is to prevent ship death during accidental logoffs (ISP failure, power loss, blue screen of death, severe GF aggro, etc. To put a 15-minute timer is frankly going to cost you costumers. Probably more than you think. The guy flying his last ratting ship trying to earn a plex to keep playing, the mission-runner doing the same thing, the orca pilot who's drones hit a rat while they were out mining. Internet disconnections happen. Computers crash. Power outages occur. When you combine these two types of events and give them a 15-minute timer, up from the 1-minute we have today, you will see folks walk away. And it's really un-justifiable too. How in the lore of Eve can you justify that long of a timer? I just don't get it. I can understand the logic of trying to prevent an exploitation, but in doing the preventing, you've managed to completely destroy the intended safety feature you designed (which really is important!) |

Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
735
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 19:09:00 -
[720] - Quote
Some interesting changes.
* I disagree tho that anything needs to be more 'simple' in EVE, this game has always been and should be advanced. Plus, by adding the 'suspect' flag you made something more complicated under the explanation you wanted things more 'simple'. Why can't you just say you disliked the low sec lag from constant sec updates and this was your solution?
* While you think the icons on top left might be fancy and all, first off they - a) make it easier for poor, inexperienced and lazy players to survive, this is hands down a PvP nerf, no matter how you put it. How big it is, noone knows, but it's for fact a nerf. - b) once again you make HUGE ICONS that blot out the sun. I'm already annoyed at the massive local name, travel route etc. The graphics itself is not an issue, but why the hell do you have to make everything MASSIVE in size? Always! Is Punkturis responsible for this crap (no offense meant, but seems she always do the MASSIVE whatever-UI-changes that makes you think someone at CCP is blind) as well? Please consider different sizes as we all run different PCs/setups, and some of us would like more EVE and less interface blocking our view.. It's that simple, the change/introduction is not wrong, the size/graphics is.
..and did you scrap the idea of making the scalable damage from sentry guns? That was one of my major concern for CrimeWatch, if you scrapped that for now (or indefinately), that's a major improvement on the base of the idea already.
It's worth having a change of the old system, for the low-sec sec update and remote repping (neutrals in highsec, and getting flagged in lowsec) alone, so all in all I think these changes have a positive potential. But you really need to consider to a) stop dumbing down the game, and b) please please please, I've been crying for years to stop making the MASSIVE UI changes, who the hell do I have to butt-kiss to have you guys stop making this? or at least making it scalable! Anything! Throw me a bone, please, this is horrible.  AFK-cloaking in a system near you. |
|

Cerulean Ice
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
31
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 19:29:00 -
[721] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Cerulean Ice wrote:Why do people equate ejecting with saving the pod? It's pretty easy to save your pod when your ship explodes if you know what you're doing, and it's pretty easy to lose your pod after ejecting if you don't know what you're doing. Or you'll just lose it either way, because bubbles <3 Yeah like when you're in your pod and someone puts an interdiction bubble on you, it's super easy to get away... Stupid  How does ejecting help you escape from bubbles? You can eject before the bubble goes up and warp?
The fun that happens when people don't read My point was that ejecting and escaping are two different things, and they aren't dependent on one another. People should stop saying that ejecting saves your pod. All ejecting does is remove your pod from your ship without your ship exploding first.
And if you're in a field of pretty bubbles, your pod is not escaping either way, because bubbles are awesome like that  |

Reticle
Sight Picture
42
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 19:44:00 -
[722] - Quote
I haven't seen an answer to this yet:
Are in corp ganks still retribution-less? |

Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4997
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 19:49:00 -
[723] - Quote
Reticle wrote:I haven't seen an answer to this yet:
Are in corp ganks still retribution-less?
Give them a useless role so they can't drop corp and kill them? This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Federation posting cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online posting.
fofofofofo |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9765
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 19:50:00 -
[724] - Quote
Misanth wrote:* I disagree tho that anything needs to be more 'simple' in EVE, this game has always been and should be advanced. Plus, by adding the 'suspect' flag you made something more complicated under the explanation you wanted things more 'simple'. Why can't you just say you disliked the low sec lag from constant sec updates and this was your solution? There's simple and there's simple. What they're doing is removing convoluted mechanics in favour of complex ones. This is indeed a simplification since it goes for the GÇ£easy to learn, hard to masterGÇ¥ goal rather than GÇ£memorise these fifty-eleven exceptions to what should be a very straight-forward ruleGÇ¥.
The S-flag (and indeed, all the flags) simplify matters because they provide clear and concise categories of actions and consequences with no overlap in functionality or rule set. A numerical increase in the number of flags does not mean it's more complicated since it removes the actual complication of not having clear distinctions between what flags do what.
Quote:- a) make it easier for poor, inexperienced and lazy players to survive, this is hands down a PvP nerf, no matter how you put it. How big it is, noone knows, but it's for fact a nerf. Making gameplay more approachable is not, GÇ£for factGÇ¥ a nerf.
Quote:- b) once again you make HUGE ICONS that blot out the sun. I'm already annoyed at the massive local name, travel route etc. The graphics itself is not an issue, but why the hell do you have to make everything MASSIVE in size? EhGǪ travel route was massively shrunk by the new display, and the reason to make these ones large is obvious: because they are life-and-death timers that you want to be able to spot and process out of the corner of your eye. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|

Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
13
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 20:11:00 -
[725] - Quote
Mogden Lordsmith wrote:Do I understand correctly, that neutral assistance in legal engagements (for example war decs) is still risk free?
No you didn't understand at all, sorry.
A neutral Logi healing either of the combatants automatically becomes a suspect and thus free to attack by ANYONE.
This is actually a lot worse than helping by directly attacking the suspect (in case you wished to help the 'rightful' assailant). |

Reticle
Sight Picture
42
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 20:22:00 -
[726] - Quote
Andski wrote:Reticle wrote:I haven't seen an answer to this yet:
Are in corp ganks still retribution-less? Give them a useless role so they can't drop corp and kill them? Yes. Give an in corp ganker 24 more hours to wreak havoc. That makes perfect sense. |

Borlag Crendraven
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
93
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 20:54:00 -
[727] - Quote
Reticle wrote:Andski wrote:Reticle wrote:I haven't seen an answer to this yet:
Are in corp ganks still retribution-less? Give them a useless role so they can't drop corp and kill them? Yes. Give an in corp ganker 24 more hours to wreak havoc. That makes perfect sense.
You have it backwards, that gives the corp 24 hours to repeatedly kill the sucker. |

TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
64
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 21:01:00 -
[728] - Quote
Any chance of reviewing high sec NPCs? The 'police' ones outlaws get are really chance based and annoying. The 'navy' ones FW people get are a total joke. I'd like it if outlaws got the joke NPCs instead with no tackle. |

Reticle
Sight Picture
42
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 21:29:00 -
[729] - Quote
Borlag Crendraven wrote:Reticle wrote:Andski wrote:Reticle wrote:I haven't seen an answer to this yet:
Are in corp ganks still retribution-less? Give them a useless role so they can't drop corp and kill them? Yes. Give an in corp ganker 24 more hours to wreak havoc. That makes perfect sense. You have it backwards, that gives the corp 24 hours to repeatedly kill the sucker. You mean the guy who won't be flying anything worth killing after awoxing an entire mining team with no repercussions of any kind? Or did you mean that repeatedly killing a noob ship would somehow be cathartic? Assuming of course that he isn't someone who had roles, dropped them, and thus has No New Roles set? All the while with the ability to shoot more corp members without repercussions.
Genius, you are not. |

Borlag Crendraven
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
93
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 21:42:00 -
[730] - Quote
Reticle wrote:Borlag Crendraven wrote:Reticle wrote:Andski wrote:Reticle wrote:I haven't seen an answer to this yet:
Are in corp ganks still retribution-less? Give them a useless role so they can't drop corp and kill them? Yes. Give an in corp ganker 24 more hours to wreak havoc. That makes perfect sense. You have it backwards, that gives the corp 24 hours to repeatedly kill the sucker. You mean the guy who won't be flying anything worth killing after awoxing an entire mining team with no repercussions of any kind? Or did you mean that repeatedly killing a noob ship would somehow be cathartic? Assuming of course that he isn't someone who had roles, dropped them, and thus has No New Roles set? All the while with the ability to shoot more corp members without repercussions. Genius, you are not.
If you are unable to provide the retribution with the tools given to you, how is that my fault? Sigh...miners. |
|

Bantara
Corp 54 Curatores Veritatis Alliance
16
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 21:44:00 -
[731] - Quote
Okay, page 33, gonna post....
@Masterplan : Great job, my 2 thumbs up!
Aiden Mourn wrote:Historically (and I know its been said a million times), "Eve is hard", and that's actually been its draw to most people who play it. Now, that mentality might be changing as CCP ramps up for the big leagues with the DUST release, but its definitely what drew most of us to this game in the first place; Proof? I know it's not true for me. I could easily be the minority, and I accept that, but I don't *know*. Thus...proof?
Quote:There are no "pvp shards" or do-overs, and when you lose your stuff, that stuff is gone, not back in your castle/dungeon/magic toadstool manor. So why dumb it down? What you describe here are the concepts of consequence and persistance, not difficulty and not intelligence.
Quote:But again, I hope CCP keeps in mind that we love this sandbox because it is what we make it, not because it came with pre-made sandcastles and someone to hold our hand as we play in it. You are completely ignoring that the rules you are so used to dealing with *are* a pre-made sandcastle, just a different floorplan.
TheBlueMonkey wrote:So you're killing off ninja salvaging and can flipping as a professions how is that not dumbing things down? pirate != intelligent play logic fail... |

Bantara
Corp 54 Curatores Veritatis Alliance
18
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 21:46:00 -
[732] - Quote
Aiden Mourn wrote:"For bad" here being, "the loss of substantial skillpoints". Eh.....? (forum post 133980)
Master Ventris wrote:You lose 1 level off a randomly selected skill from the 5 subsystem skills that relate to the ship you lost. (eg caldari subsystem skills when you lose a tengu). {...}(Although they are all rank 1 skills so only take 3-4 days to retrain back to 5)
Wth....you've got the isk and the gall to take a T3 into combat, but can't afford to train for 5 days? Less if you only take it to IV, which is what I suggest if the training time butthurts that much.
Unforgiven Storm wrote:Im sorry, but when two navy boats are fighting in the sea and one is loosing the capitan of the losing ship has always the option to say "abandon ship" in the middle of the fight. Same principle applies here, why I cant abandon a ship that is "sinking" and try to save myself (my pod)? Because in the end, I'm sorry, this is a game and needs to be balanced as such, not a straight-up RL simulator.
Rhavas wrote:[list=1]
Remove the eject lock, at least for T3s. Forcing people to stay in and lose skills is BS, and cuts off a great Gǣsteal the T3GǦ gameplay mechanic.
However, losing SP is the original intent, not providing "steal the T3" opportunities. |

Bantara
Corp 54 Curatores Veritatis Alliance
18
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 21:48:00 -
[733] - Quote
Odin Shadow wrote:PinkKnife wrote:Also, Death to strategically logging off. I can't believe everyone's internet is that bad, and strangely enough only when they are ratting do they experience such unusual internet latency issues.  what about the times ccp's network goes down or the random isp drops people get. while i agree with not letting peeps get away from pvp'ing by logging off, letting tham die in missions because a lone NPC frig is scramming them seams a little bit daft tbh all missioners will now only be able to make sure they dont die to disconnects if they are in a +20min cap stable, high dps tanking ship. narrowing the ships people use is not a good thing.
First off, learn to kill the scramming frig first. Yes, there could be that miniscule chance that your ISP will blip just after you got pointed but before you started killing it, but if that's the case... 1) CCP can't make a solid, consistant, intelligble, and--most importantly--exploit-resistant/proof system while simultaneously accommodating every single tiny little edge case. So HTFU. 2) When I was young, I was taught to make my mission ships tanky and cap stable. And I walked uphill to school, both ways! 3) On that day, put down the game and go buy a lottery ticket. Who knows?
Solstice Project wrote:Steijn wrote:Quote:NPC Flag: This flag is activated when a player uses offensive modules against an NPC (or vice-versa). Having this flag will prevent a ship from being removed from space if the pilot logs off. This flag functions in all areas of space. thats just shafted anyone who does missions and not PVP because they have a weak internet connection. It's fair because COMBAT is COMBAT, no matter against whom. The PvPer could have a weak internet connection too, but of course, mission runners want a special piece of the cake everybody gets ... Welcome to Eve, Steijn, where if you don't want to risk losing your ship, you don't undock! |

Bantara
Corp 54 Curatores Veritatis Alliance
18
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 22:07:00 -
[734] - Quote
Varesk wrote:Can you give us an option to remove the new flags from the overview? I laughed in my head when I read this. Cause you know what would have happened, right? Dec 8 would have come along and there would have been hundreds of people on the feedback thread asking where/how to turn it off....what do you mean I can't!?!
Andski wrote:This is going to reduce income across the board, not just in hisec. Sorry. Because it was so low already, oh noes! /sarc Also, if it's a reduction all across the board, then there is no real loss. It's just deflation (hint: opposite of inflation.) Our great player-driven, supply-and-demand market will adjust.
Jarin Arenos wrote:So far I've seen no commentary on the effect this will have on mission runners. {...} 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...
Then you haven't been f'ing reading. It has come and gone already, thanks for reheating it.[/quote] Your retort doesn't counter Nirnaeth's point that this is an MMO--do not complain if you can't do upper-level content (lvl 4 out of 5 possible) missions along. Get friends. (I for one will never say "get an alt".)
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:#1: Ransoming player pods in lowsec sounds like it will now cause a massive sec status loss as the warp scram will count as podding them. Yes, because ransoming someone with a death threat isn't an 'evil' act and shouldn't hurt your security status....riiiight.... |

Lyron-Baktos
Selective Pressure Rote Kapelle
324
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 22:18:00 -
[735] - Quote
surprised nobody else feels the 60 seconds to dock to not long enough Selective Pressure [FOVRA] is now recruiting! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1797934#post1797934 |

Jarin Arenos
Card Shark Industries
45
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 22:34:00 -
[736] - Quote
Bantara wrote:Then you haven't been f'ing reading. It has come and gone already, thanks for reheating it. Your retort doesn't counter Nirnaeth's point that this is an MMO--do not complain if you can't do upper-level content (lvl 4 out of 5 possible) missions along. Get friends. (I for one will never say "get an alt".) Caught. I may have just been reading dev posts only, being short of time at work. <.< Would like to see some sort of blue comment on the matter, though, having been someone who has suffered from a regularly-unreliable connection to the EVE servers. Yeah, I'm getting a new ISP, but I'm still paranoid.
Losing a ship because I'm stupid, or because someone successfully kills me within game mechanics is one thing, and a danger I accept implicitly by clicking Undock. But dying horribly because my internet is unreliable? No game I've ever played had that penalty. Hell, the closest thing I've seen was Ubisoft's always-on DRM, and that rightly raised holy hell from the gaming community. |

Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
449
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 23:03:00 -
[737] - Quote
Jarin Arenos wrote:Bantara wrote:Then you haven't been f'ing reading. It has come and gone already, thanks for reheating it. Your retort doesn't counter Nirnaeth's point that this is an MMO--do not complain if you can't do upper-level content (lvl 4 out of 5 possible) missions along. Get friends. (I for one will never say "get an alt".) Caught. I may have just been reading dev posts only, being short of time at work. <.< Would like to see some sort of blue comment on the matter, though, having been someone who has suffered from a regularly-unreliable connection to the EVE servers. Yeah, I'm getting a new ISP, but I'm still paranoid. Losing a ship because I'm stupid, or because someone successfully kills me within game mechanics is one thing, and a danger I accept implicitly by clicking Undock. But dying horribly because my internet is unreliable? No game I've ever played had that penalty. Hell, the closest thing I've seen was Ubisoft's always-on DRM, and that rightly raised holy hell from the gaming community.
Pretty sure any game where you're in combat and get disconnected, you're likely to die. Most games keep you where you are, and you either live or die. Eve actually warps you out of combat if you're not scrammed. Not sure why so many people are complaining about this, when it's how it is already. Sure, you sit in space for 15 min, so perhaps someone could scan you down, and suicide gank you, but is that really a major concern?
|

ihcn
Life. Universe. Everything. Clockwork Pineapple
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 23:22:00 -
[738] - Quote
Reticle wrote:I haven't seen an answer to this yet:
Are in corp ganks still retribution-less? This is a good point, if we're completely eliminating all hisec pvp we need to be thorough about it |

ihcn
Life. Universe. Everything. Clockwork Pineapple
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 23:27:00 -
[739] - Quote
Jarin Arenos wrote:Solstice Project wrote:And you are one of those plenty people who ignore that this statistic is only a momentarily snapshot and also isn't about PLAYERS (aka users, as you say) but only looks at characters.
You're also ignoring that plenty of these characters are nullsec alts or alts from PvPers to fund themselves.
My fault, tbh, because i didn't distinguish between carebears and players who actually matter. I really don't understand this deep-seated hatred that people like you have for "carebears" in this game. What arrogance to say that you have the only right way to play the game. I don't claim that piracy/PvP/whatever is a bad way to play the game. EVE is about playing the way you want to. Why do you have to dictate that PvE players play the way you want them to? Because eve is and has been advertised as a pure pvp game, since day one. "no pvp vs non-pvp zones" was literally a selling point.
except at this point hisec is basically a non-pvp zone. you whiners complained loud enough and now you've gotten your way. enjoy your cartoon game for babies. |

Jarin Arenos
Card Shark Industries
45
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 23:31:00 -
[740] - Quote
Rengerel en Distel wrote:Pretty sure any game where you're in combat and get disconnected, you're likely to die. Most games keep you where you are, and you either live or die. Eve actually warps you out of combat if you're not scrammed. Not sure why so many people are complaining about this, when it's how it is already. Sure, you sit in space for 15 min, so perhaps someone could scan you down, and suicide gank you, but is that really a major concern?
Most online games have your character vanish after less than a minute. And that's those where you don't vanish immediately, which is fairly common.
As for sitting in 15 minutes, the concern isn't other players, but the NPCs you were fighting in the first place. Unless you can sit and survive 15 minutes worth of enemy DPS (impossible unless you're running a good cap stable tank, and that's ASSUMING that your modules don't deactivate on logout, which I have yet to hear one way or the other), you're dead. No outside player interaction required at all. No fun player-involved mechanics, just random stupid rat death. THAT is what the problem is.
I have no problem, zero, with staying in place under PvP interaction. If someone scans me down in a mission and attacks, I shouldn't be able to log off to avoid him. But NPC rats? Come on, now. There's no exploited mechanics here. If I'm logging off to avoid being killed, the rats are probably going to kill me within 60 seconds. Nevermind 15 minutes. The only thing this nerfs affects is people with poor/unreliable internet connections. |
|

Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
221
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 23:36:00 -
[741] - Quote
When I read the new DEV blog, I found one point really stood out upon which I wanted to shares my thoughts. We are talking about the suspect flagging system.
To briefly summarize, players will be able to flag themselves as "red flashy" to the whole universe without NPC police nor CONCORD intervention by committing a "soft" crime such as can stealing.
This will essentially kill -5 to -10 piracy; which is not necessarily a bad thing. It was already proposed/discussed in another thread where someone (Herr Wilkus) suggested red flashy pirates should not be chased by NPC police in highsec, thus promoting highsec PVP while giving the upper-hand to characters with a positive sec status. One of the main arguments against that was "criminals should stay locked out of highsec". It's a silly argument, and here's why:
People don't go "red flashy" because they can't control their urge to kill "helpless noobs". They go "red flashy" because they want people to notice and attack them. For instance, my main does not kill pods because I'm a killmail *****, I kill them because they offer me the greatest sec status hit, bringing me closer to my goal, "-10". People also go "red flashy" because it adds to the prestige... A certain "status" if you will. You can almost read "BAD MOTHER****ER" on the back of those ships.
But why would anyone want to go "-10", carebears might ask? It's simple, we can now offer PVP to anyone (even neutrals) in lowsec without going GCC. They just need to shoot first, like Han Solo. The problem is that lowsec, as we all know it, has a very thin population. This is why "-10's" will hug lowsec hotspots, looking for someone to aggress them.
So thank you CCP, for opening the doors to highsec. Thank you CCP, for I do not need to permanently go "red flashy" anymore. As of winter, we will be able to camp highsec systems with a criminal flag without being chased by NPC police and smoke anyone who thinks they know PVP.
You think all you need to do is not get involved? Imagine this: you are mining in highsec when suddenly a wild James315 appears! What's this? He IS red flashy AND coming for the bump? Don't tell me you won't try shooting him now.
Done right, this will be a huge buff to highsec PVP.
Brace yourselves, winter is coming. |

Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1783
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 23:47:00 -
[742] - Quote
What i'll miss in the future, because of the new CrimeWatch ...
Really young players cruising around, looking for cans or wrecks to take the loot from. Not the noobs who don't know better, but those who do it on purpose, because they don't want to PvE for their isk, but still be in space.
These are the people seeking contact to others.
Me too loves to cruising through regions, grabbing whatever he can find.
I don't need to care about being a Suspect, because i'm worse anyway ...
... but the noob might not even *get the idea* of stealing from cans for money ... ... because the thought of having to deal with *everybody* scares him off !
This change works both ways. Inappropriate signature removed. Spitfire |

ihcn
Life. Universe. Everything. Clockwork Pineapple
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 23:55:00 -
[743] - Quote
Jarin Arenos wrote:Edit: ihcn wrote:Because eve is and has been advertised as a pure pvp game, since day one. "no pvp vs non-pvp zones" was literally a selling point.
except at this point hisec is basically a non-pvp zone. you whiners complained loud enough and now you've gotten your way. enjoy your cartoon game for babies. So you're crying that you can't get easy kills on people that don't share your playstyle and would not be playing the game if highsec didn't exist? I don't think I'm ever going to understand your viewpoint. That'd be like me complaining about the talk of a POS revamp because I don't own a POS, and hating everyone who uses one. I didn't say hisec shouldn't exist. I spend most of my time in hisec, and not even doing stuff like hisec piracy. I do hisec/lowsec exploration, and I trade.
I think the current state of hisec is fine. EVE is about decisions. Right now, a miner in a hulk has to decide "Should I jetcan mine? My cargo is small, so it would greatly improve my ability to solo mine, but there are risks, so im not sure". That's great. After this change goes in, the risk for jetcan mining will be reduced in a gigantic way. Now the miners don't have to make that decision and the game becomes dumber. This is just one example. Another example, which I face every day, is how much ISK worth of stuff to put in a hauler that has to fly through niarja or uedama. 100 million? 300 million? 2 billion? If you put too much, people looking for profit will blow up your ship and take the loot. After the crime watch changes take effect, it will be much harder to profit off of suicide ganks, meaning I have less risk, and therefore I will have fewer decisions to make, and the game once again becomes dumber.
People like you would prefer if hisec was a brainless grindfest and all the "big meanies" who want to actually play the game as it was advertised can't do anything about it. well, like I said before, EVE is advertised as being a hard game. "EVE is hard" was literally a tag line. Hisec is already easy. Why are you trying to make it easier? |

Fortuna Cournot
Perkone Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 23:59:00 -
[744] - Quote
one of the best changes ever.
but i hope the "eject"/"switch ship" rules are removed. I can't see the benefit. What you are addressing with it? |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9766
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 00:04:00 -
[745] - Quote
Fortuna Cournot wrote:one of the best changes ever.
but i hope the "eject"/"switch ship" rules are removed. I can't see the benefit. What you are addressing with it? A habit people have picked up in lowsec where they use Orcas to save ships (and SP) they should by all rights have lost. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|

Fortuna Cournot
Perkone Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 00:16:00 -
[746] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Fortuna Cournot wrote:one of the best changes ever.
but i hope the "eject"/"switch ship" rules are removed. I can't see the benefit. What you are addressing with it? A habit people have picked up in lowsec where they use Orcas to save ships (and SP) they should by all rights have lost.
Please tell me more, because i'm still to lazy to understand it... why does the Orca saves them ? Wouldn't it be better to flag the Orca for giving landing permission ?
|

OT Smithers
BLOMI
195
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 00:19:00 -
[747] - Quote
BOLEVINE wrote:
Yes lets make the game super safe for all you cute and cuddley little care bears so no bad people can bother you and steal your loot. These rules will simply kill this game as there will no more pvp in high sec. Low sec pvp will suck even worse then it does now. All that will be left is to join the "Borg like" environment in null where it take 0 skill to follow around a blob and press the button when told. 3 yrs invested in this game and now the care bears will finally completely ruin it. Game over...
Check killboards first before calling people carebears.
Actually, better still, don't call people carebears at all. I happen to be a pirate, that's what I like to do, but you will never see me talking trash about how ANYONE likes to play the game. Being a pirate is no more special than being a Miner or Trader or Battleship Maker. There is no "elite" play style. It's just regular people spending their money and enjoying the game.
|

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9768
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 00:33:00 -
[748] - Quote
Fortuna Cournot wrote:Please tell me more, because i'm still to lazy to understand it... why does the Orca saves them ? You're in your well-planned camp and suddenly things go south. Your pimped T3 is two pips away from destruction and a loss of one of your lvl V skills. So you store your stratcruiser in the nearby Orca, which instantly jumps through the gate into highsec (where the attackers can't go, both because they have aggression timers and maybe also because they're currently under GCC and would get CONCORDed), and since they were locked onto your ship, the pod you're in is free to just warp off.
End result: you are free to commit a bajillion-ISK, auto-SP losing ship into a fight without any risk of losing either it or your SP. If they try to go after the Orca, they take GCC and sentry fire (and the Orca just jumps through and saves itself while you warp off).
Quote:Wouldn't it be better to flag the Orca for giving landing permission ? That would be a good idea as well (not just Gǣinstead ofGǥ), but they don't want to try to copy flags like that at this stage because it risks opening up for new nasty ideasGǪ
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|

Fortuna Cournot
Perkone Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 00:37:00 -
[749] - Quote
Quote:Quote:Wouldn't it be better to flag the Orca for giving landing permission ? That would be a good idea as well (not just Gǣinstead ofGǥ), but they don't want to try to copy flags like that at this stage because it risks opening up for new nasty ideasGǪ
It isn't nasty at all (if the orca ship has to accept the flagging by some dialog/protocol)! DEVS!!!  |

Mars Theran
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
333
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 00:45:00 -
[750] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:why can't i eject when i have a weapon timer? thats was a often used strategy in low sec to safe your pod if you know that a instant locker is around you.
eject short before you explode and warp while everyone is pointing your ship.
edit: but ohterwise.. good stuff!
Pretty much the only reason I survived the first time I was ganked, yeah. Recently though, my ships have pretty much just exploded without much thought for the eject button. Speaking of which, it's an EJECT button; what did you think it was for?
On the other hand, as I said, going from mostly full shields to 0 Structure has happened almost instantly the last few times I've PvP'd. Mostly because they had my fit and exactly what was needed to destroy my ship in under 2 seconds.
Maybe a little more for the Scorp I lost awile back, and same for the Myrmi, but I was too focused on my ship melting and how exactly it was occuring to think about jumping. It was a learning experience. Actually, all my recent PvP fights have been tests. Maybe I was actually sleeping in front of my computer and dreamed I posted. Certainly, it's not there now. |
|

Pipa Porto
1147
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 01:29:00 -
[751] - Quote
I'll ask again.
Dear CCP,
Is there a specific reason why you want to raise the safe hauling limit for Freighters to the neighborhood of 10b ISK? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Bart Starr
Aggressive Structural Steel Expediting Services
106
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 03:24:00 -
[752] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Fortuna Cournot wrote:Please tell me more, because i'm still to lazy to understand it... why does the Orca saves them ? You're in your well-planned camp and suddenly things go south. Your pimped T3 is two pips away from destruction and a loss of one of your lvl V skills. So you store your stratcruiser in the nearby Orca, which instantly jumps through the gate into highsec (where the attackers can't go, both because they have aggression timers and maybe also because they're currently under GCC and would get CONCORDed), and since they were locked onto your ship, the pod you're in is free to just warp off. End result: you are free to commit a bajillion-ISK, auto-SP losing ship into a fight without any risk of losing either it or your SP. If they try to go after the Orca, they take GCC and sentry fire (and the Orca just jumps through and saves itself while you warp off). Quote:Wouldn't it be better to flag the Orca for giving landing permission ? That would be a good idea as well (not just Gǣinstead ofGǥ), but they don't want to try to copy flags like that at this stage because it risks opening up for new nasty ideasGǪ
Still doesn't explain why boarding a new ship is prohibited, or why ejecting from a ship is prohibited.
I get it, you really hate Orca-swaps for some reason....
But if scooping a ship into an Orca during combat is abusive, why not just fix THAT problem directly?
This is like doing surgery with a chainsaw.
"In one very narrow situation, people evade SP loss by ejecting." So, NO MORE EJECTING! "In another very narrow situation, people are hiding ships in Orcas by boarding new ships." NO MORE BOARDING!
Its a huge over-reaction because it eliminates legitimate tactics that revolve around ejection and boarding new ships mid combat.
Preventing someone from ejecting prevents people from escaping from their burning ships, forcing them to stay locked into their ship until the laggy explosion and causes many to be podded as a result. Ejecting gives losing pilots a chance to escape (and if gives the aggressors the chance to capture the ship.) Banning ejection/boarding for GCC players was a stupid move. Banning it for everyone - even dumber.
Preventing the boarding of a new ship prevents 'ninjas' or mission baiters from killing their prey. The act of boarding a new ship was never 'an abuse', because as long as no ships are disappearing into an Orca to 'evade consequences of combat' - bringing a new ship to the battle is only raising the stakes for the ganker.
IE, Ninja is shot in an Ishkur, Ishkur can't crack a CNR's tank, so alt brings a Typhoon to the party. Ishkur jams MR to break the potential lock on the Tyhoon, bumps it, then jumps into the Typhoon and reestablishes tackle. Ishkur remains hanging in space. Stalemate ends, CNR dies.
Nothing that I've described here is abusive - its pretty much Ninja Ganking 101. Yet under Crimewatch 2.0, this tactic is arbitrarily made illegal, supposedly because of a fringe case that could be fixed without locking everyone into their ships for no good reason.
Fix Orca scooping, fine. Fix T3 SP ejection, fine. Leave ejection and ship boarding alone. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9769
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 04:08:00 -
[753] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote:Still doesn't explain why boarding a new ship is prohibited, or why ejecting from a ship is prohibited. GǪaside from explaining the scenario (and any variations thereov) they want to avoid.
It's not just the Orca they're going after, so fixing that problem doesn't solve anything. It's the problem of saving your ship when you have already lost it. You can still eject and enter ships GÇö you just have to deaggress to do so (and with some of the tweaks suggested earlier in the thread, it might even be possible let GTFO-ejections back in). GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|

BOLEVINE
Cold Blue Steel Wrong Hole.
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 04:18:00 -
[754] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:BOLEVINE wrote:
Yes lets make the game super safe for all you cute and cuddley little care bears so no bad people can bother you and steal your loot. These rules will simply kill this game as there will no more pvp in high sec. Low sec pvp will suck even worse then it does now. All that will be left is to join the "Borg like" environment in null where it take 0 skill to follow around a blob and press the button when told. 3 yrs invested in this game and now the care bears will finally completely ruin it. Game over...
Check killboards first before calling people carebears. Actually, better still, don't call people carebears at all. I happen to be a pirate, that's what I like to do, but you will never see me talking trash about how ANYONE likes to play the game. Being a pirate is no more special than being a Miner or Trader or Battleship Maker. There is no "elite" play style. It's just regular people spending their money and enjoying the game. ihcn wrote;
"Its not carebears themselves per se', its the nerfing of the sandbox that makes EVE great they continually call for that we hate.
So you have it backwards, PVP players don't have issues with passive carebears doing their thing and dealing with EVE life as it comes (although I agree life in hisec shouldn't be as profitable as it is today as more incentive to move to lo and null....but I digress...)
Its actually the activist carebears who's lobbying for nerfdom is futzing with enforcing THEIR vision on PVP players that is fail...
As I look at crimewatch changes that protect carebears from can/mission flippers now with global 'suspect' flagging and blob pwnage of flippers...it becomes more clear the road to nerfdom is being pursued by CCP, while pretending its still a 'sandbox'. i.e. They let you steal, but make it a non viable activity in practice by the pwnage that will come your way if you do it; illusion, form over function....we are a sandbox, but not REALLY...welcome to WoW behind the looking glass..."
I could nt have said it any better... |

Fal Dara
The Scope Gallente Federation
36
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 04:34:00 -
[755] - Quote
About the NPC 15 minute timer ...
While i'm not going to lose any sleep over this ... it's only a problem because moduals stop after a disconnect.
Fix?
1. Make it so only offensive mods stop after a disconnect. Tanks and what ever dont. .... 1a. if you're butthurt over this, make it so that if you logged off with tank mods active for PvP flags, the pvp timer will reset. (for when that carrier logoffskies with reppers going). 2. Make it so that when you accept a mission, the agent/mission/deadspace is given a 'pass' to this agression timer. You are, afterall, for the mostpart, going after pirates for a empire corporation, on their behalf, they have a budy in concord who will 'look past' this aggression, for the sake of ... blah blah. .... 2a. butthurt? make it so if the mission is vs Empire factions (kill caldari, or amarr, etc) that this 'pass' is revoked (opposite for pirate faction missions) 3. All mods/drones stay active. .... 3a this will mean a potential to perma-reset pvp timers, if some one was foolish enough to keep drones on a hard-target. .... 3b. Means missioners will have to time their tanks to survive, or, god forbid, permatank. ... 3c. Cloaks stay active. cover your butt, but suffer through having the terible effects of fitting cloaks. makes this viable.
i dont know, i think mostly ... the npc timer is ... a good idea (and i am/was a hard core missioner, in fragile ships). 0.0 ratting and security can be frustratingly crappy for people because of log-off-jerks.
but missions.... MAY need an exception...
OR, revamp log-off so that mods stay active (so long as there is cap).
often, 5 minutes is enough to get EVE back after a crash... ISP crashes are a whole other issue... which is why leaving mods active is still a solution, because CCP can blame YOU for not having an acceptable fit/everything online ... not their dumb mechanic.
|

Bart Starr
Aggressive Structural Steel Expediting Services
106
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 04:49:00 -
[756] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Bart Starr wrote:Still doesn't explain why boarding a new ship is prohibited, or why ejecting from a ship is prohibited. GǪaside from explaining the scenario (and any variations thereov) they want to avoid. It's not just the Orca they're going after, so fixing that problem doesn't solve anything. It's the problem of saving your ship when you have already lost it. You can still eject and enter ships GÇö you just have to deaggress to do so (and with some of the tweaks suggested earlier in the thread, it might even be possible let GTFO-ejections back in).
Your scenario was the 'stuff the dying T3 into an Orca than escape to highsec' trick. Yes, got that. But it all relies on Orcas. I fail to see how you can replicate the scenario you described without the Orca.
Second, I believe last year CCP disallowed Orcas from scooping ships that are targeted. They patched the Orca to disallow 'boarding' mid combat in highsec. Simply include carriers and introduce the patch in lowsec as well. It was mystifying why they only nerfed that particular ability in highsec last year when 'the scenario you described' was well known at that point.
A dying ship shouldn't be able to instantly disappear from the field of battle while locked and scrammed. Got it, and I agree. Low sec and high sec. So, fix the Orca so it can't eat engaged ships.
Lets pretend that the 'Orca scoop' has been dealt with, WITHOUT chainsawing ejection and reboarding ships.
You seem to imply that ejecting and boarding ships while in a combat situation can somehow 'save your ship when you already have lost it'. I'm just not seeing it. Switching ships can give you a 'new mount' - but it does nothing to prevent the old ship from being destroyed.
Saying that 'you can still switch ships, you just have to de-agress for 60 seconds' is a poor suggestion, because in the profession of mission runner baiting, allowing the target 60 seconds to warp off means 'goodbye CNR'. Your target has docked up.
Or maybe, just maybe they are trying to kill mission runner baiting in highsec as well. After all, what LVL 4 mission runners need is even more protection, don't you think?
I mean, the carebear shot at a Vigil, so its 'not fair' for them to have to fight anything other than a Vigil without being given a 60 second window to dock up first - that your thinking right?? Eliminating the possibility of boarding a Hurricane, on the pretense of preventing the "abusive saving of a Vigil" is laughable. We lose Vigils all the time.
|

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9770
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 04:59:00 -
[757] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote:Your scenario was the 'stuff the dying T3 into an Orca than escape to highsec' trick. Yes, got that. But it all relies on Orcas. I fail to see how you can replicate the scenario you described without the Orca/carrier. And that's just the point: remove the Orca and some other way will be found to replicate it, so GÇ£fixingGÇ¥ the Orca doesn't solve anything. Instead, they're going after the mechanic that's actually problematic: the ability to get a new ship out of [wherever] in the middle of a fight or to whisk one away when it's lost.
The ejection/boarding restrictions take care of all cases without having to code each and every one of them and adding more and more code as new variations are found. It takes care of the actual problem rather than uselessly trying to chase all unique and specific instances of it.
Quote:Saying that 'you can still switch ships, you just have to de-agress for 60 seconds' is a poor suggestion, because in the profession of mission runner baiting, allowing the target 60 seconds to warp off means 'goodbye CNR'. Your target has docked up. Tough. So figure out a way to bait him without shooting him until you've had the chance to change ships. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|

OT Smithers
BLOMI
196
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 05:00:00 -
[758] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote: Still doesn't explain why boarding a new ship is prohibited, or why ejecting from a ship is prohibited.
([b]Edit for space)
There is no question that everything you talked about is a legitimate tactic within the current rules. The question: is this the way that the developers would like the game to be played. The answer, clearly, is no.
Some people enjoy preying on high-sec players. That's what makes Eve fun for them. They have developed elaborate strategies to not only grief and kill these players, but to do so with absolutely no risk to themselves. This has created an environment in which high sec players learn that their only recourse is to tolerate the griefing, ignore the humiliation, and wait for the offenders to get bored and go away.
CCP wants a game in which everyone engaged in PvP has the risk of losing their ship. Under the current rules this is not the case, but with these changes it will come closer to reality.
You will no longer be able to steal with impunity. You will no longer be able to get agro in one ship, then change to another after the battle is joined. You will no longer be able to use remote reps with immunity. You will no longer be able to ignore the docking timers that everyone else has to operate under. You will no longer be able to instantly escape webs, scrams, and neuts at will.
In short, you will have to risk your ship if you want to grief other people.
Does this kill PvP? Hardly. If anything it encourages it. Instead of training newer players to never, ever fight back because they CANNOT win, they will instead learn to evaluate the risk and potentially even plan for victory. It will still be very difficult for them. You will still have every advantage. But after this change an advantage is all you will have. |

OT Smithers
BLOMI
196
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 05:10:00 -
[759] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:I'll ask again.
Dear CCP,
Is there a specific reason why you want to raise the safe hauling limit for Freighters to the neighborhood of 10b ISK?
The answer is self-evident.
Eve is a sandbox, not a slaughterhouse. Suicide killing in high sec should not be a career path, it should be a high cost / low return activity that no one engages in on a whim. And if it costs you ten billion isk to suicide gank a ship that's worth two billion, what of it? No one is forcing you to suicide gank anyone -- and your ability to do so as a career path is not an inherent right of the sandbox. |

Pipa Porto
1147
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 05:33:00 -
[760] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:I'll ask again.
Dear CCP,
Is there a specific reason why you want to raise the safe hauling limit for Freighters to the neighborhood of 10b ISK? The answer is self-evident. Eve is a sandbox, not a slaughterhouse. Suicide killing in high sec should not be a career path, it should be a high cost / low return activity that no one engages in on a whim. And if it costs you ten billion isk to suicide gank a ship that's worth two billion, what of it? No one is forcing you to suicide gank anyone -- and your ability to do so as a career path is not an inherent right of the sandbox.
Ganking is only profitable when the victim makes it so. Ganking a Freighter right now costs about a half billion ISK and nets maybe 5m in salvage. If the Freighter pilot chooses to alter those numbers by filling it with more value that he can protect, why should he be safe?
Nobody's forcing you to carry more ISK in your Freighter than you can protect, so your ability to do so as a career path is not an inherent right of the sandbox. See, your silly argument works both ways. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|

Empress Shadowfox Ordo
The Shadowfox Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 06:00:00 -
[761] - Quote
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. |

Bart Starr
Aggressive Structural Steel Expediting Services
106
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 06:05:00 -
[762] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Bart Starr wrote:Your scenario was the 'stuff the dying T3 into an Orca than escape to highsec' trick. Yes, got that. But it all relies on Orcas. I fail to see how you can replicate the scenario you described without the Orca/carrier. And that's just the point: remove the Orca and some other way will be found to replicate it, so GÇ£fixingGÇ¥ the Orca doesn't solve anything. Instead, they're going after the mechanic that's actually problematic: the ability to get a new ship out of [wherever] in the middle of a fight or to whisk one away when it's lost.
I just said, "I fail to see how it can be replicated without the Orca" as in, fix the Orca, fix the problem. No need to restrict ejecting or boarding ships at all. After all, the fix doesn't have to be ship specific. It merely has to apply to all Ship Maintenence Bays.
Just humor me for a second.
CNR chooses to shoot at a looting ninja in a Vigil. Vigil tackles the CNR, but can't kill the CNR. Ninja Alt brings a Hurricane to the mission space and ejects. Vigil pilot jumps into the Hurricane and re-tackles. Vigil floats in space, and is thus destroyed. Hurricane then destroys CNR.
Fair or unfair? Nothing was 'saved' or 'whisked away', after all. If you consider this to be 'unfair', there really isn't any point in continuing the debate. You simply want mission baiting gone - or at minimum, believe that mission runners are somehow entitled to a 60 second escape window after they initiated an engagement with a 'harmless' frigate.
Personally I consider it to be a 'fair' tactic. The Vigil is fair game, and can be destroyed. The Hurricane is fair game and can be destroyed. The ninja is not required break the tackle. The CNR can bring in others to help attack the suspect. The new AI will make doing all of this far more unpredictable.
All you have to do is prevent the Orca or (enter Ship Maintence Bay ship here) from 'scooping' or ''whisking away' ships. And you can easily do that without eliminating 'ejecting' (a valid escape tactic for pods....) or 'boarding' (ie, ninja baiting) |

Bart Starr
Aggressive Structural Steel Expediting Services
106
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 06:17:00 -
[763] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:
You will no longer be able to steal with impunity. You will no longer be able to get agro in one ship, then change to another after the battle is joined. You will no longer be able to use remote reps with immunity. You will no longer be able to ignore the docking timers that everyone else has to operate under. You will no longer be able to instantly escape webs, scrams, and neuts at will.
In short, you will have to risk your ship if you want to grief other people.
Lets go down the list: 1) You don't get to steal with impunity now. (The entire corporation can retailate) 2) Not abusive, as long as all ships remain on the battlefield. If you "Got Aggro" it means you were shot at, after all. A carebear in a Battleship thought it would be fun to pop your Vigil....why should these aggressive carebears be defended? 3) You can't remote rep with immunity now. A RR player gets flagged. Hard to dock up in mission space, after all. 4) Ignore docking timers? What are you talking about? An orca isn't a starbase. POS's don't have docking timers either. 5) You can't right now, in highsec. If you are webbed or scrammed, locked, being shot at - you can't dock in an Orca. This should apply to lowsec as well, of course.
|

Med'an Medivh
Super Mining Bros - 3D
5
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 06:18:00 -
[764] - Quote
I have probably completely misunderstood this, but are you intending that attacking mission rats will get me a flag, and that anybody/everybody who sees me is legal to try and kill me, while I'm waiting for the timer to wear off so I can dock and turn in the mission??? ... nevermind the fact I've never had to sit outside a station and wait out a timer in order to complete a mission! And also we have to loot containers in most missions...we're going to get suspect flags for this??? 
For crying out loud brand new Eve players who have been here for 15 minutes have to kill a mission rat in the third AURA tutorial. Surely you're not intending every other Eve player to be able to gank the new players the second they leave the INTRO TUTORIAL mission??? I must be reading this all wrong...otherwise you're going to lose every single new Eve player withing the first hour of starting to play the game. |

Pipa Porto
1147
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 06:31:00 -
[765] - Quote
Med'an Medivh wrote:I have probably completely misunderstood this
You have. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9770
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 07:00:00 -
[766] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote:I just said, "I fail to see how it can be replicated without the Orca" GǪand that's fine, but it's also just you and just right now. The Orca is not the problem so fixing it is pretty meaningless. Sure, you could also fix the Orca, but that would be for different reasons (e.g. extending the notion of GǣsupportGǥ).
The problem is obtaining and hiding ships when you shouldn't. That is what's being fixed, and it's being fixed at the root rather than treating one specific incarnation of it. You'll notice that the exact same rules also affect corp hangars at POSes, in carriers, and in any other guise they may appear, as well as stations and other dockables in whatever form those may appear GÇö now and in the future. When they invent new ways of storing and delivering ships, those will automatically also be covered because they have chosen to go for the root cause rather than the symptoms. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|

Cerulean Ice
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
31
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 07:33:00 -
[767] - Quote
ihcn wrote:I think the current state of hisec is fine. EVE is about decisions. Right now, a miner in a hulk has to decide "Should I jetcan mine? My cargo is small, so it would greatly improve my ability to solo mine, but there are risks, so im not sure". That's great. After this change goes in, the risk for jetcan mining will be reduced in a gigantic way. Now the miners don't have to make that decision and the game becomes dumber. In what way does the decision faced by the miner change? No part of the new crimewatch will change how jetcan mining works. It won't prevent anyone from flipping the can. The only thing it does is let anyone shoot the flipper if he doesn't leave after the theft. It doesn't broadcast a giant WARP TO ME beacon. It doesn't make him asplode for no reason. It only lets the thief get shot at by someone other than the miner. That's the only difference between the old and new crimewatch.
ihcn wrote:This is just one example. Another example, which I face every day, is how much ISK worth of stuff to put in a hauler that has to fly through niarja or uedama. 100 million? 300 million? 2 billion? If you put too much, people looking for profit will blow up your ship and take the loot. After the crime watch changes take effect, it will be much harder to profit off of suicide ganks, meaning I have less risk, and therefore I will have fewer decisions to make, and the game once again becomes dumber.
Pipa Porto wrote:I'll ask again. Dear CCP, Is there a specific reason why you want to raise the safe hauling limit for Freighters to the neighborhood of 10b ISK? How does any change to crimewatch and flagging affect the amount of firepower (and thus isk) required to destroy a hauler? Quick answer: it doesn't. There will be zero change to what it takes to gank a hauler and have it be profitable. No extra costs, no extra losses. Gate guns will shoot you in both the new and old system. Concord will show up in highsec in both the new and old system. The only real difference between new and old? Your sec status won't drop below -5 unless you break some eggs. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9770
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 07:39:00 -
[768] - Quote
Cerulean Ice wrote:How does any change to crimewatch and flagging affect the amount of firepower (and thus isk) required to destroy a hauler? Quick answer: it doesn't. There will be zero change to what it takes to gank a hauler and have it be profitable. No extra costs, no extra losses. Gate guns will shoot you in both the new and old system. Concord will show up in highsec in both the new and old system. The only real difference between new and old? Your sec status won't drop below -5 unless you break some eggs. The difference is that there is a higher chance of not getting the loot and that the most direct method means a second halving of the expected drop rate (on top of additional costs to get it).
Granted, proper prep and technique should be able to improve those odds massively, but stillGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|

Cerulean Ice
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
31
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 07:50:00 -
[769] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Cerulean Ice wrote:How does any change to crimewatch and flagging affect the amount of firepower (and thus isk) required to destroy a hauler? Quick answer: it doesn't. There will be zero change to what it takes to gank a hauler and have it be profitable. No extra costs, no extra losses. Gate guns will shoot you in both the new and old system. Concord will show up in highsec in both the new and old system. The only real difference between new and old? Your sec status won't drop below -5 unless you break some eggs. The difference is that there is a higher chance of not getting the loot and that the most direct method means a second halving of the expected drop rate (on top of additional costs to get it). Granted, proper prep and technique should be able to improve those odds massively, but stillGǪ I don't see it. There is no change to the odds of loot dropping. Stealing from cans/wrecks doesn't cause a sec hit or criminal flag, so gate guns and concord won't get involved. There would be a little more risk for the looter if he gets a suspect flag, but aligning before looting should be the standard anyway. Looting doesn't prevent docking.
Where does the higher chance of not getting the loot come from? |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9770
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 07:55:00 -
[770] - Quote
Cerulean Ice wrote:I don't see it. You pop freighter; you use your own freighter to take the loot; your freighter is now free-for-all and gets popped. Each pop halves the expected loot drop, so instead of -+ it is now -+ (and needs to pay for the lost freighter as well).
Compare this to the current situation where the only menace to that freighter is a guy who's sitting in a pod. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
|

Cerulean Ice
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
31
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 07:59:00 -
[771] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Cerulean Ice wrote:I don't see it. You pop freighter; you use your own freighter to take the loot; your freighter is now free-for-all and gets popped. Each pop halves the expected loot drop, so instead of -+ it is now -+ (and needs to pay for the lost freighter as well). Compare this to the current situation where the only menace to that freighter is a guy who's sitting in a pod. So the freighter has to align before he loots now. As I said, it should be the standard anyway. If you align for station, with the loot window and your cargo open, and the station selected, it's a simple two click procedure to be in the safety of warp immediately. Select all the loot, drag the loot into your cargo, click warp to station. Safe. No risk to the freighter. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9770
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 08:06:00 -
[772] - Quote
Cerulean Ice wrote:So the freighter has to align before he loots now. As I said, it should be the standard anyway. If you align for station, with the loot window and your cargo open, and the station selected, it's a simple two click procedure to be in the safety of warp immediately. Select all the loot, drag the loot into your cargo, click warp to station. Safe. No risk to the freighter. Sure, but as described, that procedure takes a minute and a half, giving scavengers ample time to pick the juicy bits (after which you can try to shoot them, obviously, but that once again halves the expected drop). Freighters aren't exactly drive-by superstars.
So the actual solution requires a bit more finesseGǪ. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|

Cerulean Ice
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
31
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 08:09:00 -
[773] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Cerulean Ice wrote:So the freighter has to align before he loots now. As I said, it should be the standard anyway. If you align for station, with the loot window and your cargo open, and the station selected, it's a simple two click procedure to be in the safety of warp immediately. Select all the loot, drag the loot into your cargo, click warp to station. Safe. No risk to the freighter. Sure, but as described, that procedure takes a minute and a half, giving scavengers ample time to pick the juicy bits (after which you can try to shoot them, obviously, but that once again halves the expected drop). Freighters aren't exactly drive-by superstars. So the actual solution requires a bit more finesseGǪ. Or a few corpmates with webs ^^
Edit: Just came across this. It's worth a look. themittani.com report on crimewatch |

Pipa Porto
1148
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 08:23:00 -
[774] - Quote
Cerulean Ice wrote:Tippia wrote:Cerulean Ice wrote:I don't see it. You pop freighter; you use your own freighter to take the loot; your freighter is now free-for-all and gets popped. Each pop halves the expected loot drop, so instead of -+ it is now -+ (and needs to pay for the lost freighter as well). Compare this to the current situation where the only menace to that freighter is a guy who's sitting in a pod. So the freighter has to align before he loots now. As I said, it should be the standard anyway. If you align for station, with the loot window and your cargo open, and the station selected, it's a simple two click procedure to be in the safety of warp immediately. Select all the loot, drag the loot into your cargo, click warp to station. Safe. No risk to the freighter.
If only there were some way to prevent a Freighter from aligning... hmmm. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Katarina Reid
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
237
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 08:37:00 -
[775] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Cerulean Ice wrote:Tippia wrote:Cerulean Ice wrote:I don't see it. You pop freighter; you use your own freighter to take the loot; your freighter is now free-for-all and gets popped. Each pop halves the expected loot drop, so instead of -+ it is now -+ (and needs to pay for the lost freighter as well). Compare this to the current situation where the only menace to that freighter is a guy who's sitting in a pod. So the freighter has to align before he loots now. As I said, it should be the standard anyway. If you align for station, with the loot window and your cargo open, and the station selected, it's a simple two click procedure to be in the safety of warp immediately. Select all the loot, drag the loot into your cargo, click warp to station. Safe. No risk to the freighter. If only there were some way to prevent a Freighter from aligning... hmmm.
Since when can freighters loot? |

Don Salaris
Don's Private Corp Joint Venture Conglomerate
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 08:38:00 -
[776] - Quote
I gave up after reading 10 pages, so excuse me if this has been set before. As a high-sec care-bear I'll limit my comments to what I do in high-sec
If you want rules to be easily understood, then they need to reflect normal behavior in RL. And last time I checked when someone yelled 'thief'' a public lynching is not really the normal way to react.
What do I do today as 'aggression' ' : * well if I find a ship-wreck floating around and the contents is nice enough , then I not only salvage it but take the contents too. After evaluating the risk ofc ( the owner is still in system (or alot of his mates)) . Usually that's just someone who get in over their head in an anomalie or got shot down at a gate (for one reason or another). * I shoot pirate-factions ships in belts.
Both things are not very logical at the moment, and will also not be so in the new system as I understand.
If would be a lot more logical RL rules where implemented :
1/ If you steal something and no one is around (= someone who is connected to the object by corps/alliance/fleet) then don't report the theft. And 'around' means in a 100-200 km range or so. If someone is around, you get reported. This can be calculated before hand, so that you get a warning 'You are stealing. You will be reported/not reported for this. bla bla to explain it for new players'. Once the calculation is done, it's irrelevant of if someone still shows up in highsec. In low-sec you can recalculate when the action actually occurs.
Remark1 : NPC's (concord etc...-¦ do not report, it must be player driven. Otherwise people could dump alot of stuff at gates without risk. A logical explanation can be that the 'police' only intervenes after a complaint for non physical attacks.
Remark2 : for jetcan miners this will pose a problem. When they get a transporter their can will be unattended and can be stolen without repercussions. But frankly if you leave a briefcase somewhere in a street and then go for a walk, who is surprised when it's gone when you come back? So either they have to keep a guard in the neighbourhood or take the risk. Perhaps it would be doable to reduce the visibiliy of cans. so that a flipper does not get a complete overview once he reaches a belt. but that he only sees those within 20 km or so. All that ore in those belts must surely hamper scans... :)
2/ If you are reported, then getting shot at by everyone is not normal. And not logical in Eve's world of corps with their self-interest. You should be a target for the corps/alliance/fleet. And you also get the attention of the 'police'. That last one must not be total destruction but perhaps a fine or so. Even here you can build in some gradation : with low security toons getting more attention (=higher fines) from concord then the ones with high security levels. Now if that is hard to implement or not, is really irrelevant. Just be creative :)
3/ Pirates are pirates. They are not really well-liked in RL. So shooting at/stealing from/.... someone belonging to a pirate-faction should always be allowed without repurcussions. Getting flagged for aggro is ridicoulous. Pirates should not get 'legal' rights to fight back. They are pirates. What do they care for legal rights.
Just my 5 cents. |

Cismet
The Argo's
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 08:41:00 -
[777] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Kmelx wrote:Bottom line is if they commit a crime in low sec and jump to high sec concord should blap them for it, the same as they do now, it shouldn't be a possible survival strategy for pirates to run away and hide in high sec. People commiting criminal acts in low security space shouldn't be able to run and hide in supposedly high sec space, its completley backwards. They can't run and hide in highsec any more than they can in lowsec, and even so, didn't that sound a bit backwards to you? GÇ£High sec spaceGÇ¥ sounds exactly like where you would go to run and hide. 
That's a very silly thing to say and is the equivalent of saying "If I go burgle someone's house and I'm wanted, the safest place for me to hide must be in or around a police station." If you're a criminal, you're a criminal. That's simple. Now in reality I don't much care, there are ways in and out of low-sec regardless of this. Go find a wormhole and go in that way. There are ways around all of this but why are you suddenly not a criminal just because you're on the frontier? If anything justice on the frontier should be harsher? Okay so the gate sentries will still forget about you but if you go through to high-sec you should be wanted.
I find the pod situation interesting though, I foresee some hide and seek games around systems as you wait for the timer to expire on you before you can dock having lost a fight. The bit that does cause me some concern is allowing pod-kills for aggression. I was always under the impression that pod-killing was always outlawed in High-Sec, why allow it under those circumstances, is it meant to be a potential drawback to gankers if they lose?
To the people who think that can-flipping as a career is dead, of course it isn't. Can flipping is dead (and should be) when you literally move the contents of one can directly into another can. How does it suddenly become your stuff? It was simply a cheap mechanism to try and force a miner to engage. Nothing wrong with that but if you want to can flip you should actually steal the stuff, not just move it to a new container. It's still the miner's stuff, you've just wrapped it in a shiny new can for them and that's how it should be as I see it. |

Witchking Angmar
Perkele.
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 08:43:00 -
[778] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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. I was under the impression this was intentionally changed back, seeing as how giving interdictors the weapons flag for launching a bubble is ********. 
|

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9770
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 08:54:00 -
[779] - Quote
Katarina Reid wrote:Since when can freighters loot? Since roughly forever, but only from freighter wrecks.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|

Kumbu Valley
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 08:56:00 -
[780] - Quote
Please think about change the legal owner of wrecks to the following: - former owner player - fleet & corp (both) of aggressing player
Else at the moment I dont not understand how it shall be possible to loot ANY wreck at in high sec at all. No matter if the ship was killed within war or by legal counter attack or even by GCC gank attack. I dont think you want to make looting nearly impossible, especial with having a few more other player around. I hope but I expect you to have thought sufficiently about this. Regards. |
|

Kitsune io
Pariah Nation The Ancients.
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 09:14:00 -
[781] - Quote
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 |

Raging Beaver
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 11:23:00 -
[782] - Quote
Brunaburh wrote:You didn't read enough. The ejection lock only occurs when you aggress, according to masterplan
So? I am to understand that prior to ejecting, I am to cease fire? This makes it better? I don't think so.
|

Sola Mercury
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
31
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 12:01:00 -
[783] - Quote
" Limited Engagements
The personal-flags system tidies up a lot of problems with the old system, but still leaves us with a couple of cases that aren't covered. The main one is that a suspect can be freely attacked, but he has no way to defend himself from attack without committing further crimes. We want to ensure that a player always has a right to self-defense, even if he is A Bad Guy. To solve this, we still require a form of A-B flagging. However this will be heavily limited in application, and won't be propagated via assistance chains like the existing aggression flags are. This is where we introduce the concept of a Limited Engagement. An LE is between a pair of characters. (Always characters, not corps, alliances, factions or anything else). An LE gives each party a legal right to attack the other, without triggering any Legal flag. An LE is ACTIVE as long as offensive actions are on-going. Once offensive acts have stopped, it will begin to count down. Resuming hostilities will reset the timer. If the timer expires (probably 15 minutes but still TBC) then the LE is ended. An LE is created when character A attacks character B, and where B is globally-attackable due to being a Suspect, Criminal or Outlaw. This then allows B to defend himself against A. Like Criminal and Suspect flags, An LE is only effective in empire space. Assisting someone who is engaged in an LE will cause the assistor to receive a Suspect flag. This is to prevent neutral logistics interfering in ongoing combat without risk to themselves."
See bolded part. This seems to cause problems. Imagine this: Caracter B sits in a incusion fleet and is repped by some logi C in his fleet. A shows up and opens illegally fire at B. Now a LE is going on between A and B
If C continues to rep B, he can be legally killed by everyone. |

Kilroy Nightbarr
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 12:47:00 -
[784] - Quote
Ejection mechanic is bad, I agree with the posts on that. If the problem is ship scooping, fix that, but don't do this. Abandoning a T3 is a hard choice, but it should be an available one. Same for trying to save a pod from insta-lockers in a non-T3.
As for can-flipping giving everyone the ability to shoot you, this won't end up protecting miners or noobs. Example: Character 1 flips a can and warps off to log/cloak/leave system. Noob/miner sees he is gone and takes his stuff back, is now fair game for everyone, and Character 1's cloaked alt (or anyone else nearby who happens to be watching) blasts him to bits. |

Cismet
The Argo's
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 13:24:00 -
[785] - Quote
Kilroy Nightbarr wrote:Ejection mechanic is bad, I agree with the posts on that. If the problem is ship scooping, fix that, but don't do this. Abandoning a T3 is a hard choice, but it should be an available one. Same for trying to save a pod from insta-lockers in a non-T3.
As for can-flipping giving everyone the ability to shoot you, this won't end up protecting miners or noobs. Example: Character 1 flips a can and warps off to log/cloak/leave system. Noob/miner sees he is gone and takes his stuff back, is now fair game for everyone, and Character 1's cloaked alt (or anyone else nearby who happens to be watching) blasts him to bits.
I think the general gist was that the person you can-flipped can take his stuff back consequence free if you leave it floating around in space. This would make the general concept of a small ship putting your stuff in a new can very difficult as you could just take it back without consequence while they get the aggression flag. At least that's how I (and apparently many others) have read it. |

Che Biko
Humanitarian Communists
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 13:47:00 -
[786] - Quote
Hmmm, the dev's have probably stopped reading this thread by the time I get to post in it, as usual, but I'll comment just in case.
I think that getting a criminal flag for targetted assistance against a player in an LE is kinda overkill by multiple factors, and is kind of unfair to "non-violent" pilots vs violent pilots, not to mention kind of illogical to have bigger consequences for non-violent assistance than violent assistance..
If A attacks Suspect B, and C comes to assist A by shooting at B, C will just get caught in an LE. But if C comes to assist by repping A, he gets a suspect flag.
My preferred way of dealing with this is that the player (C) who engages in targetted assistance against another player caught in an LE (A) would get the LE "flag" transferred to him as well. It seems more consistent that way to me. I suspect you have a good reason for not doing it my way, I'm guessing a technical one, but I'd really like to hear that reason. CCP, I don't want to have a signature anymore, but I can't remove it. |

Gaia Ma'chello
V.I.C.E.
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 14:27:00 -
[787] - 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 "Targeting an offensive module" means you shoot. A target lock comes from your ship, not a module. |

Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
65
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 14:48:00 -
[788] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:I'll ask again.
Dear CCP,
Is there a specific reason why you want to raise the safe hauling limit for Freighters to the neighborhood of 10b ISK? It's not 10B. It will be the same cost as it is now. It's just gonna require alot more hassle and alts to handle.
You gank the hauler. Your freighter warps to the wreck and drops a can (freighters can do that now, right?), and then you have another alt who is fleeted with the freighter, he moves all the loot from the wreck to the can. The freighter just pulls from the can that he dropped, and has no problems with flagging. It effectively "launders" the stolen loot. Obviously not everything from the wreck is going to fit in the can, so it's an ongoing drop-and-pull of items. As long as you don't completely empty the can, there shouldn't be a problem. However, since that alt pulls a Suspect flag, odds are he's gonna get popped by some hero. So you need a few alts. And if freighters can't drop cans, then you'll need another alt for can dropping. So a major pain in the ass, but better than sacrificing a freighter.
|

Noslen Nosilla
Federal Logistics Initiative Conglomerate
18
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 15:14:00 -
[789] - Quote
What happens between members of the same corp doing inter corp duels for fun?  Do they get concorded? Shot at by gate guns? Oh Great Bird of the Galaxy does no one ever read the news? |

Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
911
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 16:28:00 -
[790] - Quote
Can we have the same rules as Logistics Assistance apply to gang boosters?
i.e. if a booster is boosting someone who has a PVP flag (>than assistor flag) then they go suspect? Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
|

Marrano Cardosa
Revenent Defence Corperation Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
5
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 16:43:00 -
[791] - Quote
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). |

Bart Starr
Aggressive Structural Steel Expediting Services
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 16:43:00 -
[792] - Quote
Kumbu Valley wrote:Please think about change the legal owner of wrecks to the following: - former owner player - fleet & corp (both) of aggressing / killed by player
Else at the moment I dont not understand how it shall be possible to loot ANY wreck at in high sec at all. No matter if the ship was killed within war or by legal counter attack or even by GCC gank attack. I dont think you want to make looting nearly impossible, especial with having a few more other player around. I hope but I expect you to have thought sufficiently about this. Regards.
Personally, I think PVP wrecks should just be blue.
But I think this would work as well.
Would allow gankers 'rights' to the loot by simply being in fleet or corp, without having to jump through ridiculous hoops. After all, killing a freighter is already a fairly monumental task in highsec. Plus its easy to code and makes sense.....
Unfortunately, CCP will not consider this because they are only concerning themselves with creating a highsec carebear theme park. |

Bart Starr
Aggressive Structural Steel Expediting Services
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 16:50:00 -
[793] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Bart Starr wrote:I just said, "I fail to see how it can be replicated without the Orca" GǪand that's fine, but it's also just you and just right now. The Orca is not the problem so fixing it is pretty meaningless. Sure, you could also fix the Orca, but that would be for different reasons (e.g. extending the notion of GÇ£supportGÇ¥). The problem is obtaining and hiding ships when you shouldn't. That is what's being fixed, and it's being fixed at the root rather than treating one specific incarnation of it. You'll notice that the exact same rules also affect corp hangars at POSes, in carriers, and in any other guise they may appear, as well as stations and other dockables in whatever form those may appear GÇö now and in the future. When they invent new ways of storing and delivering ships, those will automatically also be covered because they have chosen to go for the root cause rather than the symptoms.
Uh, What did I just say? You didn't even read my post, did you?
I said 'fixing Maintenence Bays'. That affects every ship with one, Orcas - and all 'future' Orcas.
The scenario that I asked you to comment on didn't even include an Orca - simply an alt bringing a new ship to the mission space and ejecting. I asked you if you considered that scenario to be 'fair or unfair' so I can understand where you are coming from....
Your failure here is that you consider ejecting and boarding a ship to be the 'root cause' of the problem, and eliminating these abilities is a good thing because it eliminates two 'fringe' uses.
I'm trying to demonstrate that eliminating 'ejecting or boarding' while in combat removes a number of tactics which are anything but abusive, for no good reason.
Fix the fringe case, impede the act of scooping an engaged ship with ANY ship with a Small Maintenence Hangar.
Bang, Problem solved. Prove me wrong.
|

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9772
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 17:02:00 -
[794] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote:]Uh, What did I just say? You didn't even read my post, did you? Yes I did. How about you give me the same courtesy.
Quote:I said 'fixing Maintenence Bays'. That affects every ship with one, Orcas - and all 'future' Orcas. GǪand still doesn't address the actual problem, but rather treats the symptoms. Fixing the fringe case does nothing to sort out the problem they're seeing, whereas getting rid of the problem itself does, and it covers all current and future incarnation of that problem regardless of the method used. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|

T'Shorin
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 17:13:00 -
[795] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:T'Shorin wrote:If I am reading the charts and discussion correctly, using ECM creates a W flag, preventing jumping/docking/ejecting. But isn't ECM a defensive action, or is it only ECM bursts? Judging from the forums, I would class ECM as offensive. Heck, class ECM as indecent Please explain how someone warping into my mission or anomaly and jamming my logistics/tracking link a lot is not an offensive action?
I should clarify, I meant more as a response to aggression where the target is legal. ECMing someone who is not in flagged against you would generate an "S" I would expect (in high sec) |

ihcn
Life. Universe. Everything. Clockwork Pineapple
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 17:48:00 -
[796] - Quote
Cerulean Ice wrote:ihcn wrote:This is just one example. Another example, which I face every day, is how much ISK worth of stuff to put in a hauler that has to fly through niarja or uedama. 100 million? 300 million? 2 billion? If you put too much, people looking for profit will blow up your ship and take the loot. After the crime watch changes take effect, it will be much harder to profit off of suicide ganks, meaning I have less risk, and therefore I will have fewer decisions to make, and the game once again becomes dumber. Pipa Porto wrote:I'll ask again. Dear CCP, Is there a specific reason why you want to raise the safe hauling limit for Freighters to the neighborhood of 10b ISK? How does any change to crimewatch and flagging affect the amount of firepower (and thus isk) required to destroy a hauler? Quick answer: it doesn't. There will be zero change to what it takes to gank a hauler and have it be profitable. No extra costs, no extra losses. Gate guns will shoot you in both the new and old system. Concord will show up in highsec in both the new and old system. The only real difference between new and old? Your sec status won't drop below -5 unless you break some eggs.
It's pretty clear after this post that you weren't even tryiung to read my post. They can kill my ship all they want, but it will be much harder to profit off of it, and thus more people won't bother It's not that difficult to understand.
|

Kaelarian
Handsome Millionaire Playboys Flatline.
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 18:23:00 -
[797] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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.
Blog wrote:Note that we're not attempting to dumb down the system, or restrict what you can or cannot do.
Except that you're now arbitrarily preventing everyone from tactically ejecting just because some players abuse the mechanic above. What's to stop the orca? There are several options:
- They could be flagged:
- by carrying over/synchronizing the current flags of the ship owner (which hopefully wouldn't require flagging the ship, just tracking the ship's owner), or
- by flagging the ship and syncing its flags to the orca pilot, or
- by giving any SMA ship a W flag for scooping a ship in space, preventing it from jumping through a gate/docking/etc for 60 seconds under any circumstance. (might be harsh, but should be enough to solve the abuse problems and be simple to implement)
- They could be prevented from scooping a ship that is being targeted. (probably a good idea regardless)
Personally, even if it takes more work to code, I think any ship scooping a ship that was recently in combat should be flagged as a valid target for whomever was shooting the scooped ship and the offending orca should be prevented from running through a gate (W flagged) to escape penalty. This is clearly an abuse. If you want to fly an expensive ship anywhere you should be prepared to lose it.
While the ejection prevention has wiespread drawbacks argued by others here, you are currently not even adequately addressing the cited abuse by only preventing pilots with a W flag from ejecting for 60s. Some T3s, faction BSs, and other pricey ships can have pretty hefty tanks, esp under remote repair. 60 seconds can be plenty of time for them to deaggress, eject, and let their ship be scooped and saved without any penalty to them when they don't think a fight is going their way. And just to be clear, "solving" this by preventing anyone with a PVP flag from ejecting would be ridiculous and further upset quite a lot of players.
There are a lot of other reasons to want to eject shortly before your ship is destroyed (besides evading SP loss, which is stupid but a risk we take*), especially attempting to save an expensive pod, or any pod living in WH space. Skill plays a part in saving your pod at any time but, unless you have a quality ISP, session change lag is often enough that fast locking ships like double sebo zealots will have already locked and killed your pod before you even respawn on grid (visually). Being able to eject at least introduces uncertainty as to when to try and target you so you have a better chance to escape.
Kilroy Nightbarr wrote:Ejection mechanic is bad, I agree with the posts on that. If the problem is ship scooping, fix that, but don't do this. Abandoning a T3 is a hard choice, but it should be an available one. Same for trying to save a pod from insta-lockers in a non-T3.
As for can-flipping giving everyone the ability to shoot you, this won't end up protecting miners or noobs. Example: Character 1 flips a can and warps off to log/cloak/leave system. Noob/miner sees he is gone and takes his stuff back, is now fair game for everyone, and Character 1's cloaked alt (or anyone else nearby who happens to be watching) blasts him to bits.
Regarding ejection of T3s, there are 3 scenarios to consider if you decide to eject from one in combat: If you eject too early, the enemy is likely to steal your ship, which is embarrassing. If you wait too long, you blow up and lose SP. It can be tricky to find that middle ground as is so that they don't steal it and you avoid SP loss in many situations. Ofc, this is not considering having a orca-alt land on field to scoop it at the last minute.
*I have never liked or agreed with any mechanic that takes away skill points (eg clone penalties). Since you train in real time you are quite literally buying skill points. Any SP loss is direct hit to what you've paid into the game, in time and money. That said I fly T3s occasionally at the risk of losing SP anyway. |

Kumbu Valley
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 18:37:00 -
[798] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote:Kumbu Valley wrote:Please think about change the legal owner of wrecks to the following: - former owner player - fleet & corp (both) of aggressing / killed by player
Else at the moment I dont not understand how it shall be possible to loot ANY wreck at in high sec at all. No matter if the ship was killed within war or by legal counter attack or even by GCC gank attack. I dont think you want to make looting nearly impossible, especial with having a few more other player around. I hope but I expect you to have thought sufficiently about this. Regards. Personally, I think PVP wrecks should just be blue. But I think this would work as well. Would allow gankers 'rights' to the loot by simply being in fleet or corp, without having to jump through ridiculous hoops. After all, killing a freighter is already a fairly monumental task in highsec. Plus its easy to code and makes sense..... Unfortunately, CCP will not consider this because they are only concerning themselves with creating a highsec carebear theme park.
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. |

Komen
Capital Enrichment Services Transmission Lost
142
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 18:53:00 -
[799] - Quote
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.
|

Kilroy Nightbarr
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 19:42:00 -
[800] - Quote
Cismet wrote:Kilroy Nightbarr wrote:As for can-flipping giving everyone the ability to shoot you, this won't end up protecting miners or noobs. Example: Character 1 flips a can and warps off to log/cloak/leave system. Noob/miner sees he is gone and takes his stuff back, is now fair game for everyone, and Character 1's cloaked alt (or anyone else nearby who happens to be watching) blasts him to bits. I think the general gist was that the person you can-flipped can take his stuff back consequence free if you leave it floating around in space.
Looks like I missed that the first time around.
What about this: The Dev Blog says "If I can legally attack the owner of a container, then I can legally take from the container." So I flip a can and become flagged for anyone to shoot. Meaning everyone can legally attack me. Hence anyone can legally take from the can. Doesn't lead to the noob/miner dying, but just by my flipping of the can his stuff is now free for anyone else to steal. Working as intended? What am I missing? |
|

Bubanni
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
462
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 21:12:00 -
[801] - Quote
I would like to know if this also means that "If player B shoots player A, and player A then jumps into next door system and gets killed by player C, will both player C and player B show up on the killmail?" and will the logistic ships also show up on the killmails now since they are getting the same agression as the target they are repping? Christmas wish list https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134275 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934 |

cerberus hates
THE SARCASTIC BASTARDS. Hoist The Colors
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 23:26:00 -
[802] - Quote
i like the pictures, and the whole concept. keep it up guys |

Cordo Draken
ABOS Industrial Enterprises
17
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 23:42:00 -
[803] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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
Still reading through all the Comments, but I saw this and had to respond. While I agree that the T3 Pilot that losses their ship should get penalized... Can't you script it so that if they Eject and the Ship blows up, they'd still lose skill? Kinda like what you guys did with still giving Kill reports for people that Self-destructed their ships to prevent a loss recorded?
Seems Highly unfair, that just because you have this Tech 3 penalty, that all ships must suffer the denial of Ejecting. As I agree, Having the Option to Eject early is critical to most pilots. Denying an "Eject Button" is like saying a Jet Fighter Pilot who's going down can't use his ejection seat until after his plane crashed and becomes a fireball. Does that make any sense? Of course not... Players should always have the option to eject.
I also disagree that player can hope into another unoccupied ship in space. I'm totally for the Denial of the Orca ship hanger swap... but their is more of a risk in doing an out in the open ship swap and can be prevented by alert pilots.
Also, the Criminal flagged player basically can't do diddly... "Just Because..." So, no Concord engaging you... you just can do anything... Seems kinda lame really. Why not just give Concord Very Fast Interceptors with fast tackle? There shouldn't ever be an "Unknown Source" warp jamming you. There should be a very slim chance to get away... just not.. automatic shut down from your own ship.
I do Love all the changes in Majority... You guys did an Awesome job... I just think some things need tweeks to give fairness and more reality to it. I do especially love that you guys added the Suspect flag allowing players to police on a certain Level.
Question though for clarity: If a Neutral Logi Reps a War target, does that make the Logi Suspect or just LE to the opposing Corp? The answer is probably there in the cracks of all the info... I'm just not putting it together at the moment.
Thank you for all this! And I can't wait to see how you guys "Solve" the Bounty system. Hopefully it's being handled with as much thought and effort as this was. Great Job!
Sorry for the WOT,
Cordo eëÆWhomever said, "You only get one shot to make a good impression," was utterly wrong. I've made plenty of great impressions with my AutocannonseëÆ eÉà |

Bart Starr
Aggressive Structural Steel Expediting Services
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 00:08:00 -
[804] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Bart Starr wrote:]Uh, What did I just say? You didn't even read my post, did you? Yes I did. How about you give me the same courtesy. Quote:I said 'fixing Maintenence Bays'. That affects every ship with one, Orcas - and all 'future' Orcas. GǪand still doesn't address the actual problem, but rather treats the symptoms. Fixing the fringe case does nothing to sort out the problem they're seeing, whereas getting rid of the problem itself does, and it covers all current and future incarnation of that problem regardless of the method used. Basically, it's as if there were a problem of remote-selling tritanium while inside a POS: the solution to that problem is not to custom-code a special case for selling trit GÇö it's to fix the remote-selling code so the bug that is triggered by that combination of circumstances goes away.
Why do you think 'boarding' a ship while in combat is a problem that requires fixing?
I've read your posts.
The only scenario you've presented (Stashing a T3 into an Orca on a low to high sec gate) is easily fixed without randomly locking players into their ships because of a weapon cycle. They've already patched the Orca a year ago - just apply that same patch to all Hangars in lowsec AND highsec. (why they limited the last year's patch to high-sec is beyond me)
I've clearly illustrated cases where these abilities are used in a 'legit' way. Abilities that would be eliminated with CCP's chainsaw approach - that you are endorsing.
I've explained how to fix the 'abuse' of removing ships from the field of combat under fire. You insist that doesn't go far enough because 'other ways to abuse the system' are possible..... Yet it has not escaped me that you are completely unable to explain how.
(Tinfoil hat on)
Unless of course, CCP now considers 'mission runner baiting' itself to be the problem. The real problem? Mission running carebears are getting killed. Do you really think that anyone REALLY cares about random T3+Orca skirmishes on low-sec gates?? No.
Its that every day, carebear mission runners insist on shooting at ninja frigates because they are overconfident in the abilities of their ultra-pimp CNR and want an easy KM. Then they lose their multi-billion ISK CNRs and Marauders when the ninja swaps into a Hurricane. The carebear, having lost his ENTIRE net worth - proceeds to blame everyone else, pitch a fit, file a petition and/or quit. I believe these players deserve no sympathy - and the last thing we need to do is make these pilots even 'safer'.
New suspect flags, safety condoms, its all well and good - but it still requires the carebears to coordinate and take advantage of those tools. Carebears, being what they are - probably won't.
Crimewatch is not really about 'punishing criminals' - its about 'protecting carebears who do stupid things'. I just wish CCP would at least have the guts to acknowledge it.
We saw it with the miner buff, we are seeing it again. (tin foil off) |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9774
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 00:26:00 -
[805] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote:Why do you think 'boarding' a ship while in combat is a problem that requires fixing? You'll have to ask CCP that, but it seems rather clear that they think that if you engage in combat in a ship, you should commit to the battle with that ship.
Quote:Yet it has not escaped me that you are completely unable to explain how. What has escaped you is that GÇ£howGÇ¥ is irrelevant. They're removing the ability to reship by putting a block on the actions required to do so, and then the exact hows GÇö past, present, and future GÇö no longer matter. Instead of waiting for people to find new ways, and then removing them, and people finding newer ways still, and then removing those as well, they short-circuit the whole arms race by going after the source of the problem. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|

Bart Starr
Aggressive Structural Steel Expediting Services
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 00:54:00 -
[806] - Quote
What has escaped you is that GÇ£howGÇ¥ is irrelevant. They're removing the ability to reship by putting a block on the actions required to do so, and then the exact hows GÇö past, present, and future GÇö no longer matter. Instead of waiting for people to find new ways, and then removing them, and people finding newer ways still, and then removing those as well, they short-circuit the whole arms race by going after the source of the problem.[/quote]
Perhaps you've forgotten the stated rationale for the original Orca nerf. "Escaping the consequences of initiating combat". Its even on the error message that started popping up after the nerf.
CCP stated that they were unhappy with people hiding doomed ships in Orcas. And I could (grudgingly) understand that, even if I didn't understand why it was ONLY applied to highsec. (most likely? because the nerf was narrowly tailored at mission baiting and crying carebears - not stupid low-sec skirmishes. After all, anyone in lowsec is looking for a fight)
Guess what we have here is simply 'mission creep'. Mission runners were still dying, highsec still not safe enough - so more radical measures were taken by CCP - using fringe cases (T3 SP loss, low-sec to highsec Orca escape) as a fig leaf. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9774
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 01:36:00 -
[807] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote:Perhaps you've forgotten the stated rationale for the original Orca nerf. "Escaping the consequences of initiating combat". GǪand this clears up all such problems without stupidly and needlessly chasing specific instances of it.
Quote:Guess what we have here is simply 'mission creep'. Mission runners were still dying, highsec still not safe enough GǪexcept that the problem mainly resides in lowsec, so your guess makes no sense.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|

Bart Starr
Aggressive Structural Steel Expediting Services
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 02:05:00 -
[808] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Bart Starr wrote:Perhaps you've forgotten the stated rationale for the original Orca nerf. "Escaping the consequences of initiating combat". GǪand this clears up all such problems without stupidly and needlessly chasing specific instances of it. Quote:Guess what we have here is simply 'mission creep'. Mission runners were still dying, highsec still not safe enough GǪexcept that the problem mainly resides in lowsec, so your guess makes no sense.
Except you just said what happens in low sec was the 'symptom' of the problem, not the 'real' problem. Mission runner baiting is exclusively in highsec and is massively impacted by this change. The lowsec Orca escape trick can be easily fixed with a Ship Maintenence Bay adjustment, without doing something as stupid as preventing ejecting, or essentially destroying the profession of mission runner baiting.
Its a simple case of the 'cure' being far worse than the disease. Lets chop off an arm to cure a hangnail. No worries, its somebody else's arm.....
And whatever other justifications, the end result of this change is that highsec mission running becomes far safer, because getting tricked by a ninja is by FAR the most common way a LVL 4 Mission runner loses a ship.
I was under the impression that the 'safety' of Crimewatch was supposed to be player driven, not simply the specific, punitive elimination of the last few tricks high-sec criminals have left.... |

IMYou're Mum
Valkarie Lezbian Army of Doom
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 03:41:00 -
[809] - Quote
OK the NPC flag thing. I see why you may want to do it, Would be great to help disrupt botting activity. HOWEVER a) Will bots just not be reprogrammed to carry cloaks and wait out 15mins NPC aggression?
Meantime
For all those that do not have the luxury of operating outside a pos or station in 0,0 you are now making the game unplayable for a great batch of people. This will kill of those that take part in NPC killing in otherwise empty system. WHY?
Well not everyone plays eve and has the luxury of 15 minutes notice when they have to disconnect. Many rl reasons can pull you away. Technical reasons beyond a persons ability to control can cause disconnections. Only a few weeks ago you guys at CCP reported a net loss of 10,000 connections due to an ISP issue/
Many will say that if your not in local no-one will know to scan for you?
How untrue this would be. See wrecks one gate, in a belt or on d-scan and pop a probe. 15 minutes to find them. This will make risk reward completely out of balance.
I have no issue with being in danger. You rat or plex in lowsec or o.o you should have higher risks. Yes you risk destruction with undock. However this NPC 15 minute timer before removing you from game will have severe negative impacts on nullsec. You will further reduce activity in non occupied systems further.
Again in short this point is an attack on the games actual playability. |

ROCK MELTER
GETCO Black Thorne Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 04:07:00 -
[810] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:why can't i eject when i have a weapon timer? thats was a often used strategy in low sec to safe your pod if you know that a instant locker is around you.
This is not true, You can always warp away. There is a video on youtube showing this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1ly4qN5lxs |
|

Pipa Porto
1149
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 04:10:00 -
[811] - Quote
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:I'll ask again.
Dear CCP,
Is there a specific reason why you want to raise the safe hauling limit for Freighters to the neighborhood of 10b ISK? It's not 10B. It will be the same cost as it is now. It's just gonna require alot more hassle and alts to handle. You gank the hauler. Your freighter warps to the wreck and drops a can (freighters can do that now, right?), and then you have another alt who is fleeted with the freighter, he moves all the loot from the wreck to the can. The freighter just pulls from the can that he dropped, and has no problems with flagging. It effectively "launders" the stolen loot. Obviously not everything from the wreck is going to fit in the can, so it's an ongoing drop-and-pull of items. As long as you don't completely empty the can, there shouldn't be a problem. However, since that alt pulls a Suspect flag, odds are he's gonna get popped by some hero. So you need a few alts. And if freighters can't drop cans, then you'll need another alt for can dropping. So a major pain in the ass, but better than sacrificing a freighter.
First. Freighters can't drop cans. Second. Even if they could, all the victim would have to do is package everything in lots bigger than jetcan size (Like, say, in a GFC) and your thought wouldn't work anyway.
A Freighter with a Suspect flag is, generally speaking, a dead freighter. The way to launder the loot is to loot it from your friends dead freighter after they looted the gank victim. Add a Freighter and the fact that looting twice results in a roughly 25% survival rate of loot, and you get around 10b. And that's before taking into account that the wreck of the suspect freighter is lootable by anyone. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

ROCK MELTER
GETCO Black Thorne Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 04:14:00 -
[812] - Quote
IMYou're Mum wrote:OK the NPC flag thing. I see why you may want to do it, Would be great to help disrupt botting activity. HOWEVER a) Will bots just not be reprogrammed to carry cloaks and wait out 15mins NPC aggression?
Meantime
For all those that do not have the luxury of operating outside a pos or station in 0,0 you are now making the game unplayable for a great batch of people. This will kill of those that take part in NPC killing in otherwise empty system. WHY?
I think you already stated why. It will disrupt botting. I can tell you that at least 100 times I have come into the system where a botter is doing what you said and immediately logs off when we entered the system. This will prevent the logoffski (hopefully) and make it easier to get the botter.
On the other hand, if the botter had a cloak and put it on like you said, they would still be in the system, still have a chance of being decloaked and THAT is what is trying to be addressed here. This change will not disrupt your game play in any way shape or form. |

ROCK MELTER
GETCO Black Thorne Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 04:20:00 -
[813] - Quote
wrote:I'll ask again.
A Freighter with a Suspect flag is, generally speaking, a dead freighter. The way to launder the loot is to loot it from your friends dead freighter after they looted the gank victim. Add a Freighter and the fact that looting twice results in a roughly 25% survival rate of loot, and you get around 10b. And that's before taking into account that the wreck of the suspect freighter is lootable by anyone.
I would also like to add that a freighter pilot can not loot a can. BUT if you try you will get a suspect flag. You will get a suspect flag right now! "The RUB" with that flag is that you can ATTEMPT to look a can while in a freighter, get the flag for it but never actually get the loot. THAT needs to be addressed in the new system.
|

Pipa Porto
1149
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 04:43:00 -
[814] - Quote
ROCK MELTER wrote: wrote:I'll ask again.
A Freighter with a Suspect flag is, generally speaking, a dead freighter. The way to launder the loot is to loot it from your friends dead freighter after they looted the gank victim. Add a Freighter and the fact that looting twice results in a roughly 25% survival rate of loot, and you get around 10b. And that's before taking into account that the wreck of the suspect freighter is lootable by anyone. I would also like to add that a freighter pilot can not loot a can. BUT if you try you will get a suspect flag. You will get a suspect flag right now! "The RUB" with that flag is that you can ATTEMPT to look a can while in a freighter, get the flag for it but never actually get the loot. THAT needs to be addressed in the new system.
That got changed ages ago because stupid, greedy people would look at freighter wrecks that were set up as traps and get killed. Then they whined to CCP.
And CCP, of course, has decided that protecting stupid, greedy people from themselves is a good thing for EVE. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9774
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 06:57:00 -
[815] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote:Except you just said what happens in low sec was the 'symptom' of the problem, not the 'real' problem. Mission runner baiting is exclusively in highsec and is massively impacted by this change. Not really. Mission runner baiting isn't affected in the slightest by the ship-swapping rule because there's no reason to get the W-flag that prohibits it.
Quote:The lowsec Orca escape trick can be easily fixed with a Ship Maintenence Bay adjustment, without doing something as stupid as preventing ejecting, or essentially destroying the profession of mission runner baiting. GǪexcept that you're back to treating the symptom, not the problem GÇö viz. ship swapping in the middle of combat. This change takes care of that in all its forms. Trying to limit it to certain expressions will only lead to new ones popping up, which will then have to be patched away as well, and the only reason to be against it is the vain hope that the exploit du jour will be left open for a while.
Quote:Its a simple case of the 'cure' being far worse than the disease. Seeing as how the cure is actually very good GÇö largely because it attacks the generic issue rather than hopelessly chase individual expressions of it GÇö and seeing as how the disease GÇö ships not being lost when they ought to be, and people not committing to the fight they chose to engage in GÇö is very bad, no. If anything, it's a case of GÇ£please only patch this one thing rather than fix the problem so I can keep abusing it in new waysGÇ¥.
Put another way: why should they try to predict and specifically code out every last variation of this tactic when they can just ensure that all of them (including ones that don't even exist yet) are gone at the same time? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|

Pipa Porto
1149
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 08:12:00 -
[816] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Bart Starr wrote:Except you just said what happens in low sec was the 'symptom' of the problem, not the 'real' problem. Mission runner baiting is exclusively in highsec and is massively impacted by this change. Not really. Mission runner baiting isn't affected in the slightest by the ship-swapping rule because there's no reason to get the W-flag that prohibits it.
You mean besides this? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Cerulean Ice
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
31
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 10:01:00 -
[817] - Quote
ihcn wrote:Cerulean Ice wrote:ihcn wrote:This is just one example. Another example, which I face every day, is how much ISK worth of stuff to put in a hauler that has to fly through niarja or uedama. 100 million? 300 million? 2 billion? If you put too much, people looking for profit will blow up your ship and take the loot. After the crime watch changes take effect, it will be much harder to profit off of suicide ganks, meaning I have less risk, and therefore I will have fewer decisions to make, and the game once again becomes dumber. Pipa Porto wrote:I'll ask again. Dear CCP, Is there a specific reason why you want to raise the safe hauling limit for Freighters to the neighborhood of 10b ISK? How does any change to crimewatch and flagging affect the amount of firepower (and thus isk) required to destroy a hauler? Quick answer: it doesn't. There will be zero change to what it takes to gank a hauler and have it be profitable. No extra costs, no extra losses. Gate guns will shoot you in both the new and old system. Concord will show up in highsec in both the new and old system. The only real difference between new and old? Your sec status won't drop below -5 unless you break some eggs. It's pretty clear after this post that you weren't even tryiung to read my post. They can kill my ship all they want, but it will be much harder to profit off of it, and thus more people won't bother It's not that difficult to understand. This made me giggle ^^
You still haven't said a word about how it will affect the profit of a gank. I suggest going back to page 39, where your quote is from, and reading the responses from Tippia and the dialogue she and I had on the subject. It is going to be a bit more challenging to get profit from a gank, but only if you don't know how to align before looting a can. Hell, even a freighter looting a freighter wreck can pull it off, with some corpmates to web your thief freighter. This is the same tactic used to escape crimewatch 1.0 can flippers. If a miner can figure it out, I'm sure you can too. |

Dianedre of Shoun
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 12:29:00 -
[818] - Quote
PVP Flag: This flag is activated when one player uses offensive modules against another. 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. Having this flag will prevent a ship from being removed from space if the pilot logs off.
According to the PVP flag you won't be able to escape any attack. Like Docking! This seems a bit harsh to Carebears. |

OT Smithers
BLOMI
197
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 14:23:00 -
[819] - Quote
Raging Beaver wrote:Brunaburh wrote:You didn't read enough. The ejection lock only occurs when you aggress, according to masterplan So? I am to understand that prior to ejecting, I am to cease fire? This makes it better? I don't think so.
If you do not want to suffer the risks don't fly the ship. |

OT Smithers
BLOMI
197
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 14:24:00 -
[820] - Quote
Kilroy Nightbarr wrote:Ejection mechanic is bad, I agree with the posts on that. If the problem is ship scooping, fix that, but don't do this. Abandoning a T3 is a hard choice, but it should be an available one. Same for trying to save a pod from insta-lockers in a non-T3.
As for can-flipping giving everyone the ability to shoot you, this won't end up protecting miners or noobs. Example: Character 1 flips a can and warps off to log/cloak/leave system. Noob/miner sees he is gone and takes his stuff back, is now fair game for everyone, and Character 1's cloaked alt (or anyone else nearby who happens to be watching) blasts him to bits.
The miner can take his stuff back without flagging as a suspect. |
|

Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
695
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 14:55:00 -
[821] - Quote
Dianedre of Shoun wrote:According to the PVP flag you won't be able to escape any attack. Like Docking! This seems a bit harsh to Carebears. The PVP and NPC flags last for 15 minutes, but can be extended if you are still being aggressed. The only thing those flags affect is what happens to your ship when you log off. Don't use logging off as a defense mechanism, take your ship out of harm's way before logging off. Fit a cloak, make a safe, have a POS in-system, dock up, etc... I'm pretty sure the log-off warp will still work (as long as you're not pointed) so not much will be changing from now except for the length of time. Nothing Found |

OT Smithers
BLOMI
197
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 14:55:00 -
[822] - Quote
Kaelarian wrote:Except that you're now arbitrarily preventing everyone from tactically ejecting just because some players abuse the mechanic above. What's to stop the orca? There are several options:
- They could be flagged:
- by carrying over/synchronizing the current flags of the ship owner (which hopefully wouldn't require flagging the ship, just tracking the ship's owner), or
- by flagging the ship and syncing its flags to the orca pilot, or
- by giving any SMA ship a W flag for scooping a ship in space, preventing it from jumping through a gate/docking/etc for 60 seconds under any circumstance. (might be harsh, but should be enough to solve the abuse problems and be simple to implement)
- They could be prevented from scooping a ship that is being targeted. (probably a good idea regardless)
Personally, even if it takes more work to code, I think any ship scooping a ship that was recently in combat should be flagged as a valid target for whomever was shooting the scooped ship and the offending orca should be prevented from running through a gate (W flagged) to escape penalty. This is clearly an abuse. If you want to fly an expensive ship anywhere you should be prepared to lose it.
It's not this simple, nor is the Orca scoop the only (or worst) abuse this change eliminates. There is only one reason why anyone would object to this change: they want the option to instantly remove their ship from combat when things are not going their way. It is actually worse than suggesting that players in certain select ships should be allowed to ignore the in-combat docking restrictions at stations. Rather, it is saying that certain SPECIAL players should be allowed to instantly swap to any ship they own, at any time, and continue the battle. This is ridiculous even if we ignore swapping to a better ship.
CCP took the simplest and best route. They are saying that EVERYONE has to risk the ship that they brought to the fight. And in the case of high sec, that a victim making the decision to defend himself should have the advantage of knowing (at least to a certain extent) exactly what it is that he is engaging. If you provoked him in a frigate, that's what you are going to remain in until the battle is resolved.
Quote:While the ejection prevention has wiespread drawbacks argued by others here, you are currently not even adequately addressing the cited abuse by only preventing pilots with a W flag from ejecting for 60s. Some T3s, faction BSs, and other pricey ships can have pretty hefty tanks, esp under remote repair. 60 seconds can be plenty of time for them to deaggress, eject, and let their ship be scooped and saved without any penalty to them when they don't think a fight is going their way. And just to be clear, "solving" this by preventing anyone with a PVP flag from ejecting would be ridiculous and further upset quite a lot of players.
CCP has not proposed preventing people with a PvP flag from docking. Only people with an active weapons flag. Just as it is today. The only change is that they are extending this to also cover docking in carriers, orcas, or anything else.
Quote:There are a lot of other reasons to want to eject shortly before your ship is destroyed (besides evading SP loss, which is stupid but a risk we take*), especially attempting to save an expensive pod, or any pod living in WH space. Skill plays a part in saving your pod at any time but, unless you have a quality ISP, session change lag is often enough that fast locking ships like double sebo zealots will have already locked and killed your pod before you even respawn on grid (visually). Being able to eject at least introduces uncertainty as to when to try and target you so you have a better chance to escape.
Losing this is a small price to pay for what we gain. And if the end result is more pods killed, that's probably a good thing as well. |

OT Smithers
BLOMI
197
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 14:59:00 -
[823] - Quote
Kilroy Nightbarr wrote: Looks like I missed that the first time around.
What about this: The Dev Blog says "If I can legally attack the owner of a container, then I can legally take from the container." So I flip a can and become flagged for anyone to shoot. Meaning everyone can legally attack me. Hence anyone can legally take from the can. Doesn't lead to the noob/miner dying, but just by my flipping of the can his stuff is now free for anyone else to steal. Working as intended? What am I missing?
Just this:
Today no one, including the victim of the theft, can touch the container. Now the victim of the theft can simply take his stuff and put it back into his own can and no one can shoot him for doing so. |

OT Smithers
BLOMI
197
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 15:56:00 -
[824] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote:
Perhaps you've forgotten the stated rationale for the original Orca nerf. "Escaping the consequences of initiating combat". Its even on the error message that started popping up after the nerf.
CCP stated that they were unhappy with people hiding doomed ships in Orcas. And I could (grudgingly) understand that, even if I didn't understand why it was ONLY applied to highsec. (most likely? because the nerf was narrowly tailored at mission baiting and crying carebears - not stupid low-sec skirmishes. After all, anyone in lowsec is looking for a fight)
Guess what we have here is simply 'mission creep'. Mission runners were still dying, highsec still not safe enough - so more radical measures were taken by CCP - using fringe cases (T3 SP loss, low-sec to highsec Orca escape) as a fig leaf.
Bart,
Respectfully, you do not understand the whole situation. As bad as the problem is in high sec, it is FAR worse in low. The reason people have been hesitant to elaborate is because we already deal with this crap enough without posting it on the forums.
Ultimately what it comes down to is this: Certain players are risk averse. They want the excitement of the kill, they love the tears, but they insist on immunity for themselves. Whether we are talking about ganking miners or haulers, baiting mission runners, or parking a mach and a carrier in the station superstructure in low, the goal is the same.
Those who defend these exploits (and justify their use of them) love to say things like "Eve is a harsh place" and "Don't undock what you can't lose," but they say them unaware of the taint of hypocrisy clinging to their words. They are the ones most afraid of losing. Baiting mission runners is like an adult man heading to the local Kindergarten looking to pick a fight with a five year old -- and insisting that you need this ship swapping nonsense is like that same adult managing to find a fiesty five-year-old... then panicking and pulling out a gun because the little guy put of a fight.
CCP is changing it to where you will no longer be able to pull that gun. You can still head to that school, you can still pick on the little kids you find there, but now, finally, you are going to have to risk not only that kid kicking your ass, but the adults stepping in to help them. |

Daioh Azu
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
14
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 16:45:00 -
[825] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Bart Starr wrote:Except you just said what happens in low sec was the 'symptom' of the problem, not the 'real' problem. Mission runner baiting is exclusively in highsec and is massively impacted by this change. Not really. Mission runner baiting isn't affected in the slightest by the ship-swapping rule because there's no reason to get the W-flag that prohibits it. I gotta agree with Tippia here. The whole point of mission baiting is to get the runner to attack you first so that when you emerge victorious Concord dosen't show up and you don't get a GCC. If the ship you are baiting the runner with is not the ship with which you plan to stomp him, why are you fitting weapons or EW to it? It seems to me you'd want your bait ship to have a good speed tank and large shield buffer so that you can evade most incoming DPS and soak the few lucky shots that get through until your pownmobile arrives.
With the proposed system, it you pull a W-flag before the runner aggresses you then you've already failed your bait attempt and have made the decision to attack. If you pull a W-flag after the runner has aggressed you then you have made the decision to defend with the ship you are flying. In both cases, you have chosen to commit to combat with your bait ship for at least 60 seconds.
What you seem to want is a system that allows you pose as little threat as possible to encourage your target to commit to combat. However, once you have committed to combat in a clearly inferior ship you want to be able to evade the consequences of that decision. You want to switch to something more effective immediately and without delay even though you made the choice to engage in a clearly over matched ship. Remind me again who is the carebear in this situation? I find the distinction to be unclear. |

Pipa Porto
1153
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 17:13:00 -
[826] - Quote
Daioh Azu wrote:Tippia wrote:Bart Starr wrote:Except you just said what happens in low sec was the 'symptom' of the problem, not the 'real' problem. Mission runner baiting is exclusively in highsec and is massively impacted by this change. Not really. Mission runner baiting isn't affected in the slightest by the ship-swapping rule because there's no reason to get the W-flag that prohibits it. I gotta agree with Tippia here. The whole point of mission baiting is to get the runner to attack you first so that when you emerge victorious Concord dosen't show up and you don't get a GCC. If the ship you are baiting the runner with is not the ship with which you plan to stomp him, why are you fitting weapons or EW to it? It seems to me you'd want your bait ship to have a good speed tank and large shield buffer so that you can evade most incoming DPS and soak the few lucky shots that get through until your pownmobile arrives. With the proposed system, it you pull a W-flag before the runner aggresses you then you've already failed your bait attempt and have made the decision to attack. If you pull a W-flag after the runner has aggressed you then you have made the decision to defend with the ship you are flying. In both cases, you have chosen to commit to combat with your bait ship for at least 60 seconds. What you seem to want is a system that allows you pose as little threat as possible to encourage your target to commit to combat. However, once you have committed to combat in a clearly inferior ship you want to be able to evade the consequences of that decision. You want to switch to something more effective immediately and without delay even though you made the choice to engage in a clearly over matched ship. Remind me again who is the carebear in this situation? I find the distinction to be unclear.
Once the Mission Runner fires, how long do you think he's going to stick around once the Orca lands on grid to bring out the gank ship? You need a point on your bait ship to keep the aggressor around. Once you drop that point to deaggress, the Orca bumps the mission ship giving you just enough time to switch. How do you propose to bridge the 60s gap this change adds?
This change allows the mission runner to attack looters with no risk of falling into an effective trap.
How about a 60s ejection delay (not cancelable, ofc) if you have a weapons timer? Destroys Orca camping without killing Mission Runner baiting.
As for who the carebear is, how about the guy shooting a frigate in a battleship? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Bart Starr
Aggressive Structural Steel Expediting Services
112
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 17:32:00 -
[827] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Tippia wrote:Bart Starr wrote:Except you just said what happens in low sec was the 'symptom' of the problem, not the 'real' problem. Mission runner baiting is exclusively in highsec and is massively impacted by this change. Not really. Mission runner baiting isn't affected in the slightest by the ship-swapping rule because there's no reason to get the W-flag that prohibits it. You mean besides this?
Exactly. Its pretty clear that Tippia doesn't understand how mission baiting works. Its not about 'committing to combat for at least 60 seconds.' Ninja frigates can tank them, but not break them. Its about maintaining tackle, and bringing enough firepower ot the field to break a considerable PVE tank. Once carebears realize that they can't kill the frigate thats warp scrambling them - they try to escape or log off. In addition, Crimewatch provides an ample opportunity for them to call for assistance - from ANYONE.
Telling a ninja that he must also turn off his warp scrambler for 60 seconds before changing ships simply means the mission bear warps off and escapes.
This change crushes the profession. So now even the 'Salvage ninja' profession is now considered an abuse. Result: mission bears are safer than ever - the sole remaining risk: random suicide ganks.
Which is I suppose what CCP wants, anyway....theme-park highsec.
Fix the Orca in lowsec and you aren't 'hiding' or 'saving' anything. In fact, you are now putting twice as many ships at risk of destruction - or possibly being boarded and stolen by the mission bear or 3rd parties.
|

Ghostwarden
Tollan Enterprises Tollan Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 19:36:00 -
[828] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Tippia wrote:Bart Starr wrote:Except you just said what happens in low sec was the 'symptom' of the problem, not the 'real' problem. Mission runner baiting is exclusively in highsec and is massively impacted by this change. Not really. Mission runner baiting isn't affected in the slightest by the ship-swapping rule because there's no reason to get the W-flag that prohibits it. You mean besides this? Exactly. Its pretty clear that Tippia doesn't understand how mission baiting works. Carebears won't shoot at a Hurricane (or any ship that looks threatening.) The will, however, shoot at frigates, especially frigates with weak sounding names. (IE, Merlin is nice and safe sounding. Worm, likewise. 'Reaper' = not so good.) Unfortunately frigates don't have enough firepower to break CNRs and other PVE ships that tank thousands of DPS. Changing into a new ship is the only way you can trap them AND finish them. Its not about 'committing to combat for at least 60 seconds.' Ninja frigates can tank them, but not break them. Its about maintaining tackle, and bringing enough firepower ot the field to break a considerable PVE tank. Once carebears realize that they can't kill the frigate thats warp scrambling them - they try to escape or log off. In addition, Crimewatch provides an ample opportunity for them to call for assistance - from ANYONE. Telling a ninja that he must also turn off his warp scrambler for 60 seconds before changing ships simply means the mission bear warps off and escapes. This change crushes the profession. So now even the 'Salvage ninja' profession is now considered an abuse. Result: mission bears are safer than ever - the sole remaining risk: random suicide ganks. Which is I suppose what CCP wants, anyway....theme-park highsec. Fix the Orca in lowsec and you aren't 'hiding' or 'saving' anything. In fact, you are now putting twice as many ships at risk of destruction - or possibly being boarded and stolen by the mission bear or 3rd parties.
Why not instead of bringing an Orca with an additional ship you instead just have the other character in a combat ship that CAN break the PVE tank waiting cloaked to come in once you have a point on the ship? Seems to me that what you really want is to have the ability to pick a fight single-handed and have whatever ships you need to johnny on the spot in a way that the PVE player cannot, its not advisable to bring an orca into a mission so that I can have my spare combat ship after all. Once again it sounds like you just want an uneven playing field.
|

Tarunik Raqalth'Qui
The Kairos Syndicate Transmission Lost
81
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 19:41:00 -
[829] - Quote
Oddity: the combination of "HICs get a W flag whenever they bubble up" and "W flag prevents you from ejecting for its 60s duration" creates issues when you go to speed-roll WHs by cycling several pilots through a single rolling HIC (this is often done when you're out in the field and don't have a passel of people in HICs standing by). Under the new system, you'd have to introduce a ~60s delay between "jump back" and "eject", which is doable but rather annoying/slows the process down not-insignificantly I reckon.
Easiest way to work around this (if such a thing is even desired, that is; it is a marginal usecase compared to HICs gate/stationcamping in 0.0) would be to make it so simply activating one's HIC bubble does not yield a W flag; W and P would then be given to the HIC pilot together when someone aggresses him/her by trying to warp while inside the HIC bubble.
Also, there's a corner case I want to point out here: if someone hops in a HIC, warps to a safe, turns their HIC bubble on, and then goes to make a sandwich (lets say 5mins AFK), will they still be W flagged when they return? Or does the W flag only turn on when the module is initially activated, and not get refreshed when the WDFG cycles? |

Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
65
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 20:06:00 -
[830] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote: First. Freighters can't drop cans. Second. Even if they could, all the victim would have to do is package everything in lots bigger than jetcan size (Like, say, in a GFC) and your thought wouldn't work anyway. Well like I said, if freighters can't drop cans then you need to bring yet another alt.
But yeah, courier packaging GSCs could pose a problem. Perhaps the answer is to request/demand that courier packaging be able to be ripped open anywhere at anytime? Cuz odds are they ain't changing the Suspect flag on looting. And you can whine and complain as much as you like, but unless you propose an alternate solution, the Devs are just gonna ignore you.
I agree that you should be able to effectively loot ships that you kill.... with the consequences that come with it. Even if it's a freighter gank that takes everything in the world that some player has earned over years of playing (his fault for being stupid). CCP might make it more of a hassle to do it, but it should still be feasible. But throwing a tantrum over it without suggesting a solution ain't gonna do shiite.
|
|

McDarila
Lost Society Get Off My Lawn
10
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 20:09:00 -
[831] - Quote
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. |

ihcn
Life. Universe. Everything. Clockwork Pineapple
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 21:46:00 -
[832] - Quote
Tarunik Raqalth'Qui wrote:Oddity: the combination of "HICs get a W flag whenever they bubble up" and "W flag prevents you from ejecting for its 60s duration" creates issues when you go to speed-roll WHs by cycling several pilots through a single rolling HIC (this is often done when you're out in the field and don't have a passel of people in HICs standing by). Under the new system, you'd have to introduce a ~60s delay between "jump back" and "eject", which is doable but rather annoying/slows the process down not-insignificantly I reckon.
Easiest way to work around this (if such a thing is even desired, that is; it is a marginal usecase compared to HICs gate/stationcamping in 0.0) would be to make it so simply activating one's HIC bubble does not yield a W flag; W and P would then be given to the HIC pilot together when someone aggresses him/her by trying to warp while inside the HIC bubble.
Also, there's a corner case I want to point out here: if someone hops in a HIC, warps to a safe, turns their HIC bubble on, and then goes to make a sandwich (lets say 5mins AFK), will they still be W flagged when they return? Or does the W flag only turn on when the module is initially activated, and not get refreshed when the WDFG cycles? Maybe you'll just need to find a new way to speed-roll wormholes |

Daioh Azu
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 21:59:00 -
[833] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Tippia wrote:Bart Starr wrote:Except you just said what happens in low sec was the 'symptom' of the problem, not the 'real' problem. Mission runner baiting is exclusively in highsec and is massively impacted by this change. Not really. Mission runner baiting isn't affected in the slightest by the ship-swapping rule because there's no reason to get the W-flag that prohibits it. You mean besides this? Exactly. Its pretty clear that Tippia doesn't understand how mission baiting works. Carebears won't shoot at a Hurricane (or any ship that looks threatening.) The will, however, shoot at frigates, especially frigates with weak sounding names. (IE, Merlin is nice and safe sounding. Worm, likewise. 'Reaper' = not so good.) Unfortunately frigates don't have enough firepower to break CNRs and other PVE ships that tank thousands of DPS. Changing into a new ship is the only way you can trap them AND finish them. Its not about 'committing to combat for at least 60 seconds.' Ninja frigates can tank them, but not break them. Its about maintaining tackle, and bringing enough firepower ot the field to break a considerable PVE tank. Once carebears realize that they can't kill the frigate thats warp scrambling them - they try to escape or log off.In addition, Crimewatch provides an ample opportunity for them to call for assistance - from ANYONE. Telling a ninja that he must also turn off his warp scrambler for 60 seconds before changing ships simply means the mission bear warps off and escapes. If you successfully get the runner to aggress you without you first committing a criminal act, then you have successfully baited the runner to engage in combat. However, that clearly is not what you want. You want to commit a criminal act in front of the runner in a seemingly nonthreatening ship and once he engages have someone bring you a more capable ship so that you can avoid the consequences of your choice.
At the same time you want the runner to suffer the consequences of his decision. It is clear from the underlined statement in your post that many of your "baited" targets are aware they have made a bad decision, are looking to escape, and only your point is keeping them there. So I need to ask, exactly what are you relying on to get that kill? Are you relying on a panicked runner to stop spamming his warp button while you're swapping ships to keep him on grid, or are you relying on whether you can swap ships, reestablish your lock, and apply a new point before the cycle time of your frigate point expires?
It is an important question. On one hand you could be an experience combat veteran who's nerves of steal triumph over a panicked and flustered newb. On the other, you are a skill-less griefer exploiting a broken mechanic for a risk free kill.
|

Tarunik Raqalth'Qui
The Kairos Syndicate Transmission Lost
81
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 23:10:00 -
[834] - Quote
ihcn wrote:Tarunik Raqalth'Qui wrote:Oddity: the combination of "HICs get a W flag whenever they bubble up" and "W flag prevents you from ejecting for its 60s duration" creates issues when you go to speed-roll WHs by cycling several pilots through a single rolling HIC (this is often done when you're out in the field and don't have a passel of people in HICs standing by). Under the new system, you'd have to introduce a ~60s delay between "jump back" and "eject", which is doable but rather annoying/slows the process down not-insignificantly I reckon.
Easiest way to work around this (if such a thing is even desired, that is; it is a marginal usecase compared to HICs gate/stationcamping in 0.0) would be to make it so simply activating one's HIC bubble does not yield a W flag; W and P would then be given to the HIC pilot together when someone aggresses him/her by trying to warp while inside the HIC bubble.
Also, there's a corner case I want to point out here: if someone hops in a HIC, warps to a safe, turns their HIC bubble on, and then goes to make a sandwich (lets say 5mins AFK), will they still be W flagged when they return? Or does the W flag only turn on when the module is initially activated, and not get refreshed when the WDFG cycles? Maybe you'll just need to find a new way to speed-roll wormholes Learn the ins and outs of how the polarity timer works, and you'll understand what this 'musical ships' business is all about. |

Raigir
Frontier Explorer's League Sadistica Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 00:13:00 -
[835] - Quote
So given the information from the ever so pretty charts: Low Sec gate guns won't engage you if you start attacking someone? I ask: Do you get a criminal after destroying your target or are you still just a suspect? Else is the criminal timer only for pods (speaking low sec)?
Given what I deduced, unless we pod kill, pirates no longer have anything to fear from gate guns. (which I won't exactly complain about to be honest ) |

Pipa Porto
1154
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 01:40:00 -
[836] - Quote
Ghostwarden wrote:Why not instead of bringing an Orca with an additional ship you instead just have the other character in a combat ship that CAN break the PVE tank waiting cloaked to come in once you have a point on the ship? Seems to me that what you really want is to have the ability to pick a fight single-handed and have whatever ships you need to johnny on the spot in a way that the PVE player cannot, its not advisable to bring an orca into a mission so that I can have my spare combat ship after all. Once again it sounds like you just want an uneven playing field.
Because that's not how CONCORD works.
HS mechanics force these fights to be single handed on the part of the baiter. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Pipa Porto
1154
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 01:46:00 -
[837] - Quote
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: First. Freighters can't drop cans. Second. Even if they could, all the victim would have to do is package everything in lots bigger than jetcan size (Like, say, in a GFC) and your thought wouldn't work anyway. Well like I said, if freighters can't drop cans then you need to bring yet another alt. But yeah, courier packaging GSCs could pose a problem. Perhaps the answer is to request/demand that courier packaging be able to be ripped open anywhere at anytime? Cuz odds are they ain't changing the Suspect flag on looting. And you can whine and complain as much as you like, but unless you propose an alternate solution, the Devs are just gonna ignore you. I agree that you should be able to effectively loot ships that you kill.... with the consequences that come with it. Even if it's a freighter gank that takes everything in the world that some player has earned over years of playing (his fault for being stupid). CCP might make it more of a hassle to do it, but it should still be feasible. But throwing a tantrum over it without suggesting a solution ain't gonna do shiite.
No need to courier package them. You can't open a container that's in a jet can or wreck (or POS Hangar). How are you making mistakes of game mechanics this basic?
Here's a solution. Give the corp with the final blow looting rights on their kill. Shared rights with the dead guy (ofc). This means that Suicide Gankers have to be in corps (which means they can be decced), they have to all be in the same corp (a nerf to ganking, but whatever), but can still loot their shit.
My better solution would be to try to redesign Crimewatch without starting with the mission statement "How can we make HS Safer?" EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Pipa Porto
1154
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 01:54:00 -
[838] - Quote
Daioh Azu wrote:If you successfully get the runner to aggress you without you first committing a criminal act, then you have successfully baited the runner to engage in combat. However, that clearly is not what you want. You want to commit a criminal act in front of the runner in a seemingly nonthreatening ship and once he engages have someone bring you a more capable ship so that you can avoid the consequences of your choice.
That's how HS works. You have to steal from them for them to be able to shoot you without getting CONCORDed.
The consequences of the choice at the moment would be "orbit the idiot until Downtime."
Quote:At the same time you want the runner to suffer the consequences of his decision. It is clear from the underlined statement in your post that many of your "baited" targets are aware they have made a bad decision, are looking to escape, and only your point is keeping them there. So I need to ask, exactly what are you relying on to get that kill? Are you relying on a panicked runner to stop spamming his warp button while you're swapping ships to keep him on grid, or are you relying on whether you can swap ships, reestablish your lock, and apply a new point before the cycle time of your frigate point expires?
It is an important question. On one hand you could be an experience combat veteran who's nerves of steal triumph over a panicked and flustered newb. On the other, you are a skill-less griefer exploiting a broken mechanic for a risk free kill.
Wait, so preying on people who are too new at the game to figure out how to warp given a full minute is "Pr0," but multiboxing effectively in PvP to eject, board, reacquire lock while bumping the target for the 20+s it takes to do so is "skill-less"? Wow.
It still doesn't deal with the problem that the Suspect Flag reduces the mission runner's incentive to be in a corp even further (If anyone can help you without consequence, why bother making friends ahead of time?). EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
689
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 03:14:00 -
[839] - Quote
Raigir wrote:So given the information from the ever so pretty charts: Low Sec gate guns won't engage you if you start attacking someone? I ask: Do you get a criminal after destroying your target or are you still just a suspect? Else is the criminal timer only for pods (speaking low sec)? Given what I deduced, unless we pod kill, pirates no longer have anything to fear from gate guns. (which I won't exactly complain about to be honest  )
If you attack someone who is not a legal target for you, you take a sec hit.
If gate guns see you take a sec hit, they'll engage.
In high sec, you'll get a criminal flag, and get concorded.
In lowsec you'll get a suspect flag (unless it's a pod. then it's a criminal flag). FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/
Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities. |

Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
689
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 03:14:00 -
[840] - 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.
Yes. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/
Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities. |
|

Roime
Shiva Furnace Dead On Arrival Alliance
1319
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 05:28:00 -
[841] - Quote
Ejecting change is stupid and unnecessary (of course you need to be able to eject from any ship whenever you want), and NPC timer is too long. The timer is goo, but having to extend your game session by 15 of doing nothing before you can log is a bit harsh.
Gallente - the choice of the interstellar gentleman |

Pipa Porto
1156
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 06:27:00 -
[842] - Quote
Roime wrote:Ejecting change is stupid and unnecessary (of course you need to be able to eject from any ship whenever you want), and NPC timer is too long. The timer is goo, but having to extend your game session by 15 of doing nothing before you can log is a bit harsh.
POS up or Dock up. Bam. No need to extend your session.
Soloing around in hostile space isn't supposed to be easy. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Daioh Azu
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 07:19:00 -
[843] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Daioh Azu wrote:If you successfully get the runner to aggress you without you first committing a criminal act, then you have successfully baited the runner to engage in combat. However, that clearly is not what you want. You want to commit a criminal act in front of the runner in a seemingly nonthreatening ship and once he engages have someone bring you a more capable ship so that you can avoid the consequences of your choice. That's how HS works. You have to steal from them for them to be able to shoot you without getting CONCORDed. The consequences of the choice at the moment would be "orbit the idiot until Downtime." Given that you're relying on the naivety of your mark to engage after you have stolen from him, you might find that an unguarded can of his coveted salvage works just as well.
"orbit the idiot until Downtime." Now that's an interesting point to explore. Since your flag for theft lasts only 15 minutes should you keep a target pointed until the flag expires what happens? I imagine your coexisting aggression would keep already active modules from alerting Concord, but what about newly activated modules. In any case, orbiting the idiot until downtime is only a consequence should you choose to maintain the stalemate by keeping your point, or you could just warp away. Warp disruptors aren't typical on a PVE fit since mission rats don't try to escape. |

Daioh Azu
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 07:26:00 -
[844] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Daioh Azu wrote:So I need to ask, exactly what are you relying on to get that kill? Are you relying on a panicked runner to stop spamming his warp button while you're swapping ships to keep him on grid, or are you relying on whether you can swap ships, reestablish your lock, and apply a new point before the cycle time of your frigate point expires?
It is an important question. On one hand you could be an experience combat veteran who's nerves of steal triumph over a panicked and flustered newb. On the other, you are a skill-less griefer exploiting a broken mechanic for a risk free kill.
Wait, so preying on people who are too new at the game to figure out how to warp given a full minute is "Pr0," No, but "preying on people who are too new at the game to" have learned the aggression mechanics and their exploits isn't "Pr0" either.
Pipa Porto wrote:but multiboxing effectively in PvP to eject, board, reacquire lock while bumping the target for the 20+s it takes to do so is "skill-less"? Wow. No ma'am. That would indeed be very skillful, if you were in fact using those "l33t" piloting skills of yours to simultaneously bump your target out of alignment, while having an Orca alt deliver your p0wnmobile, swapping ships, relocking, and repointing. That would indeed be impressive. I'd just like to remind you of your previous statement.
Pipa Porto wrote:Once the Mission Runner fires, how long do you think he's going to stick around once the Orca lands on grid to bring out the gank ship? You need a point on your bait ship to keep the aggressor around. Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Either you uber skills are enough to keep your target on grid, or it's your point that's doing it. While both might be capable, either one makes the other redundant. I think we know on which you rely.
Pipa Porto wrote:It still doesn't deal with the problem that the Suspect Flag reduces the mission runner's incentive to be in a corp even further (If anyone can help you without consequence, why bother making friends ahead of time?). Comes now the Defendant, The Strawman, by and through his/her Attorney of Record, and for the answer to Plaintiff's complaint states and alleges...
Sorry for the hyperbole but I asked a perfectly legitimate question, is it the baiters skill combined the targets inexperience that keeps the runner on grid while the baiter swaps ships, or is the baiter exploiting a broken cycle timer mechanic? While reply here supports the former, your previous statements support the latter. Clearly, you have no idea so you propose the boogieman of how this is one less incentive for mission runners to enter player corps! Strong finish, very strong.
|

Pipa Porto
1162
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 07:35:00 -
[845] - Quote
Daioh Azu wrote:Given that you're relying on the naivety of your mark to engage after you have stolen from him, you might find that an unguarded can of his coveted salvage works just as well. Except that mission runners don't loot with their mission ship.
Quote:"orbit the idiot until Downtime." Now that's an interesting point to explore. Since your flag for theft lasts only 15 minutes should you keep a target pointed until the flag expires what happens? I imagine your coexisting aggression would keep already active modules from alerting Concord, but what about newly activated modules. In any case, orbiting the idiot until downtime is only a consequence should you choose to maintain the stalemate by keeping your point, or you could just warp away. Warp disruptors aren't typical on a PVE fit since mission rats don't try to escape.
Wrong flag. You (as the ninja) can only point someone after they have shot at you.
That's the problem. The Missionbear will be able to shoot at the interloping frigates with impunity because they know the Frigate can't break their tank, the ninja can't switch to something that can shoot, and even if the ninja does manage to make the switch, everyone in local can come for the free gank instead of having to rely on previously formalized social contacts (corpmates). EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Pipa Porto
1162
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 07:45:00 -
[846] - Quote
Daioh Azu wrote: No, but "preying on people who are too new at the game to" have learned the aggression mechanics and their exploits isn't "Pr0" either.
Never said it was. You're the one claiming it's the example of "nerves of steel."
Since when is teaching someone that "shooting someone allows them to shoot back" an exploit?
Quote:No ma'am. That would indeed be very skillful, if you were in fact using those "l33t" piloting skills of yours to simultaneously bump your target out of alignment, while having an Orca alt deliver your p0wnmobile, swapping ships, relocking, and repointing. That would indeed be impressive. I'd just like to remind you of your previous statement.
That's how switching ships works in this context. You bring the Orca around, bump the target, eject (dropping the point and incurring a 10s timer), board the ship, relock, and re-point.
Quote:Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Either your uber skills are enough to keep your target on grid, or it's your point that's doing it. While both might be capable, either one makes the other redundant. I think we know on which you rely.
The point keeps the target on grid while the Orca slowboats for several minutes (they're really slow). Then there's the fancy ship switching dance. It's almost like you have no experience with what we're discussing.
Quote: Comes now the Defendant, The Strawman, by and through his/her Attorney of Record, and for the answer to Plaintiff's complaint states and alleges...
Sorry for the hyperbole but I asked a perfectly legitimate question, is it the baiters skill combined the targets inexperience that keeps the runner on grid while the baiter swaps ships, or is the baiter exploiting a broken cycle timer mechanic? While reply here supports the former, your previous statements support the latter. Clearly, you have no idea so you propose the boogieman of how this is one less incentive for mission runners to enter player corps! Strong finish, very strong.
What cycle timer? Your point drops the instant you eject. Bumping is what keeps the target on grid for the switch. The initial tackle keeps the target on grid while the Orca shows up. Different parts of the process. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Chanina
ASGARD HEAVY INDUSTRIES A Point In Space
19
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 07:51:00 -
[847] - Quote
I still wonder about 15 minute anti log-offski timer from NPCs.
Ratting in 0.0, warping to pos and logging off because you know real life sometimes calls. Neut incoming 5 minutes after i logged off and scans down my ratting ship which warped "safe" and now stands outside the force field. He puts web or point on my ship and has endless time to kill it.
If that is correct EVERYONE would be forced to stay 15 minutes logged in doing nothing before logging off. That would be very bad.
Please give some verification how this mechanic works. Would be know problem if ships stay in FF 15 minutes after log out and than warp safe. But getting killed because you had to hurry off won't be entertaining. |

Pipa Porto
1164
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 08:03:00 -
[848] - Quote
Chanina wrote:I still wonder about 15 minute anti log-offski timer from NPCs.
Ratting in 0.0, warping to pos and logging off because you know real life sometimes calls. Neut incoming 5 minutes after i logged off and scans down my ratting ship which warped "safe" and now stands outside the force field. He puts web or point on my ship and has endless time to kill it.
First, you don't know how logging off at a POS works. (HINT: You don't warp anywhere)
Second, the Devblog mentions that the timer is not extendible. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Daioh Azu
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 08:18:00 -
[849] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Daioh Azu wrote:Given that you're relying on the naivety of your mark to engage after you have stolen from him, you might find that an unguarded can of his coveted salvage works just as well. Except that mission runners don't loot with their mission ship. I was in fact suggesting that the baiter salvage the runners wrecks and leave a conveniently placed unguarded can as he goes after some far off wreck. Granted, most newbs are only like to faill for this tactic once, but the same is true for your bait and ship swap tactic.
Pipa Porto wrote:Daioh Azu wrote:"orbit the idiot until Downtime." Now that's an interesting point to explore. Since your flag for theft lasts only 15 minutes should you keep a target pointed until the flag expires what happens? I imagine your coexisting aggression would keep already active modules from alerting Concord, but what about newly activated modules. In any case, orbiting the idiot until downtime is only a consequence should you choose to maintain the stalemate by keeping your point, or you could just warp away. Warp disruptors aren't typical on a PVE fit since mission rats don't try to escape. Wrong flag. You (as the ninja) can only point someone after they have shot at you. That's the problem. The Missionbear will be able to shoot at the interloping frigates with impunity because they know the Frigate can't break their tank, the ninja can't switch to something that can shoot, and even if the ninja does manage to make the switch, everyone in local can come for the free gank instead of having to rely on previously formalized social contacts (corpmates). Please read again. I am aware that in your scenario the baiter can't point his target without a Concordoken until the target fires first. However the taget can't fire first without a Concordoken if the baiter hasn't already been flagged for theft. That is flag to which I refer in my musings.
Precisely how can everyone in local come for the free gank? Isn't this baiting taking place in a mission dead space, whether it be gated or not gated? Unless everyone in local are all in the same fleet, they will have to scan the mission site down, just as you did. Generally I can't get most people to talk in local, let alone get them to join my fleet. |

Suitonia
Corp 54 Curatores Veritatis Alliance
106
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 08:36:00 -
[850] - Quote
Chanina wrote:I still wonder about 15 minute anti log-offski timer from NPCs.
Ratting in 0.0, warping to pos and logging off because you know real life sometimes calls. Neut incoming 5 minutes after i logged off and scans down my ratting ship which warped "safe" and now stands outside the force field. He puts web or point on my ship and has endless time to kill it.
If that is correct EVERYONE would be forced to stay 15 minutes logged in doing nothing before logging off. That would be very bad.
Please give some verification how this mechanic works. Would be know problem if ships stay in FF 15 minutes after log out and than warp safe. But getting killed because you had to hurry off won't be entertaining.
If you logoff in a POS with a timer then your ship just stays inside the POS shields. |
|

Roime
Shiva Furnace Dead On Arrival Alliance
1319
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 08:38:00 -
[851] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Roime wrote:Ejecting change is stupid and unnecessary (of course you need to be able to eject from any ship whenever you want), and NPC timer is too long. The timer is goo, but having to extend your game session by 15 of doing nothing before you can log is a bit harsh. POS up or Dock up. Bam. No need to extend your session. Soloing around in hostile space isn't supposed to be easy.
It isn't easy, but this change doesn't have anything to do with "EVE is hard", just adds a mandatory 15min timer before you can log off. Gallente - the choice of the interstellar gentleman |

Chanina
ASGARD HEAVY INDUSTRIES A Point In Space
19
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 09:02:00 -
[852] - Quote
Suitonia wrote:Chanina wrote:I still wonder about 15 minute anti log-offski timer from NPCs.
Ratting in 0.0, warping to pos and logging off because you know real life sometimes calls. Neut incoming 5 minutes after i logged off and scans down my ratting ship which warped "safe" and now stands outside the force field. He puts web or point on my ship and has endless time to kill it.
If that is correct EVERYONE would be forced to stay 15 minutes logged in doing nothing before logging off. That would be very bad.
Please give some verification how this mechanic works. Would be know problem if ships stay in FF 15 minutes after log out and than warp safe. But getting killed because you had to hurry off won't be entertaining. If you logoff in a POS with a timer then your ship just stays inside the POS shields.
Thanks for that one. Might still happen that you log off outside a pos for some reasons (a carrier on safespot for example)
Think there was some Q&A on eve vegas
Sugar Kyle(blog) wrote:Logoff for NPC aggression is that to hurt people?
Its a sixty second logoff timer for NPC aggression not 15 minutes. http://lowseclifestyle.blogspot.com/
|

Khoda Khan
Zantiu-Braun Corporation Zantiu-Braun Alliance
56
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 09:07:00 -
[853] - Quote
Nice changes coming to Crimewatch!
I especially like the idea of can flippers being flagged suspect to everyone. A few people have alluded to this being unfair, but as a former can flipper I think I would prefer this system as a skilled PVPer is likely to get far more fights out of Crimewatch v2 than under the existing system. Sometimes they may not be the fights they're looking for, but is that necessarily a bad thing?
One thing that I had been hoping to see implemented in the new Crimewatch system didn't make an appearance, and that was a change in how sec status is gained and lost. To make a very long story short, I quit playing EVE nearly two years ago, though I keep my account logged in and a skill always in training.
It would take me maybe a week to recover my -7.5 sec status to a positive number by jumping in a bomber and running system to system hunting NPC BS, but I just can't bring myself to be bothered to do so. I tried it once, worked myself from -9.8 to -7.5, but the sheer boredom of shooting at NPCs just puts me off from logging in and doing it even in short stretches of a few minutes each.
It's always struck me as strange that security losses are the result of PVP but security gains are the result of PVE. I would be playing again, and very regularly, if I could regain my sec status by hunting other negative sec status players, even if the gains had to be sub current NPC gains to prevent the system from being gamed. It could take me six months... a year even... to do what I could do ratting NPCs in a week... I'd go with the PVP option every time, because that at least would be interesting and fun rather than mind-numbingly boring.
In my perfect world, sec status could only be gained or lost through PVP. Anyone who didn't partake would be forever stuck at 0.0 sec status.
!Khoda |

Pipa Porto
1165
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 10:49:00 -
[854] - Quote
Roime wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Roime wrote:Ejecting change is stupid and unnecessary (of course you need to be able to eject from any ship whenever you want), and NPC timer is too long. The timer is goo, but having to extend your game session by 15 of doing nothing before you can log is a bit harsh. POS up or Dock up. Bam. No need to extend your session. Soloing around in hostile space isn't supposed to be easy. It isn't easy, but this change doesn't have anything to do with "EVE is hard", just adds a mandatory 15min timer before you can log off.
And I think that's a lesser problem than the essentially invulnerable state of the current Ratting Carrier.
First Line of Defense: Local Flashing and Updating before the new person loads grid. Second Line: 10s Scan Timer. Third Line: Warp Time Fourth Line: Being ~100km off the Warpin of the site. (Luv You Sentries) Fifth Line: Even if all the other lines of defense fail, simply log off before the Interceptor finishes landing on grid. 60s later, *poof*
What about a 5 minute timer that's extensible like the PC aggro timer? Reduces the wait before logging in normal circumstances while removing people's ability to Loggoffski to prevent being caught while their pants are down and they're grasping their ankles. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Traidir
Hedion University Amarr Empire
29
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 10:56:00 -
[855] - Quote
From the chart: "Disrupt another player's warp with warp disruption bubble" in "other sec" causes pvp flag
There are two potential problems with this. TheMaster42 has pointed out one possible one.
TheMaster42 wrote:So will the PvP flag appear on your screen when you INITIATE warp and are going to get pulled in by a drag bubble (so you can cancel your warp in response)? Even if the flag is not applied until the ship reaches the bubble, because the flags are now visible, a bubbling ship will know when an incoming cloaked ship has been affected by his bubble. I.E. You've turned them into limited tech 2 cloak detectors.... |

Pipa Porto
1165
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 10:57:00 -
[856] - Quote
Daioh Azu wrote:I was in fact suggesting that the baiter salvage the runners wrecks and leave a conveniently placed unguarded can as he goes after some far off wreck. Granted, most newbs are only like to faill for this tactic once, but the same is true for your bait and ship swap tactic.
Problem with that. Taking their can back will not flag them for violence under Crimewatch 2.0.
[EDIT]Let me rephrase that. Taking a can from a suspect will not give you any flags. And taking from someone else's can gives you a giant warning sign (or will be made impossible by the Safety system).[/EDIT]
Gotta read those pesky Dev Blogs.
Daioh Azu wrote:Please read again. I am aware that in your scenario the baiter can't point his target without a Concordoken until the target fires first. However the taget can't fire first without a Concordoken if the baiter hasn't already been flagged for theft. That is flag to which I refer in my musings.
Precisely how can everyone in local come for the free gank? Isn't this baiting taking place in a mission dead space, whether it be gated or not gated? Unless everyone in local are all in the same fleet, they will have to scan the mission site down, just as you did. Generally I can't get most people to talk in local, let alone get them to join my fleet.
Your Theft flag is irrelevant to keeping the mission runner pointed. Their aggression flag for shooting you is continually refreshed as you shoot/point/whatever them. Other than changing the name of the flag to a PvP Flag, Crimewatch 2.0 isn't going to change that.
Right Click -> Invite to Fleet
Unlike LS, this cannot lead to an effective trap, and the interlopers can wait to engage until they're sure of victory. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Pipa Porto
1165
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 10:58:00 -
[857] - Quote
Traidir wrote:From the chart: "Disrupt another player's warp with warp disruption bubble" in "other sec" causes pvp flag There are two potential problems with this. TheMaster42 has pointed out one possible one. TheMaster42 wrote:So will the PvP flag appear on your screen when you INITIATE warp and are going to get pulled in by a drag bubble (so you can cancel your warp in response)? Even if the flag is not applied until the ship reaches the bubble, because the flags are now visible, a bubbling ship will know when an incoming cloaked ship has been affected by his bubble. I.E. You've turned them into limited tech 2 cloak detectors....
That's awesome. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Borlag Crendraven
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
94
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 11:33:00 -
[858] - Quote
Traidir wrote:From the chart: "Disrupt another player's warp with warp disruption bubble" in "other sec" causes pvp flag There are two potential problems with this. TheMaster42 has pointed out one possible one. TheMaster42 wrote:So will the PvP flag appear on your screen when you INITIATE warp and are going to get pulled in by a drag bubble (so you can cancel your warp in response)? Even if the flag is not applied until the ship reaches the bubble, because the flags are now visible, a bubbling ship will know when an incoming cloaked ship has been affected by his bubble. I.E. You've turned them into limited tech 2 cloak detectors....
Chances are the it's tied to the person actually trying to warp from inside the bubble, similar to how bubbles get you on killmails. |

Magic Crisp
Amarrian Micro Devices Silent Infinity
42
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 12:00:00 -
[859] - Quote
Sounds awesome so far. Could you please add something that turns some kind of EW from aggression to assists? Like webbing a freighter within a fleet (this is a keyword here) is not an offense, but aiding it. Could you please build in supporting this usecase?
|

Bart Starr
Aggressive Structural Steel Expediting Services
112
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 12:28:00 -
[860] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote: Bart,
Respectfully, you do not understand the whole situation. As bad as the problem is in high sec, it is FAR worse in low. The reason people have been hesitant to elaborate is because we already deal with this crap enough without posting it on the forums.
Ultimately what it comes down to is this: Certain players are risk averse. They want the excitement of the kill, they love the tears, but they insist on immunity for themselves. Whether we are talking about ganking miners or haulers, baiting mission runners, or parking a mach and a carrier in the station superstructure in low, the goal is the same.
Those who defend these exploits (and justify their use of them) love to say things like "Eve is a harsh place" and "Don't undock what you can't lose," but they say them unaware of the taint of hypocrisy clinging to their words. They are the ones most afraid of losing. Baiting mission runners is like an adult man heading to the local Kindergarten looking to pick a fight with a five year old -- and insisting that you need this ship swapping nonsense is like that same adult managing to find a fiesty five-year-old... then panicking and pulling out a gun because the little guy put of a fight.
CCP is changing it to where you will no longer be able to pull that gun. You can still head to that school, you can still pick on the little kids you find there, but now, finally, you are going to have to risk not only that kid kicking your ass, but the adults stepping in to help them.
First, you stated a falsehood - "the only reason people would do this is to save their ship". Thats what I spent two pages going around with Tippia about. High sec ninjas don't care about 'saving' anything. We just need a way to bring additional DPS to bust PVE tanks, after we've killed their drones and have them scrammed and webbed.
Crimewatch makes them even safer, as all they need to do is call out in local, fleet with a willing vigilante that can outrun the Orca to the site. In addition to this, new NPC AI makes all of this more unpredictable and more difficult to pull off.
Don't be so quick to take the carebear's side.
We aren't talking about picking on some 5 day old noob in a LVL 1 mission.... We are talking about mission runners in faction fit CNRs. We are talking about Marauders. We are talking about carebears with years of mission running under their belt, not 'kids'.
And as it is, they only fall for stuff like this....occasionally. You generally need to scan down a lot of bots and Drakes before you find someone who will dance with you. The bait that is dangled before them is a 'PVP' kill against an annoying 'weak' ninja frigate. They think 'LOL easy kill on a Heron' When they take it, and the Heron turns the tables on them, why shouldn't they be put at SOME kind of risk? Why should the ninja be expected to have to kill the CNR in a Heron (impossible), or allow the target 60 seconds to escape (will happen 99.5% of the time)? Remember, the CNR shot first....
Besides. the most dangerous thing we can even haul into a mission with an Orca is a BC sized ship. It shouldn't be too hard to get enough help after CW 2.0 to deal with a lone Plated Neut Hurricane. ( Oh wait, those got nerfed too.)I thought THAT was the point of Crimewatch - putting security in player hands.....not completely hamstringing the criminals to the point where they don't even bother anymore.... |
|

Bart Starr
Aggressive Structural Steel Expediting Services
112
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 12:43:00 -
[861] - Quote
Daioh Azu wrote: Please read again. I am aware that in your scenario the baiter can't point his target without a Concordoken until the target fires first. However the taget can't fire first without a Concordoken if the baiter hasn't already been flagged for theft. That is flag to which I refer in my musings.
Precisely how can everyone in local come for the free gank? Isn't this baiting taking place in a mission dead space, whether it be gated or not gated? Unless everyone in local are all in the same fleet, they will have to scan the mission site down, just as you did. Generally I can't get most people to talk in local, let alone get them to join my fleet.
You say "Help. Tackled. In Belt. Pls Hurry"
Then you invite the first person who responds to your fleet. If they can move faster than an Orca, you've got your white knight. I'm perfectly OK with that as it could lead to interesting fights beyond executing the carebear who shot at you.
But none of that will ever happen, because after CW baiting will be essentially dead.
I'm not OK with is simultaneously rendering ninjas impotent with a stupid overreaction.
Greyscale: "Carebear shot you because he wanted to fight a frigate with his faction fit CNR. You are now required to oblige him."
 |

Roime
Shiva Furnace Dead On Arrival Alliance
1319
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 12:54:00 -
[862] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote: And I think that's a lesser problem than the essentially invulnerable state of the current Ratting Carrier.
First Line of Defense: Local Flashing and Updating before the new person loads grid. Second Line: 10s Scan Timer. Third Line: Warp Time Fourth Line: Being ~100km off the Warpin of the site. (Luv You Sentries) Fifth Line: Even if all the other lines of defense fail, simply log off before the Interceptor finishes landing on grid. 60s later, *poof*
What about a 5 minute timer that's extensible like the PC aggro timer? Reduces the wait before logging in normal circumstances while removing people's ability to Loggoffski to prevent being caught while their pants are down and they're grasping their ankles.
5 minutes extensible sounds much better.
Also local should update only after the newcomer breaks gate cloak, if there really needs to be local in null for whatever reason.
Gallente - the choice of the interstellar gentleman |

Pipa Porto
1169
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 14:06:00 -
[863] - Quote
Roime wrote:5 minutes extensible sounds much better.
It does have to be something reasonably long so that people who try to use it to escape get caught, but I do grant that inconveniencing those without access to a POS would be unfortunate.
What I really don't see is why it shouldn't be extensible no matter what the starting length. If you catch something due to its owner's incompetence, you should be able to kill it. And incompetence it will be with the giant yellow symbol in the top left to tell you your timer.
Quote:Also local should update only after the newcomer breaks gate cloak, if there really needs to be local in null for whatever reason.
I would say local update with grid load. At least to start. That way both pilots become aware of each other at the same time. Or maybe local updating when breaking gate cloak, but no local until you break cloak (though that hamstrings scouts, so ehhh).
And there is a need for local in Null. It's the main thing that makes it different than WHs.
But that's probably best for another thread. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Esker Sheep
Havoc Violence and Chaos BricK sQuAD.
15
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 15:19:00 -
[864] - Quote
I must say that I like the way this is going. Lots of nice tears to be had.
I'd like to see a change to the NPC timer though. Allow it to be changed to a PVP timer, and therefore able to be extended, if someone can aggress it before it expires.
As to the complaints about the timer being too long and removing an exploit that they had been using. You're using an exploit, consider yourself blessed that you've able to get away with it thus far.
I predict far more lowsec gate camping with fast lockers and lots of alpha. This will require a change in tactics, and more cooperative play, to overcome. On the negative side it may stop more people venturing into lowsec unless the rewards really are worth it. |

Tsukinosuke
Id Est
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 15:20:00 -
[865] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:
And there is a need for local in Null. It's the main thing that makes it different than WHs.
you are pretty wrong. 0.0 is home of pirate factions. so actually "It's the main thing that makes it different than" emperial regions(gallente/caldari/amarr/minmatar). |

Pipa Porto
1172
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 16:24:00 -
[866] - Quote
Tsukinosuke wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:
And there is a need for local in Null. It's the main thing that makes it different than WHs.
you are pretty wrong. 0.0 is home of pirate factions. so actually "It's the main thing that makes it different than" emperial regions(gallente/caldari/amarr/minmatar).
Where was I comparing Nullsec to Empire? Try reading all of the words in the line you quote. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Ghostwarden
Tollan Enterprises Tollan Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 16:59:00 -
[867] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Ghostwarden wrote:Why not instead of bringing an Orca with an additional ship you instead just have the other character in a combat ship that CAN break the PVE tank waiting cloaked to come in once you have a point on the ship? Seems to me that what you really want is to have the ability to pick a fight single-handed and have whatever ships you need to johnny on the spot in a way that the PVE player cannot, its not advisable to bring an orca into a mission so that I can have my spare combat ship after all. Once again it sounds like you just want an uneven playing field.
Because that's not how CONCORD works. HS mechanics force these fights to be single handed on the part of the baiter.
I do understand how the mechanics work. What I'm trying to point out is that currently doing the orca swap is something that was not intended but is none the less viable. People have been using this tactic and making bank at at. My previous statement about people just wanting to have multiple ships on hand to perform their gank still stands. Players could just as well fit a warp scrambler on their pvp ship (and yes I know that they would have to give something up to do it but they can do it none the less). The changes that they are making will nix that. I also understand that people feel that this will kill the ability to gank mission runners in high sec, but I'd like to point out that before the Orca was ever in the game players were ganking carebares in missions (I know because it happened to me) without it and they will continue to do so in the future. But it will be a little more dangerous to do so given that they are exposing themselves to attack from anyone.
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
605
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 17:18:00 -
[868] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote:OT Smithers wrote: Bart,
Respectfully, you do not understand the whole situation. As bad as the problem is in high sec, it is FAR worse in low. The reason people have been hesitant to elaborate is because we already deal with this crap enough without posting it on the forums.
Ultimately what it comes down to is this: Certain players are risk averse. They want the excitement of the kill, they love the tears, but they insist on immunity for themselves. Whether we are talking about ganking miners or haulers, baiting mission runners, or parking a mach and a carrier in the station superstructure in low, the goal is the same.
Those who defend these exploits (and justify their use of them) love to say things like "Eve is a harsh place" and "Don't undock what you can't lose," but they say them unaware of the taint of hypocrisy clinging to their words. They are the ones most afraid of losing. Baiting mission runners is like an adult man heading to the local Kindergarten looking to pick a fight with a five year old -- and insisting that you need this ship swapping nonsense is like that same adult managing to find a fiesty five-year-old... then panicking and pulling out a gun because the little guy put of a fight.
CCP is changing it to where you will no longer be able to pull that gun. You can still head to that school, you can still pick on the little kids you find there, but now, finally, you are going to have to risk not only that kid kicking your ass, but the adults stepping in to help them.
First, you stated a falsehood - "the only reason people would do this is to save their ship". Thats what I spent two pages going around with Tippia about. High sec ninjas don't care about 'saving' anything. We just need a way to bring additional DPS to bust PVE tanks, after we've killed their drones and have them scrammed and webbed. Crimewatch makes them even safer, as all they need to do is call out in local, fleet with a willing vigilante that can outrun the Orca to the site. In addition to this, new NPC AI makes all of this more unpredictable and more difficult to pull off. Don't be so quick to take the carebear's side. We aren't talking about picking on some 5 day old noob in a LVL 1 mission.... We are talking about mission runners in faction fit CNRs. We are talking about Marauders. We are talking about carebears with years of mission running under their belt, not 'kids'. And as it is, they only fall for stuff like this....occasionally. You generally need to scan down a lot of bots and Drakes before you find someone who will dance with you. The bait that is dangled before them is a 'PVP' kill against an annoying 'weak' ninja frigate. They think 'LOL easy kill on a Heron' When they take it, and the Heron turns the tables on them, why shouldn't they be put at SOME kind of risk? Why should the ninja be expected to have to kill the CNR in a Heron (impossible), or allow the target 60 seconds to escape (will happen 99.5% of the time)? Remember, the CNR shot first.... Besides. the most dangerous thing we can even haul into a mission with an Orca is a BC sized ship. It shouldn't be too hard to get enough help after CW 2.0 to deal with a lone Plated Neut Hurricane. (  Oh wait, those got nerfed too.)I thought THAT was the point of Crimewatch - putting security in player hands.....not completely hamstringing the criminals to the point where they don't even bother anymore....
I'll acknowledge that CW2.0 changes make mission baiting harder... but so what.... you can still get plenty of PvP with the upcoming changes...
1.) Mission baiting can still happen... but your tactics need to change some.... instead of baiting with a heron, you need to bait with a ship that can actually win the fight (use a vexor or whatever instead). Or, you can still bait your opponent with a heron, but hold them there until they pay you a ransom.... (or get help). Your suspect flag is only 15 minutes, and isn't extended...
2.) Send out fake S.O.S.'s.... and gank those that come...
3.) Finding fights will be easier.... it doesn't matter if everyone CAN shoot you, only a small percentage of highsec players WILL shoot you.... so quit acting like the sky is falling... this is a BOOST to your PvP.... become a suspect, get some attention of vigilantes... and you'll get lots of fights!!!
4.) Newb PvP'ers are much, much, much more likely to get into PvP now.... They don't have to can flip and hope to get a response.. instead they can become vigilantes and chase down suspects. How is this NOT good for beginner PvP'ers???
|

Bart Starr
Aggressive Structural Steel Expediting Services
114
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 17:41:00 -
[869] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
1.) Mission baiting can still happen... but your tactics need to change some.... instead of baiting with a heron, you need to bait with a ship that can actually win the fight (use a vexor or whatever instead). Or, you can still bait your opponent with a heron, but hold them there until they pay you a ransom.... (or get help). Your suspect flag is only 15 minutes, and isn't extended...
Yeah, try killing a faction fit Passive Rattlesnake with a Vexor. Let me know how that works out for you.
And getting fights with vigilantes in T2 cruisers and Drakes is all well and good, but it misses the point:
Killing heavily tanked, expensively fit Battleships is the goal, not skirmishing with Rifters.
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
605
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 18:00:00 -
[870] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
1.) Mission baiting can still happen... but your tactics need to change some.... instead of baiting with a heron, you need to bait with a ship that can actually win the fight (use a vexor or whatever instead). Or, you can still bait your opponent with a heron, but hold them there until they pay you a ransom.... (or get help). Your suspect flag is only 15 minutes, and isn't extended...
Yeah, try killing a faction fit Passive Rattlesnake with a Vexor. Let me know how that works out for you. And getting fights with vigilantes in T2 cruisers and Drakes is all well and good, but it misses the point: Killing heavily tanked, expensively fit Battleships is the goal, not skirmishing with Rifters.
It won't be easy.... and you'll probably fail until you learn how to do it... but I'm sure it's possible...
most ships have a weakness... exploit it! |
|

Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5044
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 18:25:00 -
[871] - Quote
Sounds like it's time to dust off the bait Hyperions This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Federation posting cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online posting.
fofofofofo |

Raigir
Frontier Explorer's League Sadistica Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 18:59:00 -
[872] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Raigir wrote:So given the information from the ever so pretty charts: Low Sec gate guns won't engage you if you start attacking someone? I ask: Do you get a criminal after destroying your target or are you still just a suspect? Else is the criminal timer only for pods (speaking low sec)? Given what I deduced, unless we pod kill, pirates no longer have anything to fear from gate guns. (which I won't exactly complain about to be honest  ) If you attack someone who is not a legal target for you, you take a sec hit. If gate guns see you take a sec hit, they'll engage. In high sec, you'll get a criminal flag, and get concorded. In lowsec you'll get a suspect flag (unless it's a pod. then it's a criminal flag).
Not according to their chart on consequences. Gate guns only engage criminal flaged targets. Since engaging a ship in low sec only applies a suspect flag, gate guns will not attack. The only time someone criminal flaged in low sec is for attacking a pod. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
605
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 19:03:00 -
[873] - Quote
Raigir wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Raigir wrote:So given the information from the ever so pretty charts: Low Sec gate guns won't engage you if you start attacking someone? I ask: Do you get a criminal after destroying your target or are you still just a suspect? Else is the criminal timer only for pods (speaking low sec)? Given what I deduced, unless we pod kill, pirates no longer have anything to fear from gate guns. (which I won't exactly complain about to be honest  ) If you attack someone who is not a legal target for you, you take a sec hit. If gate guns see you take a sec hit, they'll engage. In high sec, you'll get a criminal flag, and get concorded. In lowsec you'll get a suspect flag (unless it's a pod. then it's a criminal flag). Not according to their chart on consequences. Gate guns only engage criminal flaged targets. Since engaging a ship in low sec only applies a suspect flag, gate guns will not attack. The only time someone criminal flaged in low sec is for attacking a pod.
Read the Botom Row
So, everything that gives you a sec hit gets you gate gun aggro.....
Then Read the Sec Satus Penalty Column
|

OT Smithers
BLOMI
203
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 19:56:00 -
[874] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Daioh Azu wrote:Given that you're relying on the naivety of your mark to engage after you have stolen from him, you might find that an unguarded can of his coveted salvage works just as well. Except that mission runners don't loot with their mission ship. Quote:"orbit the idiot until Downtime." Now that's an interesting point to explore. Since your flag for theft lasts only 15 minutes should you keep a target pointed until the flag expires what happens? I imagine your coexisting aggression would keep already active modules from alerting Concord, but what about newly activated modules. In any case, orbiting the idiot until downtime is only a consequence should you choose to maintain the stalemate by keeping your point, or you could just warp away. Warp disruptors aren't typical on a PVE fit since mission rats don't try to escape. Wrong flag. You (as the ninja) can only point someone after they have shot at you. That's the problem. The Missionbear will be able to shoot at the interloping frigates with impunity because they know the Frigate can't break their tank, the ninja can't switch to something that can shoot, and even if the ninja does manage to make the switch, everyone in local can come for the free gank instead of having to rely on previously formalized social contacts (corpmates).
So... get better?
Why would you feel entitled to harrass these folks, steal their stuff, then kill them with absolutely no risk to yourself? You have every possible advantage going in: you can search for the ship you want to go after, you can check the character age, you know exactly how they will be tanked, you know what kind of damage they will likely be dishing out, you know that they do not have a point or neuts, you know that even if everything goes completely wrong the worst that will happen is that you might lose a bait frigate.
In other words, you want everything handed to you on a silver platter. You want the risk and skill free hrassment and slaughter of players who, by their choice to play in high sec, have indicated that they are not currently interested in PvP.
And now your tears are flooding this forum. You are going to lose one advantage. Whatever. Get over it or cancel.
|

OT Smithers
BLOMI
204
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 20:17:00 -
[875] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
1.) Mission baiting can still happen... but your tactics need to change some.... instead of baiting with a heron, you need to bait with a ship that can actually win the fight (use a vexor or whatever instead). Or, you can still bait your opponent with a heron, but hold them there until they pay you a ransom.... (or get help). Your suspect flag is only 15 minutes, and isn't extended...
Yeah, try killing a faction fit Passive Rattlesnake with a Vexor. Let me know how that works out for you. And getting fights with vigilantes in T2 cruisers and Drakes is all well and good, but it misses the point: Killing heavily tanked, expensively fit Battleships is the goal, not skirmishing with Rifters.
Here's a thought...
Maybe it's time for you to leave the kiddie pool and head out to either low sec or null. Seriously, unless you are a new player, high sec baiting is lame. I'm sure you are very good at it, but it's lame. It's way past time for you to get your pirate on. Come join us in low sec. You'll lose more often, but you will damn sure have a hell of a lot more fun. |

Bart Starr
Aggressive Structural Steel Expediting Services
115
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 20:37:00 -
[876] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Bart Starr wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
1.) Mission baiting can still happen... but your tactics need to change some.... instead of baiting with a heron, you need to bait with a ship that can actually win the fight (use a vexor or whatever instead). Or, you can still bait your opponent with a heron, but hold them there until they pay you a ransom.... (or get help). Your suspect flag is only 15 minutes, and isn't extended...
Yeah, try killing a faction fit Passive Rattlesnake with a Vexor. Let me know how that works out for you. And getting fights with vigilantes in T2 cruisers and Drakes is all well and good, but it misses the point: Killing heavily tanked, expensively fit Battleships is the goal, not skirmishing with Rifters. Here's a thought... Maybe it's time for you to leave the kiddie pool and head out to either low sec or null. Seriously, unless you are a new player, high sec baiting is lame. I'm sure you are very good at it, but it's lame. It's way past time for you to get your pirate on. Come join us in low sec. You'll lose more often, but you will damn sure have a hell of a lot more fun.
Missing the point again. How many faction or deadspace fit CNRs are in lowsec? How much ISK do yo make blowing up T1 Ruptures in lowsec? How many tears are collected from killing a pilot in lowsec who is looking for a fight in a cheap insured ship? You realize that without ninjas, LVL 4 Mission runner ships are almost completely without threat in highsec?
And no, a even a buffed Vexor isn't going to kill a bling Passive Rattlesnake - even if you convince one to shoot at a Vexor. Even the pre-nerf, stock ninja Plate/Neut Hurricanes struggle to crack them because of reload cycles on autocannons.
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
606
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 21:02:00 -
[877] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote:OT Smithers wrote:Bart Starr wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
1.) Mission baiting can still happen... but your tactics need to change some.... instead of baiting with a heron, you need to bait with a ship that can actually win the fight (use a vexor or whatever instead). Or, you can still bait your opponent with a heron, but hold them there until they pay you a ransom.... (or get help). Your suspect flag is only 15 minutes, and isn't extended...
Yeah, try killing a faction fit Passive Rattlesnake with a Vexor. Let me know how that works out for you. And getting fights with vigilantes in T2 cruisers and Drakes is all well and good, but it misses the point: Killing heavily tanked, expensively fit Battleships is the goal, not skirmishing with Rifters. Here's a thought... Maybe it's time for you to leave the kiddie pool and head out to either low sec or null. Seriously, unless you are a new player, high sec baiting is lame. I'm sure you are very good at it, but it's lame. It's way past time for you to get your pirate on. Come join us in low sec. You'll lose more often, but you will damn sure have a hell of a lot more fun. Missing the point again. How many faction or deadspace fit CNRs are in lowsec? How much ISK do yo make blowing up T1 Ruptures in lowsec? How many tears are collected from killing a pilot in lowsec who is looking for a fight in a cheap insured ship? You realize that without ninjas, LVL 4 Mission runner ships are almost completely without threat in highsec? And no, a even a buffed Vexor isn't going to kill a bling Passive Rattlesnake - even if you convince one to shoot at a Vexor. Even the pre-nerf, stock ninja Plate/Neut Hurricanes struggle to crack them because of reload cycles on autocannons.
If they are officer fit.... combine it with a suicide gank to get it over the regen threshold... it will often still be worth it.... Or just hold them in place until they pay you to leave.... you may not get the ship kill... buy you can still make isk..... Or start experimenting... its adapt or die time, and I'm positive all worthy gankers will still find ways to gank mission runners. And when it becomes more rare, and more difficult, you'll find emboldened carebears that still make tasty treats....
If you can't adapt to these changes, then you probably need to find a new profession...
This system, so far, is so full of awesomesauce that I really don't understand your opposition... |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
811

|
Posted - 2012.10.08 22:16:00 -
[878] - 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 -
[879] - 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 -
[880] - 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 -
[881] - 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 -
[882] - 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 -
[883] - 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 |
|

Salpun
Paramount Commerce
386
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 22:27:00 -
[884] - Quote
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. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
606
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 22:35:00 -
[885] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: 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
2 things:
Assisting corp mates in a LE is allowed without becoming a suspect???? That's kind of harsh to the suspect... as it means they cannot attack the In Corp logistics assisting their opponent!!!
*edit* to clarify: A attacks suspect B... and creates a limited engagement. Logistics Pilot C, who's a corp mate of A, would then be able to remote assist pilot A. But since they aren't flagged suspect, Player B cannot do ANYTHING to player C.... This is wrong..
and
You still have NOT answered the question about non-limited engagements in highsec/lowsec.
Quote:An LE is created when character A attacks character B, and where B is globally-attackable due to being a Suspect, Criminal or Outlaw.
But in legal fights (from wars and with killrights), there is NO LE, because there are no globally-attackable flags...
so what are the rules about OOC alts assisting in these engagements |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
812

|
Posted - 2012.10.08 22:38:00 -
[886] - 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 |
|

Salpun
Paramount Commerce
386
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 22:38:00 -
[887] - Quote
Got a question about WH fights.
No flags get created right or do flags get created but only effect things if you jump out?
I would suggest disabling the weapons flag in WH and null sec space.
|
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
812

|
Posted - 2012.10.08 22:41:00 -
[888] - 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 |
|

Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
912
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 22:42:00 -
[889] - Quote
Any chance for suspect flags for using combat offgrid-gang boosting in a gang while PVP flags are running?
This would work like logistics assistance, if PVP flag is greater for a fleet member, etc? Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |

Salpun
Paramount Commerce
386
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 22:44:00 -
[890] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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? There was a tweet out of EVE Vegas that one of the devs confirmed the -5 was in I'll have to look it up. At least that is where i think i saw it.
|
|

Cerulean Ice
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
31
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 22:47:00 -
[891] - Quote
CCP, how would the flag work in this case:
A has suspect flag B attacks A C helps B with logi C is not part of the same corp as B, but is in the same fleet
Alternatively A has suspect flag B attacks A C attacks A then helps B with logi C is not part of the same corp as B, but is in the same fleet
What happens to B and C in both cases? |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
606
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 22:54:00 -
[892] - Quote
POST A
CCP Masterplan wrote: 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)
^^ This is not acceptable... as it allows free logistics that are immune to retribution... just because they are in your corp...
POST B
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 like this... as it means that Remote Assisting in PvP is dangerous in highsec...
If you do NOT implement your Post A, then:
Player A attacks Player B. Player C remote assists Player A.
If player C gives remote assistance to player A, they get a suspect flag UNLESS player B can legally shoot player C due to killrights/wars. Player C can still help Player A by shooting or EWARing Player B, but if they use logistics they risk being shot by others!!! |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
606
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 22:58:00 -
[893] - Quote
Cerulean Ice wrote:CCP, how would the flag work in this case:
A has suspect flag B attacks A C helps B with logi C is not part of the same corp as B, but is in the same fleet
Player C is flagged a suspect and can be shot by EVERYONE (including Player B).
Cerulean Ice wrote:
Alternatively A has suspect flag B attacks A C attacks A then helps B with logi C is not part of the same corp as B, but is in the same fleet
What happens to B and C in both cases?
Player C first creates a LE with player A when it shoots player A. This allows player A to shoot Player C too... Player C then is flagged a suspect for violating the LE between A & B when it reps player B, and can be shot by EVERYONE (including player B).
^ LE's are between two character's only... so attacking player C first doesn't "extend" the LE to enable suspect-flag-free logistics. |

Terrorfrodo
Deep Space Darwinian Law Enforcement Agency
197
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 23:01:00 -
[894] - Quote
So there is this rumour out that NPC aggro timer will not be 15 minutes but will stay as it is now, at 60 seconds. It seems to be based on a vague account by an eyewitness about what Soundwave supposedly said at EVE Vegas.
Any confirmation? It seems completely ridiculous to me to first shock everyone with a 15 minute timer, then just leave it at 1 minute. If there is to be a revision, one would at least expect something in between. . |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
606
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 23:08:00 -
[895] - Quote
Terrorfrodo wrote:So there is this rumour out that NPC aggro timer will not be 15 minutes but will stay as it is now, at 60 seconds. It seems to be based on a vague account by an eyewitness about what Soundwave supposedly said at EVE Vegas.
Any confirmation? It seems completely ridiculous to me to first shock everyone with a 15 minute timer, then just leave it at 1 minute. If there is to be a revision, one would at least expect something in between.
I could be mistaken, but I believe the current NPC aggression timer is 2 minutes.
I think the 15 minute aggro timer is a good thing... as it prevents Nullsec carebears from logging off to "get safe" whenever a hostile enters system (which is a cheap and pathetic way to get safe)!!! I'll admit, a 5 minute timer would work as well as a 15 minute timer for this....
The ONLY drawback to this timer, is if you are scrammed in a LvL 4 missions or plex, there is a strong likelihood your ship will be killed before it despawns... whereas 2 (or even 5) minutes is much more survivable. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
606
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 23:14:00 -
[896] - Quote
Another drawback to using highsec logistics, is your logi ships become vulnerable to an attack that your dps ships cannot defend.
Player Z is a suspect.... Pilots A-D attacks player Z, creating four LE's with Player Z. Pilots E & F both rep Pilot A, and all becoming flagged as suspects.
Then, Pilots L, M, N, & O might attack Pilots E & F (who are suspects), and Pilots A-D cannot help their logi pilots because none of the Pilots L-O are suspects.....
Essentially, highsec logistics become very dangerous to use.... but that's a good thing!!! |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
606
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 23:19:00 -
[897] - Quote
Salpun wrote:Got a question about WH fights.
No flags get created right or do flags get created but only effect things if you jump out?
I would suggest disabling the weapons flag in WH and null sec space.
Wormholes are included in the section labeled other sec
You gain Weapons, PvP, and NPC flags just like you would in nullsec. |

Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
452
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 23:42:00 -
[898] - Quote
Instead of posting all these A attacks B who is a friend of C's barber, why not wait 2 weeks until it's on the test server? Seriously, every possible twist and turn has been posted 5 different ways, and no one bothers to read the responses anyways. Also, they're still changing things, so it may change before it hits the test server making it all moot.
|

Bubanni
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
462
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 23:53:00 -
[899] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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.
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?) Christmas wish list https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134275 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934 |

Mikaila Penshar
Take it Deep
11
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 02:25:00 -
[900] - Quote
When can we expect a DevBlog on the changes to the BOUNTY SYSTEM ??? |
|

Pipa Porto
1174
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 03:03:00 -
[901] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:So... get better?
Why would you feel entitled to harrass these folks, steal their stuff, then kill them with absolutely no risk to yourself? You have every possible advantage going in: you can search for the ship you want to go after, you can check the character age, you know exactly how they will be tanked, you know what kind of damage they will likely be dishing out, you know that they do not have a point or neuts, you know that even if everything goes completely wrong the worst that will happen is that you might lose a bait frigate.
In other words, you want everything handed to you on a silver platter. You want the risk and skill free hrassment and slaughter of players who, by their choice to play in high sec, have indicated that they are not currently interested in PvP.
And now your tears are flooding this forum. You are going to lose one advantage. Whatever. Get over it or cancel.
First, I feel entitled to ninja loot and gank because this is EVE and doing so is a legitimate profession.
Second, you're forgetting the big whopper of an advantage that the missionbear has. They get to choose the engagement. The whole event starts when they decide "Oooh, I can just pop that harmless lickle frigate and get a free kill." Crimewatch 2.0 virtually ensures that they either get that free kill or escape. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Bart Starr
Aggressive Structural Steel Expediting Services
115
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 03:54:00 -
[902] - Quote
Its funny how the only element of Crimewatch that poses a slight inconvenience to Carebears and botters (the NPC timer), is the only part that seems to be currently under consideration for removal.
Crimewatch as a whole sucks, but the 15 minute NPC timer was the only thing I was somewhat happy to see. Figures that they are now talking about eliminating it.
Destroying an entire non-standard profession, and one of the few threats still existing in highsec - thats perfectly A-OK. Locking people inside their ships for no good reason - causing lag induced random poddings - Greyscale's down for it.
But cause a slight inconvenience to carebears and botters - who are simply mad because they won't be able to logoffski...
...Wow, CCP revises the NPC timer duration to 60 seconds so fast, your head spins. (which isn't enough time to scan down, let alone kill a ratter, making it useless for hunting carebears)
Guess the carebears really do wear the pants....way to HTFU CCP devs. 
|

Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
65
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 04:31:00 -
[903] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:No need to courier package them. You can't open a container that's in a jet can or wreck (or POS Hangar). How are you making mistakes of game mechanics this basic?
Here's a solution. Give the corp with the final blow looting rights on their kill. Shared rights with the dead guy (ofc). This means that Suicide Gankers have to be in corps (which means they can be decced), they have to all be in the same corp (a nerf to ganking, but whatever), but can still loot their shit.
My better solution would be to try to redesign Crimewatch without starting with the mission statement "How can we make HS Safer?" Last I checked, containers don't drop inside wrecks. They drop out in space next to the wreck. Which makes them easily lootable and/or scoopable. Or is that another basic mistake on my part?... 
And I don't think that giving an entire corp loot rights on a kill makes much sense. It's like saying because you beat the shiite out of some guy, now you and all your friends can legally take his wallet, watch, and shoes. That's just crazy. I know, I know - real life examples and EvE don't mesh. It's just a game and all that. But still, that kind of rule would just be messed up beyond belief. It would turn empire space into a ganker's paradise. And I can't believe you are trying to use corp membership and war decs as a justification. They are both incredibly abusable mechanics. You're gonna have to try harder and come up with better ideas than that. |

Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
65
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 04:38:00 -
[904] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote:Its funny how the only element of Crimewatch that poses a slight inconvenience to Carebears and botters (the NPC timer), is the only part that seems to be currently under consideration for removal. Crimewatch as a whole sucks, but the 15 minute NPC timer was the only thing I was somewhat happy to see. Figures that they are now talking about eliminating it. Destroying an entire non-standard profession, and one of the few threats still existing in highsec - thats perfectly A-OK. Locking people inside their ships for no good reason - causing lag induced random poddings - Greyscale's down for it. But cause a slight inconvenience to carebears and botters - who are simply mad because they won't be able to logoffski... ...Wow, CCP revises the NPC timer duration to 60 seconds so fast, your head spins. (which isn't enough time to scan down, let alone kill a ratter, making it useless for hunting carebears) Guess the carebears really do wear the pants....way to HTFU CCP devs.  Don't know if I am quite as upset as Bart is, but he does have a very good point. Logoffski should never be a valid form of escape.
If they are whining because they can now die during a L4 with scram rats if they dc, then maybe they shouldn't be trying to do them solo. Might actually put some bite into PvE content for once.
|

Pipa Porto
1177
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 07:36:00 -
[905] - Quote
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:No need to courier package them. You can't open a container that's in a jet can or wreck (or POS Hangar). How are you making mistakes of game mechanics this basic?
Here's a solution. Give the corp with the final blow looting rights on their kill. Shared rights with the dead guy (ofc). This means that Suicide Gankers have to be in corps (which means they can be decced), they have to all be in the same corp (a nerf to ganking, but whatever), but can still loot their shit.
My better solution would be to try to redesign Crimewatch without starting with the mission statement "How can we make HS Safer?" Last I checked, containers don't drop inside wrecks. They drop out in space next to the wreck. Which makes them easily lootable and/or scoopable. Or is that another basic mistake on my part?...  And I don't think that giving an entire corp loot rights on a kill makes much sense. It's like saying because you beat the shiite out of some guy, now you and all your friends can legally take his wallet, watch, and shoes. That's just crazy. I know, I know - real life examples and EvE don't mesh. It's just a game and all that. But still, that kind of rule would just be messed up beyond belief. It would turn empire space into a ganker's paradise. And I can't believe you are trying to use corp membership and war decs as a justification. They are both incredibly abusable mechanics. You're gonna have to try harder and come up with better ideas than that.
Hey, I also want Wardecs to be fixed. Allow Decs to follow people who quit corps.
Like I said, a better solution would be to try developing Crimewatch 2.0 from the start without the mission statement "How can we make Lazy and Stupid Carebears safer?" EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Elysian Empire
410
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 07:37:00 -
[906] - Quote
Failwatch aka how CCP learned to love the carebears |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
813

|
Posted - 2012.10.09 10:28:00 -
[907] - 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 |
|

Bubanni
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
462
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 11:53:00 -
[908] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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.
Glad to hear :) Christmas wish list https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134275
Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934 |

Nevryn Takis
University of Caille Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 12:46:00 -
[909] - Quote
Okay reaad up to page 33 ... but posting anyway .. apologies if covered
On the subject of DC logoff vs intentional logoff.. [technical warning] CCP should be able to detect this by differentiating between a time out on the client sockect and an explicit message from the client (which should be sent either by hitting loggoff/quit or by closing the client using the window close button ) [/technical]
I'm also still not sure that the following scenario has been fully qualified Bad guy A attack carebear B Good samaritan C in a logi renders assistance to B by repping him.. C gets a suspect flag and is killable by everyone... This is just plain wrong .. Only A should be able to retaliate against C which means that if C has mates in a fleet they can now kill A..
One issue I've not seen addressed yet and which the current MasterPlan proposals do not cover is making deliberate bumping an aggressive act. Currently it's a PvP exploit used in 2 situations 1) By the goons to kill freighters because no-one can assist in their defence without getting concorded (exploit of game mechanics) 2) By a growing group of extorsionists (primarily in Gallentee space) who bump miner all day long if they don't pay protection money whilst hiding behing an NPC corp so they can't be war-decd). Any attempt to attack the bumping ship either with drones or by a fleet mate results in them getting concorded.
The one grey area is bumping that occurs when multiple ships undock at the same time and one or more of them try and align for warp out. This should be easily solvable by ann undock timer, of say 10 seconds, so that any collision between 2 ships with a valid undock timer doesn't not result in the generation of a suspect/criminal flag. |

Mika Takahoshi
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 13:17:00 -
[910] - Quote
Is it just me, or are the new rules, despite being less complicated, actually more confusing? Let me see if I understand this correctly:
Bob is mining in hisec when Alice flips Bob's can. Alice now has a suspect flag, anyone can legally shoot Alice.
Bob retaliates by shooting at Alice, as he's legally allowed to do. Because this is allowed, Bob gets no suspect flag, but he does get an LE condition that allows Alice to legally shoot back, which she does. Bob quickly realizes he's in over his head and calls out, "HALP!"
Mika is flying along and responds. Showing up on the scene, she sees Alice and Bob going at one another, and that Alice is flashy, but Bob is about to asplode. Mika sees she has two ways to try to help Bob. She can either fire her guns at Alice, hoping to pop her before Bob goes boom. Or she can fire her armor rep at Bob, helping Bob stay alive long enough to pop Alice first.
Expected result: Assisting Bob in either way makes Mika a valid target for Alice and her corp.
Actual result: Shooting Alice works as expected. Healing Bob makes Mika a valid target for the entire universe.
Bwah?! That's beyond confusing, that's utterly baffling.
I think the reasonable expectation for any player is that firing an armor rep at a target makes you a valid target to everyone for whom your target is a valid target. To the degree any system deviates from that, it becomes confusing.
If I'm correct in my understanding of the new system, you're going to see a lot of very, very confused people waking up in a fresh clone wondering "WTF just happened?" The rules may be simple enough, but it varies from common sense to such a huge degree that it's going to cause massive confusion regardless of how simple it is.
No one who isn't a rules lawyer is going to walk into this situation expecting to become a valid target for anyone that Bob isn't a valid target for. Why would you, when all you're doing is helping Bob? It makes. No. Sense. I'm sure there's some reason behind it, but whatever it is, this is very, very confusing... |
|

Mika Takahoshi
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 13:25:00 -
[911] - Quote
[delete] |

Besbin
Balderfrey Holding inc
10
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 13:32:00 -
[912] - Quote
Maybe I suggest that Somebody(tm) (ping CCP Punkturis) commits a level of effort to the naming of the flags? Firstly I think the present names are very Programmer Speak and secondly they don't follow Eve lore. I acknowledge the value in using the present terms in a development fase, since it makes understanding the underlying mechanisms far easier, but the final TQ version, there could maybe be some slight terminology adjustments.
An address to the first issue is to call it a "Criminal" flag rather than a "Criminal Flag". Very soon this will become "I'm CFd!" or something like that in player speak and that's, pardon my french, fairly ridiculous. Not an optimal suggestion, so please elaborate on it.
In regards to the second issue "Criminal" and "Suspect" fits a diegetic approach nicely, but "PVP Flag", "NPC Flag" and, worst of all, "Weapons Flag" are technical terms. The way to approach the naming would be to put on CONCORD glasses and brainstorm on what they would call it and make the naming grounded in "effect" rather than "cause" (i.e. it's not like it's a problem that someone discharges his weapon, it's rather the effect or choice target of this discharge that CONCORD would rule against. Likewise "PVP" and "NPC" makes no sense in story world terms).
Just my 0.25 ISK.
/Besbin |

Meytal
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
122
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 15:16:00 -
[913] - Quote
The explanation against flagging ships sounds far more complicated than it should be:
. You have flags, you may not "store vessel" or "board ship". . You have flags, and eject from ship. The act of ejecting transfers flags and timers to the ship. This means only ships can receive flags, not all objects. . The ship remains unboardable, unscoopable, and virtually untouchable except for shooting at it, for the duration of flags. There are no "merging" of flags; the ship is a sitting duck until flags disappear.
If the real problem is the exploit-like condition described of scooping/storing ships to avoid loss, you don't need to be the bull in the china shop with the fix.
If the real problem is SP loss in T3s, address it as part of the T3 overhaul; it doesn't belong in Crimewatch. Someone already mentioned how to do this by using the same mechanics that track ownership for lossmails. I will admit to loving T3s and would be sad for this to be the case, but if you're going to force SP loss, then focus on that specifically.
Don't prevent ejections. That solves a different and non-existent problem while creating others. It might mean a little more time needs to be taken to implement the fix for the specific areas affected, but it also means an over-generalized approach doesn't cause other unforeseen problems later on down the road.
It's unrealistic to expect that the ganker will always be targeted before he accomplishes his goal (remember, this has to cover Hisec too). So while the provision of preventing scooping of ships that are targeted should definitely be added for completion, it should not be depended upon to stop this.
Preventing bubblers from using gates after bubbling, say to chase targets to the next system, seems a tad unfair. While, granted, it won't affect us in w-space, it seems silly for it to affect Null, considering no one really polices Null aside from players and pirates.
Now if you make a bubble prevent gate activation, that would be interesting, and a little more fair to both sides :)
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
607
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 15:42:00 -
[914] - Quote
Nevryn Takis wrote:Okay reaad up to page 33 ... but posting anyway .. apologies if covered
On the subject of DC logoff vs intentional logoff.. [technical warning] CCP should be able to detect this by differentiating between a time out on the client sockect and an explicit message from the client (which should be sent either by hitting loggoff/quit or by closing the client using the window close button ) [/technical]
I'm also still not sure that the following scenario has been fully qualified Bad guy A attack carebear B Good samaritan C in a logi renders assistance to B by repping him.. C gets a suspect flag and is killable by everyone... This is just plain wrong .. Only A should be able to retaliate against C which means that if C has mates in a fleet they can now kill A..
One issue I've not seen addressed yet and which the current MasterPlan proposals do not cover is making deliberate bumping an aggressive act. Currently it's a PvP exploit used in 2 situations 1) By the goons to kill freighters because no-one can assist in their defence without getting concorded (exploit of game mechanics) 2) By a growing group of extorsionists (primarily in Gallentee space) who bump miner all day long if they don't pay protection money whilst hiding behing an NPC corp so they can't be war-decd). Any attempt to attack the bumping ship either with drones or by a fleet mate results in them getting concorded.
The one grey area is bumping that occurs when multiple ships undock at the same time and one or more of them try and align for warp out. This should be easily solvable by ann undock timer, of say 10 seconds, so that any collision between 2 ships with a valid undock timer doesn't not result in the generation of a suspect/criminal flag.
1.) Anyone can easily "fake" a DC logoff.... for example... unplug the ethernet cable.
2.) Why is it wrong for the logi to become attackable by everyone?? Pilot C can still help player B by just shooting or ewaring bad guy A, then only player A could retaliate. However, player C chose to repair player B instead. I think the logi's should become vulnerable to everyone, as it highly discourages their use in highsec, and will result in greater ship losses by everyone... its straight up win, win...
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
607
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 16:13:00 -
[915] - Quote
The general problems with the current suspect flag, is it allows everyone to focus fire on a single suspect, whereas a group of suspects cannot focus fire back (unless their desired target is dumb enough to aggress them all simultaneously). This essentially means, when you go suspect, your only legitimate fighting tactics is to go solo, or to bring logi friends. DPS friends are useless, as they have to sit there and wait and wait and wait until the people on field start shooting them.
Why don't you just create a Good Samaritan Flag???
When flagged as a good Samaritan you become a legal target for all Suspects ?and Criminals?
Commit a minor crime (steeling in highsec, or illegal ship aggression in lowsec), and become a suspect. Commit a major crime (illegal aggression in highsec, or pod aggression in lowsec), and become a criminal. Attack a suspect or criminal, become a Samaritan.
Remote assist a Samaritan, become a Samaritan. Remote assist a suspect, become a suspect. Remote assist a criminal, become a criminal. Remote assist a neutral, remain neutral.
Then, redefine Limited Engagements: A limited engagment happens when two players aggress each other in a LEGAL battle! Anyone that provides assistance to an out of corp/alliance player engaged in a limited engagement is flagged a suspect.
For order of precedence: Criminal > Suspect > Samaritan.
This balances the field between Suspects and Samaritans, it solves neutral parties butting into legal engagements, and the only remaining grey area is from killrights. |

Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
452
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 16:30:00 -
[916] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote:Its funny how the only element of Crimewatch that poses a slight inconvenience to Carebears and botters (the NPC timer), is the only part that seems to be currently under consideration for removal. Crimewatch as a whole sucks, but the 15 minute NPC timer was the only thing I was somewhat happy to see. Figures that they are now talking about eliminating it. Destroying an entire non-standard profession, and one of the few threats still existing in highsec - thats perfectly A-OK. Locking people inside their ships for no good reason - causing lag induced random poddings - Greyscale's down for it. But cause a slight inconvenience to carebears and botters - who are simply mad because they won't be able to logoffski... ...Wow, CCP revises the NPC timer duration to 60 seconds so fast, your head spins. (which isn't enough time to scan down, let alone kill a ratter, making it useless for hunting carebears) Guess the carebears really do wear the pants....way to HTFU CCP devs.  You keep saying carebear, but I think you mean nullbear. An npc timer does nothing to highsec people, since they can simply dock up, unlike those in null. If anything, the change was to protect those ratters in null complaining about their carriers having to warp around for 15 min when local flashed. So perhaps instead of complaining about CCP caving into highsec players, you should read the 40 or 50 pages of nullbears complaining they'll have to use safespots while flying around in null now.
|

Nevryn Takis
University of Caille Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 16:31:00 -
[917] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Nevryn Takis wrote:Okay reaad up to page 33 ... but posting anyway .. apologies if covered
On the subject of DC logoff vs intentional logoff.. [technical warning] CCP should be able to detect this by differentiating between a time out on the client sockect and an explicit message from the client (which should be sent either by hitting loggoff/quit or by closing the client using the window close button ) [/technical]
I'm also still not sure that the following scenario has been fully qualified Bad guy A attack carebear B Good samaritan C in a logi renders assistance to B by repping him.. C gets a suspect flag and is killable by everyone... This is just plain wrong .. Only A should be able to retaliate against C which means that if C has mates in a fleet they can now kill A..
One issue I've not seen addressed yet and which the current MasterPlan proposals do not cover is making deliberate bumping an aggressive act. Currently it's a PvP exploit used in 2 situations 1) By the goons to kill freighters because no-one can assist in their defence without getting concorded (exploit of game mechanics) 2) By a growing group of extorsionists (primarily in Gallentee space) who bump miner all day long if they don't pay protection money whilst hiding behing an NPC corp so they can't be war-decd). Any attempt to attack the bumping ship either with drones or by a fleet mate results in them getting concorded.
The one grey area is bumping that occurs when multiple ships undock at the same time and one or more of them try and align for warp out. This should be easily solvable by ann undock timer, of say 10 seconds, so that any collision between 2 ships with a valid undock timer doesn't not result in the generation of a suspect/criminal flag. 1.) Anyone can easily "fake" a DC logoff.... for example... unplug the ethernet cable. 2.) Why is it wrong for the logi to become attackable by everyone?? Pilot C can still help player B by just shooting or ewaring bad guy A, then only player A could retaliate. However, player C chose to repair player B instead. I think the logi's should become vulnerable to everyone, as it highly discourages their use in highsec, and will result in greater ship losses by everyone... its straight up win, win... Yes I know you could fake the DC logoff but in reality who's going to be in a position in the middle of a firefight to yank their ethernet cable out the wall..
As to why the logi shouldn't become a legal target to every one .. simple because the logi hasn't committed a crime. In this case the logi is acting as a samaritan.. If the logi chose to aid the bad guy then he should become a legal target. The logi should inhert the flags of the party he aids not a global flag... |

Pipa Porto
1180
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 16:43:00 -
[918] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Why don't you just create a Good Samaritan Flag?
Because that wouldn't serve their intended purpose of making HS safer.
Specifically, they're worried that people might get their ships asploded after shooting naughty people. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
607
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 16:56:00 -
[919] - Quote
Nevryn Takis wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Nevryn Takis wrote:Okay reaad up to page 33 ... but posting anyway .. apologies if covered
On the subject of DC logoff vs intentional logoff.. [technical warning] CCP should be able to detect this by differentiating between a time out on the client sockect and an explicit message from the client (which should be sent either by hitting loggoff/quit or by closing the client using the window close button ) [/technical]
I'm also still not sure that the following scenario has been fully qualified Bad guy A attack carebear B Good samaritan C in a logi renders assistance to B by repping him.. C gets a suspect flag and is killable by everyone... This is just plain wrong .. Only A should be able to retaliate against C which means that if C has mates in a fleet they can now kill A..
One issue I've not seen addressed yet and which the current MasterPlan proposals do not cover is making deliberate bumping an aggressive act. Currently it's a PvP exploit used in 2 situations 1) By the goons to kill freighters because no-one can assist in their defence without getting concorded (exploit of game mechanics) 2) By a growing group of extorsionists (primarily in Gallentee space) who bump miner all day long if they don't pay protection money whilst hiding behing an NPC corp so they can't be war-decd). Any attempt to attack the bumping ship either with drones or by a fleet mate results in them getting concorded.
The one grey area is bumping that occurs when multiple ships undock at the same time and one or more of them try and align for warp out. This should be easily solvable by ann undock timer, of say 10 seconds, so that any collision between 2 ships with a valid undock timer doesn't not result in the generation of a suspect/criminal flag. 1.) Anyone can easily "fake" a DC logoff.... for example... unplug the ethernet cable. 2.) Why is it wrong for the logi to become attackable by everyone?? Pilot C can still help player B by just shooting or ewaring bad guy A, then only player A could retaliate. However, player C chose to repair player B instead. I think the logi's should become vulnerable to everyone, as it highly discourages their use in highsec, and will result in greater ship losses by everyone... its straight up win, win... Yes I know you could fake the DC logoff but in reality who's going to be in a position in the middle of a firefight to yank their ethernet cable out the wall.. As to why the logi shouldn't become a legal target to every one .. simple because the logi hasn't committed a crime. In this case the logi is acting as a samaritan.. If the logi chose to aid the bad guy then he should become a legal target. The logi should inhert the flags of the party he aids not a global flag...
I think the logi is committing a crime. Its interfering with a legal engagement between two players. Just because you have the right to shoot someone does NOT mean you have the right to rep their opponent. |

Pipa Porto
1180
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 17:14:00 -
[920] - Quote
Nevryn Takis wrote:Yes I know you could fake the DC logoff but in reality who's going to be in a position in the middle of a firefight to yank their ethernet cable out the wall..
Supercap Pilots, for one. Plenty of time to notice you're going to die before dying.
Quote:As to why the logi shouldn't become a legal target to every one .. simple because the logi hasn't committed a crime. In this case the logi is acting as a samaritan.. If the logi chose to aid the bad guy then he should become a legal target. The logi should inhert the flags of the party he aids not a global flag...
Sure he has. The crime of interfering with a limited engagement.
And CCP has mentioned that they're trying to do away with inherited flags. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|

Suisidol Trenchcoat
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 17:55:00 -
[921] - Quote
I would just like to know: Why do we still have bumping at all with regards to ships? Ships warping to 0 to gates sometimes bounce off the gate like a tennis ball. And then there's the "bumping gank" everyone knows about. Freighter pilots are absolutely HELPLESS against that. Sure...you could have a friend double web you...if you have any friends online at the time and in the same corp...and if you don't? Goons get to bounce freighter around in Uedema or neighboring systems until they got a sufficient amount of force to crack that walnut open and scoop out the remains with a "neutral and enterprising" freighter that just happened to be right there as it happened. So again...I have to ask why bumping is still around at all? Must be some in depth, nitty-gritty stuff that expounds upon the virtues of having it. To me I would think removing it with respect to ships would be the solution. Perhaps that would allow for people to bounce off wrecks, gates, containers, and what have you. Can someone enlighten me here? |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
815

|
Posted - 2012.10.09 17:57:00 -
[922] - 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 |
|

Pipa Porto
1181
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 18:03:00 -
[923] - Quote
Suisidol Trenchcoat wrote:I would just like to know: Why do we still have bumping at all with regards to ships? Ships warping to 0 to gates sometimes bounce off the gate like a tennis ball. And then there's the "bumping gank" everyone knows about. Freighter pilots are absolutely HELPLESS against that. Sure...you could have a friend double web you...if you have any friends online at the time and in the same corp...and if you don't? Goons get to bounce freighter around in Uedema or neighboring systems until they got a sufficient amount of force to crack that walnut open and scoop out the remains with a "neutral and enterprising" freighter that just happened to be right there as it happened. So again...I have to ask why bumping is still around at all? Must be some in depth, nitty-gritty stuff that expounds upon the virtues of having it. To me I would think removing it with respect to ships would be the solution. Perhaps that would allow for people to bounce off wrecks, gates, containers, and what have you. Can someone enlighten me here?
Bunch of reasons.
But, to strike at the heart of your complaint, why are you complaining that people who bring friends have advantages over those who don't? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Suisidol Trenchcoat
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 18:08:00 -
[924] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Suisidol Trenchcoat wrote:I would just like to know: Why do we still have bumping at all with regards to ships? Ships warping to 0 to gates sometimes bounce off the gate like a tennis ball. And then there's the "bumping gank" everyone knows about. Freighter pilots are absolutely HELPLESS against that. Sure...you could have a friend double web you...if you have any friends online at the time and in the same corp...and if you don't? Goons get to bounce freighter around in Uedema or neighboring systems until they got a sufficient amount of force to crack that walnut open and scoop out the remains with a "neutral and enterprising" freighter that just happened to be right there as it happened. So again...I have to ask why bumping is still around at all? Must be some in depth, nitty-gritty stuff that expounds upon the virtues of having it. To me I would think removing it with respect to ships would be the solution. Perhaps that would allow for people to bounce off wrecks, gates, containers, and what have you. Can someone enlighten me here? Bunch of reasons. But, to strike at the heart of your complaint, why are you complaining that people who bring friends have advantages over those who don't?
Complaining? Who says I am? It was merely a statement. What my complaint is that it's used to just bounce around a ship as large as a freighter who is helpless to do anything about it on it's own. No shots are fired (yet), nothing overtly is done until later when the gang is all assembled, but that freighter sure isn't going anywhere. And rather than "strike at the heart of the complaint" why not actually give information? |

Zandalar Catari
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 18:29:00 -
[925] - Quote
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.
And the only remedy I can see to this is a massive influx of card carrying Orca fleets invading 1.0 space where there are no belt rats, to mine in safety, which thereby shafts every new player just starting the game out of any chance to make some money from mining without risking themselves.
I'm not talking about carebears here, I'm talking about ripping off the brand new prospective subbers getting inconvenienced as they're JUST starting out on a trial, to the point where they all say, 'Screw this, if they're just going to let all these guys with years of experience keep me from even having a chance at starting out!' Boom...no sub-4-CCP.
WTH ... are you guys deliberately TRYING to lose thousands of players (and ensure trial players decide not to sub)? Do you have the millions of subs WoW has to be able to recover from a mass exit a few of these rules will create, I wonder. |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
815

|
Posted - 2012.10.09 18:32:00 -
[926] - 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 |
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
607
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 19:02:00 -
[927] - 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. And the only remedy I can see to this is a massive influx of card carrying Orca fleets invading 1.0 space where there are no belt rats, to mine in safety, which thereby shafts every new player just starting the game out of any chance to make some money from mining without risking themselves. I'm not talking about carebears here, I'm talking about ripping off the brand new prospective subbers getting inconvenienced as they're JUST starting out on a trial, to the point where they all say, 'Screw this, if they're just going to let all these guys with years of experience keep me from even having a chance at starting out!' Boom...no sub-4-CCP. WTH ... are you guys deliberately TRYING to lose thousands of players (and ensure trial players decide not to sub)? Do you have the millions of subs WoW has to be able to recover from a mass exit a few of these rules will create, I wonder.
wow your post is disturbing....
1.) The NPC aggression flag is earned when you shoot an NPC OR when an NPC shoots you.... in short... you can get it just by sticking around long enough for a rat to aggress you.
2.) The NPC aggression flag does NOT make you a legal target in highsec/lowsec. So, even if it is 15 minutes (which CCP's sadly thinking of reducing to 1 minute... bad ccp, bad!!!), you can shoot all the NPC's you like and you won't be any more a target than you are today.... (although if you have to kill some belt rats for survival sake in highsec, you're probably in more danger than you realize!).
3.) There are two groups of carebears that will be hurt significantly by this change: a.) Nullbears: Many nullbears often log-off when a hostile comes into system. With the current NPC despawn timer, it is extremely difficult for a group of hostiles to locate that nullbear and destroy him before his ship despawns. This is an extremely effective tactic for nullsec exhumers and ratting carriers, which, due to their slow align times, actually have a minor risk of being caught before they can warp to a safe spot. With a 15 minute despawn timer, they have a much better chance of survival attempting to warp to a safe spot (POS), as a roaming gang can scan them down and gank them within that time frame. This change is an EXTREMELY good thing.
b.) Disconnecters: I know my connection to EvE experiences regular interuptions (which occasionally lead to lost ships). Currently, if I disconnect when running a level IV mission or nullsec plex, my ship attempts to warp off, and then despawns after 2 minutes. If I'm tackled by an NPC rat, my warp off is often prevented, and the rats continue to shoot my ship until I despawn. Many mission ships (like my Kronos) don't run perma-tanks, and cannot survive 15 minutes of NPC aggro (although it can usually survive 2 minutes of aggro). Essentially, CCP is wants to prevent these types of losses, because people feel cheated when they die due to a DC.
The question is, is there a balanced NPC aggression timer that allows for legitimately DC'd players to typically survive, but prevents lame log-offs to avoid PvP interaction. 1 minute is too, too short (it's currently 2 minutes), and 15 minutes is potentially too long (especially for a carrier).
How about you make it a 3 minute NPC log off timer, during which player aggression can result in an indefinitely extendable PvP timer?
|

Zandalar Catari
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 19:12:00 -
[928] - Quote
I did read up to page 30 something and got the impression that killing rats got you a suspect flag from many other unanswered posts in this massive thread. Sorry 
|

Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
452
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 19:19:00 -
[929] - Quote
Zandalar Catari wrote:I did read up to page 30 something and got the impression that killing rats got you a suspect flag from many other unanswered posts in this massive thread. Sorry  Skimming != reading. Guess they need more charts explaining what NPC, PVP, etc mean.
|

mkint
893
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 19:44:00 -
[930] - Quote
Rengerel en Distel wrote:Zandalar Catari wrote:I did read up to page 30 something and got the impression that killing rats got you a suspect flag from many other unanswered posts in this massive thread. Sorry  Skimming != reading. Guess they need more charts explaining what NPC, PVP, etc mean. but having charts would expose that the aggro rules haven't really been simplified, just changed. Old system = if someone wrongs you, get revenge. Not sure how that was ever complicated. Maxim 34: If you're leaving scorch-marks, you need a bigger gun. |
|

Dersen Lowery
Knavery Inc. StructureDamage
113
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 19:52:00 -
[931] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Why is it wrong for the logi to become attackable by everyone?? Pilot C can still help player B by just shooting or ewaring bad guy A, then only player A could retaliate. However, player C chose to repair player B instead. I think the logi's should become vulnerable to everyone, as it highly discourages their use in highsec, and will result in greater ship losses by everyone... its straight up win, win...
How is it intuitive that shooting one person in an LE has far less in the way of consequences than repping the other? It's not that the Suspect consequence for being a third-party logi is too harsh, it's that there's no sensible parallel between the consequences for essentially parallel actions.
If both third-party shooting and third-party repping tagged someone as a Suspect (for interference) that would be an improvement on the currently proposed system. |

DJ Xaphod
Eve Radio Corporation
18
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 20:09:00 -
[932] - Quote
I have a question that I'm not sure has been covered.
If someone (let's call him Steve) steals from my can (for example) in high sec and becomes a suspect, I can then shoot them. Now we're in a limited engagement. Imagine I win (hard to imagine I know but bear with me). I now have a 15 minute pvp timer to wait out if I d/c.. But how long does the "in a limited engagement with Steve" flag last? Even if I won the original engagement could Steve come back within the 15 minutes in a bigger ship and pop me? 
-áGëí>Gëí Radio, Bringing Music to the Masses. http://eve-radio.com I play Rock & Metal Thursday Nights 2200 GameTime Sunday Evenings 1800 GameTime |

Topher Basquette Dusch-shur
Montana Freedom Fighters
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 20:24:00 -
[933] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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.
And the only remedy I can see to this is a massive influx of card carrying Orca fleets invading 1.0 space where there are no belt rats, to mine in safety, which thereby shafts every new player just starting the game out of any chance to make some money from mining without risking themselves.
I'm not talking about carebears here, I'm talking about ripping off the brand new prospective subbers getting inconvenienced as they're JUST starting out on a trial, to the point where they all say, 'Screw this, if they're just going to let all these guys with years of experience keep me from even having a chance at starting out!' Boom...no sub-4-CCP.
WTH ... are you guys deliberately TRYING to lose thousands of players (and ensure trial players decide not to sub)? Do you have the millions of subs WoW has to be able to recover from a mass exit a few of these rules will create, I wonder. Hi there. You appear to have missed the very first post in this thread and the dev blog that it links to.
I'm going to back up Zandalar just a bit here. There were many questions about the PVE aspect of these timers Masterplan missed or chose to not begin to respond to until post 883. So while I think the wording was a little uncouth, I do understand ZandalarGÇÖs frustration. I also agree with those who have expressed frustration with the timers seeming to VERY heavily favor the aggressors and punish people who have real world obligations that might take them away from the computer. I donGÇÖt care about the insults I will get from pirates, I play Eve because running missions help me unwind and I can leave them at any time if something comes up. I have a lot of issues with the direction this game is heading in December including the loss of viability of any Caldari cruiser and the new thought that you cannot let your real life issues allow you to log for a bit, unless you want to have you 1bil isk ship that you worked your ass off to get destroyed by a lucky scan or some other random occurrence. Luckily for all of us Eve is not real life, and we can simply not subscribe if we donGÇÖt like the changes. Until that point comes, I will continue to play the current game. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
609
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 20:49:00 -
[934] - Quote
DJ Xaphod wrote:I have a question that I'm not sure has been covered. If someone (let's call him Steve) steals from my can (for example) in high sec and becomes a suspect, I can then shoot them. Now we're in a limited engagement. Imagine I win (hard to imagine I know but bear with me). I now have a 15 minute pvp timer to wait out if I d/c.. But how long does the "in a limited engagement with Steve" flag last? the duration of the 15 minute Pvp flag, or the 60 second weapons flag, or does it have its own timer? Even if I won the original engagement could Steve come back within the 15 minutes in a bigger ship and pop me? 
Quote:Limited Engagements
The personal-flags system tidies up a lot of problems with the old system, but still leaves us with a couple of cases that aren't covered. The main one is that a suspect can be freely attacked, but he has no way to defend himself from attack without committing further crimes. We want to ensure that a player always has a right to self-defense, even if he is A Bad Guy. To solve this, we still require a form of A-B flagging. However this will be heavily limited in application, and won't be propagated via assistance chains like the existing aggression flags are. This is where we introduce the concept of a Limited Engagement. An LE is between a pair of characters. (Always characters, not corps, alliances, factions or anything else). An LE gives each party a legal right to attack the other, without triggering any Legal flag. An LE is ACTIVE as long as offensive actions are on-going. Once offensive acts have stopped, it will begin to count down. Resuming hostilities will reset the timer. If the timer expires (probably 15 minutes but still TBC) then the LE is ended. An LE is created when character A attacks character B, and where B is globally-attackable due to being a Suspect, Criminal or Outlaw. This then allows B to defend himself against A. Like Criminal and Suspect flags, An LE is only effective in empire space. Assisting someone who is engaged in an LE will cause the assistor to receive a Suspect flag. This is to prevent neutral logistics interfering in ongoing combat without risk to themselves. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
609
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 20:50:00 -
[935] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Disconnecters: I know my connection to EvE experiences regular interuptions (which occasionally lead to lost ships). Currently, if I disconnect when running a level IV mission or nullsec plex, my ship attempts to warp off, and then despawns after 2 minutes. If I'm tackled by an NPC rat, my warp off is often prevented, and the rats continue to shoot my ship until I despawn. Many mission ships (like my Kronos) don't run perma-tanks, and cannot survive 15 minutes of NPC aggro (although it can usually survive 2 minutes of aggro). Essentially, CCP is wants to prevent these types of losses, because people feel cheated when they die due to a DC. Maybe the shiny new rat AI could deaggress on X's ship after X disappears from Local (i.e., DC'd), but the longer aggro timer could stay. That way, if your connection drops in an L4 the odds are good that your ship will not be blown up by rats, but it will still sit out the aggro timer before warping out, so the logoffski trick won't work.
I'm happy with this... especially if the NPC despawn timer is 15 minutes!!! |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
611
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 21:12:00 -
[936] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Why is it wrong for the logi to become attackable by everyone?? Pilot C can still help player B by just shooting or ewaring bad guy A, then only player A could retaliate. However, player C chose to repair player B instead. I think the logi's should become vulnerable to everyone, as it highly discourages their use in highsec, and will result in greater ship losses by everyone... its straight up win, win... How is it intuitive that shooting one person in an LE has far less in the way of consequences than repping the other? It's not that the Suspect consequence for being a third-party logi is too harsh, it's that there's no sensible parallel between the consequences for essentially parallel actions. If both third-party shooting and third-party repping tagged someone as a Suspect (for interference) that would be an improvement on the currently proposed system.
Imagine I'm in a gang of three good Samaritans, with a dps ship, and 2 logistics ships. I find a gang of suspects flying around and decide to engage. The DPS ships will only aggress ONE of the three suspects at a time (unless they are dumb), so only ONE of the three suspects can shoot back. Then your logistics ships rep the dps boat, which a single suspect will have a ton of trouble overcoming. With your suggestion, that suspect could switch to one of the two logistics ships, but that is futile too. The other two suspects are essentially worthless and can't join the fight. At least, with the logi's gaining a suspect flag, the two buddies can enter the fray and disrupt the logistics. Without it, logistics make become a suspect in highsec obnoxiously on sided.
In truth, the three suspects should all be able to fire on the good samaritans, so a proper battle can evovle!!! This is one of the reasons I suggested the Good Samaritan Flag.
|

Dersen Lowery
Knavery Inc. StructureDamage
114
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 21:40:00 -
[937] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Imagine I'm in a gang of three good Samaritans, with a dps ship, and 2 logistics ships.
So yeah, the LE thing is roughly, but not thoroughly, thought through.
Not to mention, if logi are Suspects, then you have the absurd circumstance where if a logi reps a vigilante battling a Suspect, then the logi becomes a Suspect, and the vigilante can turn around and shoot the logi. Which is hilarious, but not exactly intuitive.
I like your Samaritan flag a lot better. There just isn't enough information in the flags proposed here to avoid baffling results in common cases, and your system adds that crucial missing bit of information. Ad-hoc teams make more sense in an MMO context. |

Che Biko
Humanitarian Communists
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 21:44:00 -
[938] - Quote
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 CCP, I don't want to have a signature anymore, but I can't remove it. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
612
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 22:32:00 -
[939] - 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 
You might have missed this important quote too:
CCP Masterplan wrote: 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
This would allow your logistics to rep corp mates, alliance mates, and militia mates without going suspect.... Which is actually TERRIBLE.... as the Suspect doesn't even get attack rights on the logistics pilots. It's essentially creates risk free-logistics to corp/alliance/militia mates, as long as they don't go suspect. |

Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 23:29:00 -
[940] - Quote
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. |
|

Kilroy Nightbarr
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 23:35:00 -
[941] - Quote
Salpun wrote: I would suggest disabling the weapons flag in WH and null sec space.
This, mainly due to T3 skillpoint loss.
Many WH and null fights involve bubbles so pods may not escape, but at least T3 skillpoints could be preserved by making the tactical decision to eject when things go south. Still could lose the pod so the ISK sink is still there, and the winner could get a free T3 instead of just a killmail, which adds variety to this sandbox game. I understand the T3 skillpoint loss rationale, as they are awesome ships and there should be consequences to losing them, but players should be allowed to make the decision for themselves with respect to handing it to their enemies versus incurring a 4-5 day train to bring back the skills, especially in a game where training time equals money.
*EDIT* Also, page 48 snipah! |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
612
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 23:46:00 -
[942] - 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.
Very shortly after the Dev Blog was punished, some people repeatedly asked what happens when a neutral assists a party engaged in a legal battle.... This was left out of the dev blog, and asked repeatedly....
He finally answered it... so what exactly are you flipping out about? The answer is moderately good... In short, neutral assistance flags you as a suspect...
|

Daioh Azu
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 00:06:00 -
[943] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Daioh Azu wrote: No, but "preying on people who are too new at the game to" have learned the aggression mechanics and their exploits isn't "Pr0" either.
Never said it was. You're the one claiming it's the example of "nerves of steel." Those that are new to EvE often panic when so much as targeted by another player, occasionally leading to some "humorous" results. Older, more experience players typically don't. When I said, "nerves of steel" , I mean nothing more than that.
Pipa Porto wrote:Since when is teaching someone that "shooting someone allows them to shoot back" an exploit? Perhaps I chose my words poorly. Its not so much an exploit of game mechanics as it is an exploit of naivety. Which is quite right and proper.
If calling it "teaching" is what lets you get to sleep at night then good for you, but you certainly aren't teaching anyone that "shooting someone allows them to shoot back." I'm sure some victims of your bait a switch techinque are already aware of that. Why else would you need to choose a bait ship that doesn't even have a threatening sounding name let alone one that poses a real danger. All you are really are teaching is that you can change ships even in the middle of combat. The worth of that lesson is up to CCP to decide.
Pipa Porto wrote:That's how switching ships works in this context. You bring the Orca around, bump the target, eject (dropping the point and incurring a 10s timer), board the ship, relock, and re-point. Thank you, this clears some of my confusion. I'm gonna assume the bump is done by the Orca because its larger mass would make it more effective, if so then your bait ship probably needs a web or two. Bumping with a frigate wouldn't be nearly as effective since you'd need more speed and many mission sites prohibit MWD. I have seen frigate fits that include an oversized AB and can reach near MWD speeds but leave little room for anything else. |

Daioh Azu
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 00:15:00 -
[944] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:The point keeps the target on grid while the Orca slowboats for several minutes (they're really slow). Then there's the fancy ship switching dance. It's almost like you have no experience with what we're discussing. The idea of changing ships in the middle of combat is an anathema to me, so saying I have little experience with this tactic is true. However, just because I don't like a tactic doesn't make it invalid.
Pipa Porto wrote:What cycle timer? Your point drops the instant you eject. Bumping is what keeps the target on grid for the switch. The initial tackle keeps the target on grid while the Orca shows up. Different parts of the process. When loading grid after a system jump to find the gate bubbled, it is a common practice to MWD away from the gate and immediately activate a cloak. The cloak turns off the MWD but you still get the benefit of a complete cycle of MWD acceleration as you burn away for the gate while cloaked. This is the kind of cycle timer shenanigans to which I'm alluding.
You say the point drops the instant you eject and I want to believe you. That is how it should work. With the exception of network latency and propagation delay, the target should be able to warp away to anyplace to which he is aligned as soon as your bait ship is not piloted. However, I have pointed out one instance where a player gets the full benefit on a complete cycle while also enjoying the benefits of another that prevents the use for the first. I'd just like to be certain of the truth before I commit my support.
|

Daioh Azu
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 01:35:00 -
[945] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Daioh Azu wrote:Precisely how can everyone in local come for the free gank? Isn't this baiting taking place in a mission dead space, whether it be gated or not gated? Unless everyone in local are all in the same fleet, they will have to scan the mission site down, just as you did. Generally I can't get most people to talk in local, let alone get them to join my fleet. Right Click -> Invite to Fleet Unlike LS, this cannot lead to an effective trap, and the interlopers can wait to engage until they're sure of victory. Perhaps then the PVP or W-flag should also prevent sending and receiving of fleet requests just as the session timer does.
By the way, isn't the entire bait a switch tactic about ensuring YOUR victory? |

Etribas Taranogas
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 01:52:00 -
[946] - Quote
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? |

Daioh Azu
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 01:59:00 -
[947] - Quote
Bart Starr wrote:Daioh Azu wrote: Precisely how can everyone in local come for the free gank? Isn't this baiting taking place in a mission dead space, whether it be gated or not gated? Unless everyone in local are all in the same fleet, they will have to scan the mission site down, just as you did. Generally I can't get most people to talk in local, let alone get them to join my fleet.
You say "Help. Tackled. In Belt. Pls Hurry" Then you invite the first person who responds to your fleet. If they can move faster than an Orca, you've got your white knight. Of course, Mr White Knight will automatically know that the call for help in local came from a an actual carebear and not one of your own alts. If he chooses the right one he gets a little PVP, if he chooses the wrong one he gets Concord. How many Monty Hall moments like that will it take before those cries for help get as ignored as do car alarms? |

Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
716
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 02:32:00 -
[948] - Quote
Daioh Azu wrote:Of course, Mr White Knight will automatically know that the call for help in local came from a an actual carebear and not one of your own alts. If he chooses the right one he gets a little PVP, if he chooses the wrong one he gets Concord. How many Monty Hall moments like that will it take before those cries for help get as ignored as do car alarms? Mr. White Knight runs with his safety switches on (really, CCP? I thought this was EVE... ) and can't actually activate weapons against a target that will get him CONCORDed. Thus, Mr. White Knight always gets a little PvP if he wants it. Nothing Found |

Zandalar Catari
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 02:36:00 -
[949] - Quote
/sigh I swear the new 'crimewatch' system seems even more complicated than the current one....  |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
613
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 02:44:00 -
[950] - 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).
1.) 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.
2.) 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?
3.) 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?
1.) Here's the answer, with several corrections: a.) The NPC timer may not be 15 minutes... It is Currently 2 minutes... and we've heard dev responses mention reducing it to ONE minute (<-- dear god I hope not!!!)
b.) Once the server registers you as logged off, your ship will attempt the 1m km safety warp. This can be stopped by any warp inhibiting mechanic, including warp scrambling NPCs. If the warp is inhibited, your ship stay in space, in that spot for the duration of your log off timer.
c.) Once the server registers you as logged off, your ship will not despawn until the NPC aggression timer expires. If you are warp scrambled by an NPC upon logging off, that means your ship stays in place and sustains NPC aggro for the entire NPC aggression timer duration. This is the biggest legitimate danger to your vessel from a 15 minute NPC aggression timer, as non-permatanked ships can easily be destroyed by NPC rats within 15 minutes. However, this ONLY a danger if you are warp scrambled when you log off. Most NPC encounters don't have very many warp scrambling rats.
d.) As long as your ship is uncloaked in space, your ship can be scanned down by PvP'ers. Anywhere! This is the biggest danger to nullbears and lowbears that log off to avoid interactions with PvP'ers. Since 15 minutes is enough time to scan down and destroy MOST ships in this game, this change would end the lame log-off to get safe tactics.
2.) Risk adverse LvL 4 mission runners can choose to fly tanky ships that can survive the full 15 minutes of rat aggro. The passive tanked rattlesnake is a good example of a ship that can easily survive a disconnect with major rat aggro. There are domi setups that can perma run Dual LAR's, there are Raven setups that can also permatank full rat aggro from a lvl 4 mission. Hell, there are Myrm and Drake setups that can do this with passive shield tanks.... So, if you are on a shaky internet connection, there are many options you can utilize.... I highly doubt CCP will reimburse your ships loss if you lose it to NPC rats from a disconnect.
3.) The NPC aggression timer is renew whenever you attack an NPC, or whenever an NPC attacks you. Once the server recognizes that you've logged off, the NPC timer CANNOT be renewed. With the recent "drones return to your drone bay upon logoff" changes, your drones will actually return to your drone bay. Ironically, this is a mixed bag for drone users, as it means their drones will not continue shooting the NPC's, which could save their ship....
There have been rumors from EvE Vegas that the NPC aggression timer will be reduced to one minute.... I hope not... CCP Masterplan has NOT mentioned a reduced NPC aggression timer.
|
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
613
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 02:58:00 -
[951] - Quote
Karl Hobb wrote:Daioh Azu wrote:Of course, Mr White Knight will automatically know that the call for help in local came from a an actual carebear and not one of your own alts. If he chooses the right one he gets a little PVP, if he chooses the wrong one he gets Concord. How many Monty Hall moments like that will it take before those cries for help get as ignored as do car alarms? Mr. White Knight runs with his safety switches on (really, CCP? I thought this was EVE...  ) and can't actually activate weapons against a target that will get him CONCORDed. Thus, Mr. White Knight always gets a little PvP if he wants it.
Think outside the box... this is how you ambush Mr. White Night...
Put Alt A in a Remote Repping Battleship. Put Alt B in a bait hull (ideally a non-threatening yet combat capable ship) Become a suspect with Alt B, and have Alt A aggress Alt B, so Alt B can "fake tackle" Alt A. Then call out for help in Local with Alt A and fleet up with Mr. White Knight, Mr. White knight warps in to save the day, sees suspect flagged Alt B, and engages (because he thinks Alt A is his friend!). Alt B can then return fire on Mr White Knight, and does so with a vengeance. Mr White Knight is originally not too worried, as he obviously wouldn't have aggressed unless he thinks he can destroy Alt B. However, Mr White Knight is in in for a battle-changing surprise when Alt A suddenly applies remote repair assistance to Alt B, allowing the non-threatening ship to win the fight.
That's how you screw over Mr White Knight!!!! |

Daioh Azu
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 03:26:00 -
[952] - Quote
Karl Hobb wrote:[quote=Daioh Azu]Of course, Mr White Knight will automatically know that the call for help in local came from a an actual carebear and not one of your own alts. If he chooses the right one he gets a little PVP, if he chooses the wrong one he gets Concord. How many Monty Hall moments like that will it take before those cries for help get as ignored as do car alarms? See post directly above.
I know there was a way to do it. |

Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
716
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 03:41:00 -
[953] - Quote
Daioh Azu wrote:Karl Hobb wrote:Of course, Mr White Knight will automatically know that the call for help in local came from a an actual carebear and not one of your own alts. If he chooses the right one he gets a little PVP, if he chooses the wrong one he gets Concord. How many Monty Hall moments like that will it take before those cries for help get as ignored as do car alarms? See post directly above. I know there was a way to do it. While Gizznitt Malikite's rep trap is hilariously awesome, it still does not result in Mr. White Knight getting CONCORDed. Nothing Found |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
613
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 05:26:00 -
[954] - Quote
Karl Hobb wrote:Daioh Azu wrote:Karl Hobb wrote:Of course, Mr White Knight will automatically know that the call for help in local came from a an actual carebear and not one of your own alts. If he chooses the right one he gets a little PVP, if he chooses the wrong one he gets Concord. How many Monty Hall moments like that will it take before those cries for help get as ignored as do car alarms? See post directly above. I know there was a way to do it. While Gizznitt Malikite's rep trap is hilariously awesome, it still does not result in Mr. White Knight getting CONCORDed.
I didn't realize we were trying to concord Mr. White Knight.... In my opinion... its soo much better to kill him yourself!!! |

Echo Mande
34
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 09:08:00 -
[955] - Quote
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. |

Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 09:09:00 -
[956] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Very shortly after the Dev Blog was punished, some people repeatedly asked what happens when a neutral assists a party engaged in a legal battle.... This was left out of the dev blog, and asked repeatedly....
He finally answered it... so what exactly are you flipping out about? The answer is moderately good... In short, neutral assistance flags you as a suspect...
I'm not "flipping out" as such, but your answer and his answer is inconsistent with what has been written down in the link I mentioned in my previous post. A legal battle does not give any additional neutral that provides assistance a suspect flag. Merely a PvP flag and/or a Weapons flag, nothing more. The fact that this is now changed isn't necessarily a bad thing and I don't dislike Masterplan for it as such. It's just that because of this, things become blurry and he's on that same slippery slope as the original Crimewatch is: trying to cope with every single exception.
So just leave it as is: wars are never fought fair and square. Wars are dirty and it will bring out the best and worst in people. If a neutral decides to pick sides in a legal battle, he should not become a suspect that everyone else can fire at. It's the nature of a sandbox. Stuff like this can happen. CCP wants players to be involved. Well, this would do the opposite. A neutral will just shy away from any involvement as it would lead to him being flagged as a suspect, thereby potentially rewarding the aggressor.
As example: High-sec space.
Players A to L fly Tornados Player M is in a freighter Player N is a neutral
A to L gank M. N is a neutral, but will now think twice before assisting M. This essentially rewards aggressors knowing that they will not have to deal with neutrals defending M through means of repairing him. Neutrals can only defend M by attacking A to L as they have now become criminals.
What I am favor of however, is that if player N decides to repair M, is that he's not only PvP flagged, but also a viable target for A to L. Essentially, that would mean that the legality of a fight is transferred to the neutral alongside the flags. So it would come down to: You can assist a player as a neutral and, provided the player you assist has no suspect or criminal flag, you will not get one yourself. However, as you are interfering in a battle, all players that are registered to have been engaged in a battle with the one you are assisting can now shoot legally at you as well. But only these players can do so. Other neutrals will not. This legality should only transfer to players interfering with the initial party:
A and B pick a fight. neutral C supports A. B can also shoot C now. neutral D supports B. A can shoot D, but C can not without penalties.
As long as none are flagged suspect, then A and B would get PVP and at least one will have a Weapons flag, C and D would get a PVP and a Weapons flag, depending on the one they support. |

Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
696
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 09:22:00 -
[957] - Quote
Welcome to the wonderful world of why Crimewatch 1 was such a big ball of, umm, mud.
This stuff isn't so easy to manage  FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/
Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities. |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
823

|
Posted - 2012.10.10 10:29:00 -
[958] - 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 -
[959] - 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 -
[960] - 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 -
[961] - 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 |
|

Tsubutai
The Tuskers
130
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 11:25:00 -
[962] - Quote
Would still like an answer to my question about how sec hits and sentry aggro will interact in cases where someone aggresses an illegal target on a gate in lowsec, warps off, and then comes back to resume shooting:
Quote:According to the blog, taking actions that cause you to receive a sec status hit while on grid with sentry guns will make the sentries attack you. If you then warp off, the sentries will immediately forget about your wicked ways and will let you be until you next do something in front of them that causes a sec hit. The blog also states that when you attack and kill a player ship, you only get a single, front-loaded sec status hit. What then happens if I aggress a neutral in sight of the sentries (taking my full front-loaded sec hit and receiving a suspect flag), then warp off grid and come back to resume shooting? Specifically, will my actions still be covered by that first sec hit, and will the sentries start shooting me again? There seem to be four possible outcomes:
a) I take an additional sec status hit, sentries start shooting me again b) I take no additional sec status hit, sentries start shooting me again c) I take no additional sec status hit, sentries ignore me d) I take an additional sec status hit, sentries ignore me
I assume (b) is what will happen, but I'm not sure based on the blog alone. |

Inquisitor Kitchner
Galaxy Punks Executive Outcomes
161
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 11:45:00 -
[963] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: 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.
Just double checked this and it doesn't seem to be on the table so I though I'd ask:
What happens if I shoot someone else's canister?
Is that still GCC'd straight away? |

Roime
Shiva Furnace Dead On Arrival Alliance
1324
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 12:16:00 -
[964] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:Would still like an answer to my question about how sec hits and sentry aggro will interact in cases where someone aggresses an illegal target on a gate in lowsec, warps off, and then comes back to resume shooting: Quote:According to the blog, taking actions that cause you to receive a sec status hit while on grid with sentry guns will make the sentries attack you. If you then warp off, the sentries will immediately forget about your wicked ways and will let you be until you next do something in front of them that causes a sec hit. The blog also states that when you attack and kill a player ship, you only get a single, front-loaded sec status hit. What then happens if I aggress a neutral in sight of the sentries (taking my full front-loaded sec hit and receiving a suspect flag), then warp off grid and come back to resume shooting? Specifically, will my actions still be covered by that first sec hit, and will the sentries start shooting me again? There seem to be four possible outcomes:
a) I take an additional sec status hit, sentries start shooting me again b) I take no additional sec status hit, sentries start shooting me again c) I take no additional sec status hit, sentries ignore me d) I take an additional sec status hit, sentries ignore me
I assume (b) is what will happen, but I'm not sure based on the blog alone.
CCP Fozzie from page 3 wrote: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.
Not sure if this means c) or d). d) would sound logicalestest?
Gallente - the choice of the interstellar gentleman |

Pipa Porto
1182
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 13:39:00 -
[965] - Quote
Suisidol Trenchcoat wrote:Complaining about the lack of friends? Who says I am? It was merely a statement. What my complaint is about is that it's used to just bounce around a ship as large as a freighter who is helpless to do anything about it on it's own. No shots are fired (yet), nothing overtly hostile is done until later when the gang is all assembled, but meanwhile that freighter sure isn't going anywhere. And rather than "strike at the heart of the complaint" why not actually give information? "Bunch of reasons" just doesn't seem that informative despite all the details you gave
I'm all for people getting together and shooting up a freighter if they want to. If the gain outweighs the cost then by all means....warp scram that ship, launch the drones, and fire the missiles....but bumping seems like it's taking advantage of mechanics that I seriously doubt were intended to paralyze people.
Reasons for keeping bumping: Keeping Titans out of POS shields. Bumping Carriers off their undocks. Reducing the Cost of Ganking Freighters down to pre-Crucible levels. Preventing people from crashing gates. Countering Station games. Making money off Miners. Stealing ships from POSes. and more.
A guy alone with a bump ship can't really do anything to kill a Freighter. A lone Freighter can simply log off to escape indefinite bumping. Advantage: Freighter Pilot.
A guy with a bump ship and a gank squad can kill a Freighter. A Freighter with friends in ECM or DPS ships can fairly easily disrupt an attempted suicide gank (even if the gank squad has a significant numerical advantage). Advantage: Freighter Pilot.
In both cases, the Freighter has the advantage. Only in the case of the guy with the Bump ship bringing friends and the Freighter pilot not bringing friends does the guy with the bump ship have the advantage. Complaining that the Freighter can't do anything in this event is complaining that people who bring friends along have advantages over those who don't.
By the way, a 100MN MWD Bump SFI has a mass of about 60Mkg and, maxed out, moves at around 19km/s. A Charon has a mass of 960Mkg and moves at about 93m/s. The SFI has about 13 times the momentum of the freighter, and 2,700 times the Kinetic Energy of the Freighter (gotta love squaring velocities). It makes perfect sense that the Freighter would get wildly bumped. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
453
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 13:40:00 -
[966] - Quote
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: 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.
Just double checked this and it doesn't seem to be on the table so I though I'd ask: What happens if I shoot someone else's canister? Is that still GCC'd straight away?
Is someone elses canister an illegal or legal target? Once you have that answer, go look at the chart again.
|

Pipa Porto
1182
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 13:59:00 -
[967] - Quote
Daioh Azu wrote:Those that are new to EvE often panic when so much as targeted by another player, occasionally leading to some "humorous" results. Older, more experience players typically don't. When I said, "nerves of steel" , I mean nothing more than that.
Then what was your point?
Quote:If calling it "teaching" is what lets you get to sleep at night then good for you, but you certainly aren't teaching anyone that "shooting someone allows them to shoot back." I'm sure some victims of your bait a switch techinque are already aware of that. Why else would you need to choose a bait ship that doesn't even have a threatening sounding name let alone one that poses a real danger. All you are really are teaching is that you can change ships even in the middle of combat. The worth of that lesson is up to CCP to decide.
Again, the mission runner is the one chosing to engage a Frigate in their Battleship and getting bit by that choice. The thing they get to learn is that they can get bit by that choice.
Crimewatch 2.0 is removing the possibility of that lesson.
Quote:Thank you, this clears some of my confusion. I'm gonna assume the bump is done by the Orca because its larger mass would make it more effective, if so then your bait ship probably needs a web or two. Bumping with a frigate wouldn't be nearly as effective since you'd need more speed and many mission sites prohibit MWD. I have seen frigate fits that include an oversized AB and can reach near MWD speeds but leave little room for anything else.
Mission Pockets stopped disallowing MWDs over a year ago. MWD Orca Best Orca. Why would the bait ship need a web?
And again, a 60s timer would be very nearly impossible to deal with via bumping Orca.
Daioh Azu wrote:The idea of changing ships in the middle of combat is an anathema to me, so saying I have little experience with this tactic is true. However, just because I don't like a tactic doesn't make it invalid.
What's the problem with setting traps in the only way effective against HS mission runners? You can't set bait for the rest of your gang to hook because of CONCORD. You have to bait the mission runner into shooting a weak ship and switch to a stronger one. Without it, Mission runners can't be significantly messed with. And that kind of safety is anathema to EVE.
Quote:You say the point drops the instant you eject and I want to believe you. That is how it should work. With the exception of network latency and propagation delay, the target should be able to warp away to anyplace to which he is aligned as soon as your bait ship is not piloted. However, I have pointed out one instance where a player gets the full benefit on a complete cycle while also enjoying the benefits of another that prevents the use for the first. I'd just like to be certain of the truth before I commit my support.
Which instance is that? Do you mean the MWD-Cloak trick? Because that's due to the fact that, while you're piloting a ship, modules always finish their cycles. I'm saying that the point drops as soon as you eject because you're no longer piloting the ship. Just like your point drops as soon as you explode. (Technically, your point drops on the next 1HZ server tick, but it's more or less the same thing)
[INTENTIONALBADQUOTETOAVOIDLIMIT=Daioh Azu]Perhaps then the PVP or W-flag should also prevent sending and receiving of fleet requests just as the session timer does.
By the way, isn't the entire bait a switch tactic about ensuring YOUR victory?[/quote]
That would have fairly far reaching and problematic consequences aside from obvious implimentation problems (like: whose flag stops you from sending fleet requests just the boss or any member, how do you deal with fleet ads, etc).
Isn't the entire "shooting at a harmless frigate from your battleship" tactic about ensuring YOUR victory? EVE's not about fair fights, it's about winning. The Mission runner thought they had an easy winning fight when they chose to press the fire button. Why protect them from that choice? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Pipa Porto
1182
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 14:02:00 -
[968] - Quote
Daioh Azu wrote:Of course, Mr White Knight will automatically know that the call for help in local came from a an actual carebear and not one of your own alts. If he chooses the right one he gets a little PVP, if he chooses the wrong one he gets Concord. How many Monty Hall moments like that will it take before those cries for help get as ignored as do car alarms?
No, he doesn't. Nothing your fleetmates do can ever get you CONCORDed without the unsuppressible pop-up. If he picks the wrong fleet, he shows up to the mission pocket and sees that his fleetmate has the suspect flag and shoots his fleetmate (the only target that doesn't trigger the unsuppressible CONCORD popup). EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Pipa Porto
1182
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 14:03:00 -
[969] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Karl Hobb wrote:Daioh Azu wrote:Of course, Mr White Knight will automatically know that the call for help in local came from a an actual carebear and not one of your own alts. If he chooses the right one he gets a little PVP, if he chooses the wrong one he gets Concord. How many Monty Hall moments like that will it take before those cries for help get as ignored as do car alarms? Mr. White Knight runs with his safety switches on (really, CCP? I thought this was EVE...  ) and can't actually activate weapons against a target that will get him CONCORDed. Thus, Mr. White Knight always gets a little PvP if he wants it. Think outside the box... this is how you ambush Mr. White Night... Put Alt A in a Remote Repping Battleship. Put Alt B in a bait hull (ideally a non-threatening yet combat capable ship) Become a suspect with Alt B, and have Alt A aggress Alt B, so Alt B can "fake tackle" Alt A. Then call out for help in Local with Alt A and fleet up with Mr. White Knight, Mr. White knight warps in to save the day, sees suspect flagged Alt B, and engages (because he thinks Alt A is his friend!). Alt B can then return fire on Mr White Knight, and does so with a vengeance. Mr White Knight is originally not too worried, as he obviously wouldn't have aggressed unless he thinks he can destroy Alt B. However, Mr White Knight is in in for a battle-changing surprise when Alt A suddenly applies remote repair assistance to Alt B, allowing the non-threatening ship to win the fight. That's how you screw over Mr White Knight!!!!
And then Mr White Knight can tackle the now Suspect Alt A while calling for help in local advertising 2 free kills. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Tarunik Raqalth'Qui
The Kairos Syndicate Transmission Lost
81
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 14:31:00 -
[970] - Quote
Here's an idea: instead of Mr. White Knight bringing a logi to try to rep the victim carebear, why doesn't he bring an ECM ship to the party to jam out the attacker? This allows the carebear to actually get away instead of getting everyone tangled in a stalemate...
Also: @Masterplan: will the W flag on HICs get refreshed with each cycle of the bubble? (The charts don't really make that clear.) |
|

Terrorfrodo
Deep Space Darwinian Law Enforcement Agency
199
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 15:05:00 -
[971] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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) So the 15 minute NPC flag is still in? Everyone seems to assume that this was only a misstatement, because Soundwave said it was at EVE Vegas. Please clarify. . |

Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 15:09:00 -
[972] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: 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.
Oh, I'm fully aware of that things change. This one however is rather drastic and defies logic somewhat. By the new rules:
Young kid A is bullied by bullies B, C, and D. A fight breaks out, but A is quickly on the losing side. E and F decide to step in and take one for the team by protecting the hurt young A. Accoding to the new rules:
this would give G to Z the opportunity to massively fight E and F? And what do the teachers/supervisors do? Nothing. They (E and F) are now flagged "suspect" after all. Don't you see what a strange situation this is?
Another example: Germany declares war on France French civilians trying to escape from the horrors of war go to Belgium. Belgium is neutral but will now not provide support because they are then a target for Luxembourg, the Netherlands and all other nations to attack?
It should be very simple: If you pick a fight with someone, you can expect neutrals to intervene. If the Goons assault a freighter and I happen to be around in a logistics cruiser and I decide to repair the freighter, then it's the risk of the Goons, not my risk. They started to pick a fight first, so they are the ones facing the consequences of this action.
As long as the freighter is not a suspect himself, you can expect that some carebears are going to defend the freighter. You give carebears the opportunity to legally fight the ones assaulting the freighter, but once it comes to logistics, you look the other way and say... no. |

Pipa Porto
1182
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 15:20:00 -
[973] - Quote
Singulis Pacifica wrote:As long as the freighter is not a suspect himself, you can expect that some carebears are going to defend the freighter. You give carebears the opportunity to legally fight the ones assaulting the freighter, but once it comes to logistics, you look the other way and say... no.
Ummm... You're legally allowed to shoot anyone who goes GCC without any repercussions. How often do people actually take advantage of that?
And in Crimewatch 2.0, repping someone who hasn't shot anyone won't get you the suspect flag. Only repping someone involved in a Limited Engagement (meaning they shot at a suspect) marks you as a suspect (repping a suspect flags you as one as well, ofc). EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 15:29:00 -
[974] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:
Ummm... You're legally allowed to shoot anyone who goes GCC without any repercussions. How often do people actually take advantage of that?
Not a lot, but it does happen. It's the incentive for players to "police" high-sec, if you will.
Pipa Porto wrote:And in Crimewatch 2.0, repping someone who hasn't shot anyone won't get you the suspect flag. Only repping someone involved in a Limited Engagement (meaning they shot at a suspect) marks you as a suspect (repping a suspect flags you as one as well, ofc).
That's what I thought too. Those are the initial rules, but CCP Masterplan then changed that (which can happen of course, everything is subject to change). The latest on this is:
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
So this now means that even if there is no LE between A and B, supporting either of them (assuming A and B are legally attacking each other) as a neutral logistics pilot will give you a suspect flag.
I liked the original version. Just plain and simple. Sh (censored) happens, neutral logistics does too. |

Che Biko
Humanitarian Communists
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 15:35:00 -
[975] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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. Well, I would prefer an un-knowable set of people to being flagged to EVERYONE. I mean, at least the un-known set has a chance of being less people than everyone. Is there no easy way to code the thing that assisting the vigilante in an LE will get you the same flags as attacking the suspect in that LE CCP, I don't want to have a signature anymore, but I can't remove it. |

Pipa Porto
1182
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 15:46:00 -
[976] - Quote
Singulis Pacifica wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:
Ummm... You're legally allowed to shoot anyone who goes GCC without any repercussions. How often do people actually take advantage of that?
Not a lot, but it does happen. It's the incentive for players to "police" high-sec, if you will.
My point was that defending the Freighter is already possible with no changes.
As a bonus, applying RR to the Freighter being ganked will not give you a Suspect flag because the freighter can't shoot anyone to give it a PvP flag (engaging it in an LE).
Singulis Pacifica wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: Nope. E and F can only be shot by whichever of B, C, and D that they've shot. If they RR A, they're only marked Suspect if A has shot back at any of the suspects B, C, and D.
And in Crimewatch 2.0, repping someone who hasn't shot anyone won't get you the suspect flag. Only repping someone involved in a Limited Engagement (meaning they shot at a suspect) marks you as a suspect (repping a suspect flags you as one as well, ofc).
That's what I thought too. Those are the initial rules, but CCP Masterplan then changed that (which can happen of course, everything is subject to change). The latest on this is: 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 So this now means that even if there is no LE between A and B, supporting either of them (assuming A and B are legally attacking each other) as a neutral logistics pilot will give you a suspect flag. I liked the original version. Just plain and simple. Sh (censored) happens, neutral logistics does too.
Yes, that's the point. The intent of that is to reduce the incentive to use neutral logistics.
You only get the PvP flag for shooting someone. So either you're butting into an LE with logi or you're butting into a Wardec with logi. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Jarin Arenos
Card Shark Industries
46
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 15:59:00 -
[977] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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) The emergency warp remaining in place pretty much clears up all my complaints to this point. Thanks for clarifying that that feature will remain. The few remaining edge-cases (scram frigates if the new AI has eaten your drones) can be addressed (or not) once testing on the new AI commences. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
613
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 16:00:00 -
[978] - Quote
Singulis Pacifica wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Very shortly after the Dev Blog was punished, some people repeatedly asked what happens when a neutral assists a party engaged in a legal battle.... This was left out of the dev blog, and asked repeatedly....
He finally answered it... so what exactly are you flipping out about? The answer is moderately good... In short, neutral assistance flags you as a suspect...
I'm not "flipping out" as such, but your answer and his answer is inconsistent with what has been written down in the link I mentioned in my previous post. A legal battle does not give any additional neutral that provides assistance a suspect flag. Merely a PvP flag and/or a Weapons flag, nothing more. The fact that this is now changed isn't necessarily a bad thing and I don't dislike Masterplan for it as such. It's just that because of this, things become blurry and he's on that same slippery slope as the original Crimewatch is: trying to cope with every single exception.
First off, any system they put in place NEEDS to address every potential scenario to be functional. If it doesn't, it'll create loopholes that WILL be exploited. Also, the main idea is to create a system that uses mostly global flags rather than A can attack B who can attack C type flags (which we currently have).
Limited engagements were setup to handle what happens when logistics interfere with a Vigilante vs Suspect scenario, so the suspect can attack the logistics. There was no equivalent discusion in the dev blog. Now, we absolutely, 100% need the Neutrals interfering with RR in a LEGAL battle gain a suspect flag, otherwise highsec warfare becomes a mockery, where everyone just brings a fleet of neutral logistics with them that can NOT be attacked when they interfere.
Singulis Pacifica wrote: So just leave it as is: wars are never fought fair and square. Wars are dirty and it will bring out the best and worst in people. If a neutral decides to pick sides in a legal battle, he should not become a suspect that everyone else can fire at. It's the nature of a sandbox. Stuff like this can happen. CCP wants players to be involved. Well, this would do the opposite. A neutral will just shy away from any involvement as it would lead to him being flagged as a suspect, thereby potentially rewarding the aggressor.
As example: High-sec space.
Players A to L fly Tornados Player M is in a freighter Player N is a neutral
A to L gank M. N is a neutral, but will now think twice before assisting M. This essentially rewards aggressors knowing that they will not have to deal with neutrals defending M through means of repairing him. Neutrals can only defend M by attacking A to L as they have now become criminals.
Scenario 1: Mr Freighter is an illegal target. Freighters cannot actually aggress a Player, and as such will NEVER be in a limited engagment. As long as Mr. freighter doesn't attack back, he's can get free logistics, where the logistics pilot won't get flagged a suspect.
Scenario 2: Mr Freighter is a legal target for the Tornados. If you do NOT flag the logistics pilot, then Mr. Logistics can rep and rep and rep and non of the Tornado Pilots can do anything about it. They can't even attack the logistics ship... do you not comprehend how incredibly bad this would be for highsec warfare???
So, the lesson is, DONT use logistics in highsec unless you are prepared to go suspect. How is this a problem, as you can still help the freighter if the tornados go criminal and/or suspect.
Singulis Pacifica wrote: What I am favor of however, is that if player N decides to repair M, is that he's not only PvP flagged, but also a viable target for A to L. Essentially, that would mean that the legality of a fight is transferred to the neutral alongside the flags. So it would come down to: You can assist a player as a neutral and, provided the player you assist has no suspect or criminal flag, you will not get one yourself. However, as you are interfering in a battle, all players that are registered to have been engaged in a battle with the one you are assisting can now shoot legally at you as well. But only these players can do so. Other neutrals will not. This legality should only transfer to players interfering with the initial party:
A and B pick a fight. neutral C supports A. B can also shoot C now. neutral D supports B. A can shoot D, but C can not without penalties.
As long as none are flagged suspect, then A and B would get PVP and at least one will have a Weapons flag, C and D would get a PVP and a Weapons flag, depending on the one they support.
This is the system we have now.... where crimewatch has to keep track of A can shoot B who can shoot C who cannot shot A who can Shoot D who..... This grows cumbersome, and is what CCP is trying to escape from.
Here is a better idea: Add a Good Samaritan Flag |

Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 16:03:00 -
[979] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:
Yes, that's the point. The intent of that is to reduce the incentive to use neutral logistics.
You only get the PvP flag for shooting someone. So either you're butting into an LE with logi or you're butting into a Wardec with logi.
Then you're not getting the point yet. I understand that there are bad ways in which neutral logies are applied and so called good ways.
A bad way:
A and B are at war with each other. B has a neutral logi alt that reps him which appears once B starts to lose the fight. It's annoying, but it happens. That's the nature of a sandbox. War is ugly. I understand that CCP tries to prevent this from occurring, but then they are trying to intervene into something they shouldn't as it severely hurts the good ways in which neutral logies are applied
A good one: The Goonswarm example I mentioned earlier. If they attack a freighter in Uedama, they have 20 seconds or so before they go poof by CONCORD. If I see the freighter being attacked, I can aid the freighter by attacking the Goons which would just give me a PvP and weapons flag. Or if I am in a logistics cruiser as a neutral pilot, I could aid the freighter by repping it. Yet, the aggression motive (attacking Goons) is allowed, but the protection motive (repping the freighter) would give me a suspect flag.
I know there are good and bad sides to repping. Bad ones happen more often than good ones, but isn't that the nature of EvE? Completely removing the aid of logistics pilots hurts the game more than allowing neutral logistics to exist in relative safety. It simply tries to limit the sandbox CCP is famous for.
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
613
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 16:07:00 -
[980] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Karl Hobb wrote:Daioh Azu wrote:Of course, Mr White Knight will automatically know that the call for help in local came from a an actual carebear and not one of your own alts. If he chooses the right one he gets a little PVP, if he chooses the wrong one he gets Concord. How many Monty Hall moments like that will it take before those cries for help get as ignored as do car alarms? Mr. White Knight runs with his safety switches on (really, CCP? I thought this was EVE...  ) and can't actually activate weapons against a target that will get him CONCORDed. Thus, Mr. White Knight always gets a little PvP if he wants it. Think outside the box... this is how you ambush Mr. White Night... Put Alt A in a Remote Repping Battleship. Put Alt B in a bait hull (ideally a non-threatening yet combat capable ship) Become a suspect with Alt B, and have Alt A aggress Alt B, so Alt B can "fake tackle" Alt A. Then call out for help in Local with Alt A and fleet up with Mr. White Knight, Mr. White knight warps in to save the day, sees suspect flagged Alt B, and engages (because he thinks Alt A is his friend!). Alt B can then return fire on Mr White Knight, and does so with a vengeance. Mr White Knight is originally not too worried, as he obviously wouldn't have aggressed unless he thinks he can destroy Alt B. However, Mr White Knight is in in for a battle-changing surprise when Alt A suddenly applies remote repair assistance to Alt B, allowing the non-threatening ship to win the fight. That's how you screw over Mr White Knight!!!! And then Mr White Knight can tackle the now Suspect Alt A while calling for help in local advertising 2 free kills.
And then we can have a fun and proper escalation.... Good times by all! |
|

Resilan Bearcat
Cold Moon Destruction Talocan United
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 16:07:00 -
[981] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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)
I hope the 15 minutes gets reduced for NPC flagging. In my opinion, 3-5 minutes would be much more appropriate for the NPC flag while leaving the PVP flag at 15 minutes. It is pretty common to see a someone disconnect while running sites for a variety of reasons. Leaving them vulnerable to counter-attacks without any recourse for such an extended period of time is unnecessary when there was no player involvement prior to the disconnect. |

Pipa Porto
1182
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 16:12:00 -
[982] - Quote
Singulis Pacifica wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:
Yes, that's the point. The intent of that is to reduce the incentive to use neutral logistics.
You only get the PvP flag for shooting someone. So either you're butting into an LE with logi or you're butting into a Wardec with logi.
Then you're not getting the point yet. I understand that there are bad ways in which neutral logies are applied and so called good ways. A bad way: A and B are at war with each other. B has a neutral logi alt that reps him which appears once B starts to lose the fight. It's annoying, but it happens. That's the nature of a sandbox. War is ugly. I understand that CCP tries to prevent this from occurring, but then they are trying to intervene into something they shouldn't as it severely hurts the good ways in which neutral logies are applied A good one: The Goonswarm example I mentioned earlier. If they attack a freighter in Uedama, they have 20 seconds or so before they go poof by CONCORD. If I see the freighter being attacked, I can aid the freighter by attacking the Goons which would just give me a PvP and weapons flag. Or if I am in a logistics cruiser as a neutral pilot, I could aid the freighter by repping it. Yet, the aggression motive (attacking Goons) is allowed, but the protection motive (repping the freighter) would give me a suspect flag. I know there are good and bad sides to repping. Bad ones happen more often than good ones, but isn't that the nature of EvE? Completely removing the aid of logistics pilots hurts the game more than allowing neutral logistics to exist in relative safety. It simply tries to limit the sandbox CCP is famous for.
No, it doesn't. The Freighter pilot does not have the right flags for you to become a suspect for repping him because he hasn't shot anyone (he can't).
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Pipa Porto
1182
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 16:15:00 -
[983] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:That's how you screw over Mr White Knight!!!! And then Mr White Knight can tackle the now Suspect Alt A while calling for help in local advertising 2 free kills. And then we can have a fun and proper escalation.... Good times by all!
So now you're saying it doesn't actually work to screw over the White Knight.
The escalation is universally one sided. Only the white knights get to escalate, and they get to escalate freely, endlessly, and with no need to commit until their safety is ensured.
A proper escalation is two sided. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 16:20:00 -
[984] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Scenario 1: Mr Freighter is an illegal target. Freighters cannot actually aggress a Player, and as such will NEVER be in a limited engagment. As long as Mr. freighter doesn't attack back, he's can get free logistics, where the logistics pilot won't get flagged a suspect. Scenario 2: Mr Freighter is a legal target for the Tornados. If you do NOT flag the logistics pilot, then Mr. Logistics can rep and rep and rep and non of the Tornado Pilots can do anything about it. They can't even attack the logistics ship... do you not comprehend how incredibly bad this would be for highsec warfare??? Not anymore: 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 In scenario 1, Freighter pilot: PvP flag Tornado pilots: PvP, Weapons and Criminal Flag (ships go poof by CONCORD) Logistics pilot: Previously just a PvP flag (CW2.0 if you will), now he will get a PvP flag and me flagged as a suspect (CW2.01) In scenario 2, Freighter pilot: PvP flag Tornado pilots: PvP and Weapons flag Logistics pilot: Previously just a PvP flag (CW2.0 if you will), now he will get a PvP flag and me flagged as a suspect (CW2.01) [quote=Gizznitt Malikite] This is the system we have now.... where crimewatch has to keep track of A can shoot B who can shoot C who cannot shot A who can Shoot D who..... This grows cumbersome, and is what CCP is trying to escape from.
I agree with you on this one. Although I do favor it, it does lead to this problem and I can understand it being changed. All I don't want to see is completely removing the ability of neutral logistics to do anything. I know it's freaking annoying when you are at war with another player and an NPC logi pilot as alt appears to ruin the fight. But that is the nature of EvE. Fights aren't fair and square. War isn't fair and square. Don't limit the abilities of a neutral logistics pilot by openly branding them suspect as soon as a target they wish to rep has a PvP flag.
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
613
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 16:31:00 -
[985] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:That's how you screw over Mr White Knight!!!! And then Mr White Knight can tackle the now Suspect Alt A while calling for help in local advertising 2 free kills. And then we can have a fun and proper escalation.... Good times by all! So now you're saying it doesn't actually work to screw over the White Knight. The escalation is universally one sided. Only the white knights get to escalate, and they get to escalate freely, endlessly, and with no need to commit until their safety is ensured. A proper escalation is two sided.
I agree with this, which is why I proposed adding a Good Samaritan Flag |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
613
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 16:37:00 -
[986] - Quote
Singulis Pacifica wrote:Not anymore: 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 made a mistake....
The freighter will get a PvP flag when he is aggressed by another ship.... He cannot get a weapons flag, but any act of aggression against the freighter will give the freighter a PvP flag...
So, CCP Masterplan.... Should it say Assisting a non-corp/alliance/miilitia mate with a WEAPONS flag would give you a PvP flag.... If it is the PvP flag... then this is somewhat extreme!!!! As a freighter being suicide ganked cannot receive remote repair without the logistics going Suspect..... If it were based off of a Weapons flag, however, then neutral RR can rep all day long as long as they only provide assistance to players that aren't actually shooting others!!! |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
613
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 16:41:00 -
[987] - Quote
Singulis Pacifica wrote: I agree with you on this one. Although I do favor it, it does lead to this problem and I can understand it being changed. All I don't want to see is completely removing the ability of neutral logistics to do anything. I know it's freaking annoying when you are at war with another player and an NPC logi pilot as alt appears to ruin the fight. But that is the nature of EvE. Fights aren't fair and square. War isn't fair and square. Don't limit the abilities of a neutral logistics pilot by openly branding them suspect as soon as a target they wish to rep has a PvP flag.
Neutral Logistics are still able to interfere in a war, or come to party and spoil the day.... EVEN if they get a suspect flag. WIth the suspect flag, it just means they put themselves at risk when they do come to the party uninvited.... and this is a GOOD thing. It means neutral logistics open the door for unexpected third parties to escalate the fight... It means Neutral Logistics can go VERY VERY Wrong in a completely unexpected manner. So why is this a bad thing?? It doesn't prevent neutral logi's... it just makes it more risky to utilize them! |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
614
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 16:47:00 -
[988] - Quote
Resilan Bearcat wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: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) I hope the 15 minutes gets reduced for NPC flagging. In my opinion, 3-5 minutes would be much more appropriate for the NPC flag while leaving the PVP flag at 15 minutes. It is pretty common to see a someone disconnect while running sites for a variety of reasons. Leaving them vulnerable to counter-attacks without any recourse for such an extended period of time is unnecessary when there was no player involvement prior to the disconnect.
I would only support a 3-5 minute timer if they can be given an infinitely extendable PvP timer by any player that actually scans them down and aggresses their ship prior to it despawning. Many, Many nullbears use log-off tactics when PvE'ing to avoid roaming PvP gangs, and frankly they shouldn't. Game mechanics that leave these players vulnerable for a moderate time frame will end this lame tactic.
The truth is, a 15 minute window will rarely get you killed by a roaming PvP gang unless that gang is entering system when you "conveniently" disconnect. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
614
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 16:53:00 -
[989] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Singulis Pacifica wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:
Yes, that's the point. The intent of that is to reduce the incentive to use neutral logistics.
You only get the PvP flag for shooting someone. So either you're butting into an LE with logi or you're butting into a Wardec with logi.
Then you're not getting the point yet. I understand that there are bad ways in which neutral logies are applied and so called good ways. A bad way: A and B are at war with each other. B has a neutral logi alt that reps him which appears once B starts to lose the fight. It's annoying, but it happens. That's the nature of a sandbox. War is ugly. I understand that CCP tries to prevent this from occurring, but then they are trying to intervene into something they shouldn't as it severely hurts the good ways in which neutral logies are applied A good one: The Goonswarm example I mentioned earlier. If they attack a freighter in Uedama, they have 20 seconds or so before they go poof by CONCORD. If I see the freighter being attacked, I can aid the freighter by attacking the Goons which would just give me a PvP and weapons flag. Or if I am in a logistics cruiser as a neutral pilot, I could aid the freighter by repping it. Yet, the aggression motive (attacking Goons) is allowed, but the protection motive (repping the freighter) would give me a suspect flag. I know there are good and bad sides to repping. Bad ones happen more often than good ones, but isn't that the nature of EvE? Completely removing the aid of logistics pilots hurts the game more than allowing neutral logistics to exist in relative safety. It simply tries to limit the sandbox CCP is famous for. No, it doesn't. The Freighter pilot does not have the right flags for you to become a suspect for repping him because he hasn't shot anyone (he can't).
Actually, an easy mistake (which I made).... The freighter pilot will gain a PvP flag anytime someone else attacks it. As such, the last statement by CCP Masterplan means the ONLY time you can use logistics in a highsec PvP situation and avoid going "suspect" is if you are repping your corp, alliance, or militia member. |

Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 17:01:00 -
[990] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:
No, it doesn't. The Freighter pilot does not have the right flags for you to become a suspect for repping him because he hasn't shot anyone (he can't).
It gives the freighter a PvP flag. According to CCP Masterplan,
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
this will give the logistics pilot a suspect flag. I agree with you that this used to be different when CW2.0 was announced. Logi pilots were only able to be branded a suspect if they intervened in a fight in which an LE was present. Or they simply repped someone that was already a suspect to begin with.
Now it's:
If the logi pilot is not from the same corp/alliance/or militia and he reps someone with a pvp flag, he gets to be a suspect.
|
|

Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
453
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 17:20:00 -
[991] - Quote
Any chance this thread can just be locked for the next 9 days? So tired of reading how A shot B while C was repping D and E - Z were docked up watching TV, so does F get an S flag for talking smack in local to W (not to be confused with the W flag) ...
Just log onto the test server when it's up and test the **** instead of page after page of hypotheticals.
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
614
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 17:28:00 -
[992] - Quote
Summary of issues with CW 2.0:
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
You gain a PvP flag anytime you shoot someone OR anytime someone shoots you. So, this statement means the only way you can use logistics in a highsec PvP situation is when repping a non-npc corp mate, alliance mate, or militia mate. In every other situation, the logistics pilots will gain a suspect flag, enabling ALL pilots to shoot them.
How to abuse this. Find an incursion fleet... Prepare your gank ships. Warp a noobship into the incursion and criminally shoot any blingy BS that has Sansha Aggro. The Logi's then have to decide on saving that BS or going suspect. If they go Suspect, warp in gank fleet and kill them. If they don't go suspect... scoop the loot as the sansha's make short work of that blingy BS!
--- Suggested change: Assisting a non-corp/alliance/miliitia-mate with a WEAPONS flag would get you a Suspect flag.
This would enable neutral logi's to rep any target safely, as long as that target isn't shooting another player.
*********************************************************************************************************************************************
CCP Masterplan wrote: 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
This means that when your corp mate is in a Limited engagement, because they shot at Suspect B who can flipped them, that you can come assist them in a logistics ship, and Suspect B can NOT legally engage you. In short... free, INVULNERABLE logistics are available to all corp members that are shooting suspects.
How to abuse this: Put a remote sensor boosted fast tackling inties on a highsec gate. Anytime a suspect comes into system, tackle it and gank it with your in-corp fleet. Keep 2-3 logi pilots on grid to provide all the free logistics you desire... You might miss the occasional pod or shuttle, but you should easily catch and kill any other suspect that runs your gate camp.
********************************************************************************************************************************************* Gangs of Vigilantes:
A gang of vigilantes should ALWAYS win the day. Tactics to use: 1.) Focus fire: A suspect can only shoot those that aggress them first. If you focus fire, that means the majority of your gang will receive damage from a single suspect, while your overwhelming focused fire quickly dispatches them.
2.) Use in-corp / alliance / militia logistics: As long as you don't get a suspect / criminal flag, your logistics can rep you all day long and the suspects can't even shoot or jam or neut your logies. Hell... they can't even FOCUS FIRE to overcome logi reps...
3.) Bring a falcon, and use it to jam out suspect logistics ships.... sure, the logi's will then get aggression rights on the falcon... but even an untanked griffin has little to fear from that.
|

Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 17:30:00 -
[993] - Quote
Rengerel en Distel wrote:Any chance this thread can just be locked for the next 9 days? So tired of reading how A shot B while C was repping D and E - Z were docked up watching TV, so does F get an S flag for talking smack in local to W (not to be confused with the W flag) ...

But the situation is that it's the design of the dev blog to be an open-ended discussion on the plans and feedback of it is used to alter the final implementation. I agree with you that theorycrafting isn't the best without proper ways to test results, but it's all we have available right now.  |

Pipa Porto
1183
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 17:56:00 -
[994] - Quote
Singulis Pacifica wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:
No, it doesn't. The Freighter pilot does not have the right flags for you to become a suspect for repping him because he hasn't shot anyone (he can't).
It gives the freighter a PvP flag. According to CCP Masterplan, 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 this will give the logistics pilot a suspect flag. I agree with you that this used to be different when CW2.0 was announced. Logi pilots were only able to be branded a suspect if they intervened in a fight in which an LE was present. Or they simply repped someone that was already a suspect to begin with. Now it's: If the logi pilot is not from the same corp/alliance/or militia and he reps someone with a pvp flag, he gets to be a suspect.
CCP Masterplan wrote:something like this:
I'm sure they'll make sure you can logi Freighters. Even if they don't, grab an ECM boat and you'll be more effective. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

steave435
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
81
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 20:55:00 -
[995] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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. That's not the issue, if you're suicide ganking you're going for illegal targets, but for it to still be viable the targets wreck need to be lootable without allowing everyone in EVE to shoot the looter without penalties. War targets is a completely different issue. |

Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
276
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 21:16:00 -
[996] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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.
If logis can rep and not be attacked back you have broken agresison mechanics more than its ever been broken, ever.
|

Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
276
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 21:17:00 -
[997] - Quote
and i mean ever |

Pipa Porto
1185
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 05:46:00 -
[998] - Quote
Doddy wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: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. If logis can rep and not be attacked back you have broken agresison mechanics more than its ever been broken, ever.
Isn't it great that that was their initial plan a couple months ago when they first described this? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Camera Drone
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 07:08:00 -
[999] - Quote
Mizhir wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Tippia always comes up with flippiant answers that have very little basis in reality. This 15 minute NPC timer means death for any ratter who has an internet outage.
If I remember correctly ships will warp out to a "safe area" if you disconnect, unless you are already pointed.
rats point, you know. especially sleepers |

Jarin Arenos
Card Shark Industries
46
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 07:47:00 -
[1000] - Quote
Camera Drone wrote:Mizhir wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Tippia always comes up with flippiant answers that have very little basis in reality. This 15 minute NPC timer means death for any ratter who has an internet outage.
If I remember correctly ships will warp out to a "safe area" if you disconnect, unless you are already pointed. rats point, you know. especially sleepers Which makes it more important than ever to clear the scram NPCs ASAP. But it reduces the issue of deaths due to legit network issues from "all the damn time" to a much narrower set of edge cases. |
|

Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
281
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 08:03:00 -
[1001] - Quote
Camera Drone wrote:Mizhir wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Tippia always comes up with flippiant answers that have very little basis in reality. This 15 minute NPC timer means death for any ratter who has an internet outage.
If I remember correctly ships will warp out to a "safe area" if you disconnect, unless you are already pointed. rats point, you know. especially sleepers
Yeah, so? Why should an npcer be any more protected from a disconnect than a pvper? |

Inquisitor Kitchner
Galaxy Punks Executive Outcomes
165
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 10:51:00 -
[1002] - Quote
Isn't the point of this that players who are suspects and criminals are at a hypothetical disadvantage against a gang of do gooders, however the difficulty would actually be rounding up a posse to take on the criminals and then getting to the person in time to dish out justice?
Based off CCP Punkturis' hint as well I reckon you'll see in local chat someone's name/icon change to show they are a legal target to all players. So you could actually get gangs of "Police" roaming high sec, checking local for a suspect name and then calling out in local asking if anyone needs help.
Realistically if you catch someone out and you and you're mate are like at Amarr Planet VII, Asteroid Belt 2 or whatever the only way you'll get instantly attacked is if someone was already there or a gang of Space Paladins were sitting in space ready to warp to anyone who needs help.
Hell it's even easy to do:
Fleet Name: SPACE POLICE How it works:
Roam High Sec looking for suspect tags in local. When you see one ask for person to shout out in local Invite them to join fleet Warp to fleet member, kill bad guy Kick saved person Move on
Of course this leads to potential traps... which would be even better emergent game play. Roving privately formed SPACE POLICE gangs killing criminals, until the Criminals start setting ambushes for the SPACE POLICE.
Personally I think there are a lot of opportunities for people to be on the groundfloor getting this stuff to work and being known as the first SPACE SHERIFF or whatever. |

Noslen Nosilla
Federal Logistics Initiative Conglomerate
18
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 11:19:00 -
[1003] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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.
So can we not remove the aggro timer on this?
Oh Great Bird of the Galaxy does no one ever read the news? |

amidaros veleta
Unfortunate Soldiers
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 13:18:00 -
[1004] - Quote
was ccp bought by blizzard.. because this game is becomming more like wow... First can flippings gone, then mining barge buff, then wardecs were badly screwed and now this. I started eve in the deepend and love the game because its hard and unforgiving. seems they are making it easier for the new players to make more money. |

Che Biko
Humanitarian Communists
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 15:02:00 -
[1005] - Quote
You know, I've always wondered about this: why does shooting a capsule result in bigger consequences than shooting ships If you pod a capsuleer, you've only "killed" an immortal. If you destroy a ship, you sometimes kill thousands of mortals. CCP, I don't want to have a signature anymore, but I can't remove it. |

Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
340
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 15:30:00 -
[1006] - Quote
amidaros veleta wrote:was ccp bought by blizzard.. because this game is becomming more like wow... First can flippings gone, then mining barge buff, then wardecs were badly screwed and now this. I started eve in the deepend and love the game because its hard and unforgiving. seems they are making it easier for the new players to make more money.
Making it easier for new players to make money...much giggling there. And when the new AI kicks in, please explain how that will INCREASE income. |

Tsukinosuke
Id Est
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 17:03:00 -
[1007] - Quote
GÇóThe new criminal flagging system should be easy for players to understand ---> F GÇóThe new criminal flagging system should be easy to developers to work with and unlikely to break ---> F GÇóThe new criminal flagging system should not impose a significant performance load ---> F
remove ridiculous NPC, WEAPON, PVP flags, set a RED(who has negative security status) is really RED by expanding CRIMINAL flag to lifetime till get security status neutral/positive back, remove Nullsec and WH CONCORD security penalty, remove some ridiculous consequences like "can not initiate warp/jump/dock/".
thus it should be an "IMPROVED" thing..
p.s. if you cant understand clear, let me know, so i will show it on a picture. |

Dread Operative
Justified Chaos
18
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 17:22:00 -
[1008] - Quote
So, your telling me I have to wait a full minute to pull my HIC out of my alts carrier to point the titan they jumped instead of bridged with?
Between this and "can sell my kill rights" I think I might be done with EVE. :(
Leave my game alone!!! |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
619
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 18:12:00 -
[1009] - Quote
Dread Operative wrote:So, your telling me I have to wait a full minute to pull my HIC out of my alts carrier to point the titan they jumped instead of bridged with?
Between this and "can sell my kill rights" I think I might be done with EVE. :(
Leave my game alone!!!
You only have to wait the full minute if you have the weapons flag (because you are currently shooting your guns). |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9848
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 20:34:00 -
[1010] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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 This really isn't a good idea since it brings those invulnerable logis back stronger than ever. At least before, you could try to chase logis away GÇö neutral or not GÇö but this just makes them plain untouchable and you can pile on as many as you like to make the LE participant untouchable as well.
Really, if you're in a corp, they can just bring more guns and active disruption to the party GÇö ECM will work wonders and will enter the newcomer in an LE of his own, with all the personal risk that entails (minus GÇ£because of FalconGÇ¥).
I can understand your unwillingness to copy LEs, but really, that's a much smaller headache than adding untouchable ships to the fight. So really: disallow them too (giving them the same S-flags as everyone else) or start thinking up ways of copying LE flagsGǪ  GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
|

Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
340
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 22:16:00 -
[1011] - Quote
I posted this in another thread and got no answer.
Let me see if I understand the new system properly. A griefer corp has say, 10 combat ships with maybe 100 logi's, 10 assigned to each combat ship.
They also have ONE alt who has kill rights on all the combat ships. The griefer corp warps the 10 combat and 100 logi's to the Jita undock.
The alt undocks, and activates the kill rights on the 10 combat pilots, making them all Suspects. Now, everyone else on the undock goes mental and starts attacking the combat ships. The combat ships do NOT shoot first, avoiding the Criminal flags, and invoking a Concord response. The logi's all start repping and immediately gain a Suspect flag, and able to be shot. But unless everyone on the undock is organized with neuts and jammers, it is going to be almost impossible to break the tanks of any ship in that griefer corp.
Meantime, anyone who has actually attacked a Suspect combat ship is dragged into a Limited Engagement with the Suspect ship they aggressed. If they stick around, they will all die, unless they get organized within the time it takes for the combat ship to blow them out of the sky.
Do I have the mechanics understood properly? |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
630
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 22:56:00 -
[1012] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:I posted this in another thread and got no answer.
Let me see if I understand the new system properly. A griefer corp has say, 10 combat ships with maybe 100 logi's, 10 assigned to each combat ship.
They also have ONE alt who has kill rights on all the combat ships. The griefer corp warps the 10 combat and 100 logi's to the Jita undock.
The alt undocks, and activates the kill rights on the 10 combat pilots, making them all Suspects. Now, everyone else on the undock goes mental and starts attacking the combat ships. The combat ships do NOT shoot first, avoiding the Criminal flags, and invoking NO Concord response. The logi's all start repping and immediately gain a Suspect flag, and able to be shot. But unless everyone on the undock is organized with neuts and jammers, it is going to be almost impossible to break the tanks of any ship in that griefer corp.
Meantime, anyone who has actually attacked a Suspect combat ship is dragged into a Limited Engagement with the Suspect ship they aggressed. If they stick around, they will all die, unless they get organized within the time it takes for the combat ship to blow them out of the sky.
Do I have the mechanics understood properly?
I corrected on mistype.... Overall you have it right... here's a few points:
1.) The only people that those griefers can attack are the pilots that attacked them first... 2.) The 10 griefer combat ships can NOT focus fire, unless someone is dumb enough to simultaneously aggress ALL 10 of them.. 3.) The griefers probably would just steal from a neutral alt's can to get a suspect flag... why bother with killrights?
I really don't see any problems here?? Do you??
Also, this is a very convoluted way to get kills... and you'll only kill those crazy enough to attack first... And if they do this often enough... someone is going to counter them with an organized fleet.... so, what exactly is the problem???
p.s. If you really want to use the suspect flag to get kills on wanna-be hero's, see this post! |

Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
340
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 23:07:00 -
[1013] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:I posted this in another thread and got no answer.
Let me see if I understand the new system properly. A griefer corp has say, 10 combat ships with maybe 100 logi's, 10 assigned to each combat ship.
They also have ONE alt who has kill rights on all the combat ships. The griefer corp warps the 10 combat and 100 logi's to the Jita undock.
The alt undocks, and activates the kill rights on the 10 combat pilots, making them all Suspects. Now, everyone else on the undock goes mental and starts attacking the combat ships. The combat ships do NOT shoot first, avoiding the Criminal flags, and invoking NO Concord response. The logi's all start repping and immediately gain a Suspect flag, and able to be shot. But unless everyone on the undock is organized with neuts and jammers, it is going to be almost impossible to break the tanks of any ship in that griefer corp.
Meantime, anyone who has actually attacked a Suspect combat ship is dragged into a Limited Engagement with the Suspect ship they aggressed. If they stick around, they will all die, unless they get organized within the time it takes for the combat ship to blow them out of the sky.
Do I have the mechanics understood properly? I corrected on mistype.... Overall you have it right... here's a few points: 1.) The only people that those griefers can attack are the pilots that attacked them first... 2.) The 10 griefer combat ships can NOT focus fire, unless someone is dumb enough to simultaneously aggress ALL 10 of them.. 3.) The griefers probably would just steal from a neutral alt's can to get a suspect flag... why bother with killrights? I really don't see any problems here?? Do you?? Also, this is a very convoluted way to get kills... and you'll only kill those crazy enough to attack first... And if they do this often enough... someone is going to counter them with an organized fleet.... so, what exactly is the problem??? p.s. If you really want to use the suspect flag to get kills on wanna-be hero's, see this post!
Sigh.....I just read your post on the the other thread. Crimewatch blog has been out for less than a week, and already massive holes have been punched into the concepts. Yes, I can see that the griefers will outsmart CCP, and very very quickly the Crimewatch will become a joke. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
630
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 23:21:00 -
[1014] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:I posted this in another thread and got no answer.
Let me see if I understand the new system properly. A griefer corp has say, 10 combat ships with maybe 100 logi's, 10 assigned to each combat ship.
They also have ONE alt who has kill rights on all the combat ships. The griefer corp warps the 10 combat and 100 logi's to the Jita undock.
The alt undocks, and activates the kill rights on the 10 combat pilots, making them all Suspects. Now, everyone else on the undock goes mental and starts attacking the combat ships. The combat ships do NOT shoot first, avoiding the Criminal flags, and invoking NO Concord response. The logi's all start repping and immediately gain a Suspect flag, and able to be shot. But unless everyone on the undock is organized with neuts and jammers, it is going to be almost impossible to break the tanks of any ship in that griefer corp.
Meantime, anyone who has actually attacked a Suspect combat ship is dragged into a Limited Engagement with the Suspect ship they aggressed. If they stick around, they will all die, unless they get organized within the time it takes for the combat ship to blow them out of the sky.
Do I have the mechanics understood properly? I corrected on mistype.... Overall you have it right... here's a few points: 1.) The only people that those griefers can attack are the pilots that attacked them first... 2.) The 10 griefer combat ships can NOT focus fire, unless someone is dumb enough to simultaneously aggress ALL 10 of them.. 3.) The griefers probably would just steal from a neutral alt's can to get a suspect flag... why bother with killrights? I really don't see any problems here?? Do you?? Also, this is a very convoluted way to get kills... and you'll only kill those crazy enough to attack first... And if they do this often enough... someone is going to counter them with an organized fleet.... so, what exactly is the problem??? p.s. If you really want to use the suspect flag to get kills on wanna-be hero's, see this post! Sigh.....I just read your post on the the other thread. Crimewatch blog has been out for less than a week, and already massive holes have been punched into the concepts. Yes, I can see that the griefers will outsmart CCP, and very very quickly the Crimewatch will become a joke.
It's not a joke... And the trap I suggested can backfire on "griefers" extremely, extremely easily.... resulting in the griefer losing their RR BS and the bait ship....
Just like your Griefers with logi support can easily backfire on the griefers, resulting in a SHITLOAD of dead logistics ships!!! |

Dread Operative
Justified Chaos
18
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 03:01:00 -
[1015] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Dread Operative wrote:So, your telling me I have to wait a full minute to pull my HIC out of my alts carrier to point the titan they jumped instead of bridged with?
Between this and "can sell my kill rights" I think I might be done with EVE. :(
Leave my game alone!!! You only have to wait the full minute if you have the weapons flag (because you are currently shooting your guns).
Why would I not be shooting? Bait fleet warps in. Engages. Drop triage. They jump bridge whatever to us. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
633
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 04:40:00 -
[1016] - Quote
Dread Operative wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Dread Operative wrote:So, your telling me I have to wait a full minute to pull my HIC out of my alts carrier to point the titan they jumped instead of bridged with?
Between this and "can sell my kill rights" I think I might be done with EVE. :(
Leave my game alone!!! You only have to wait the full minute if you have the weapons flag (because you are currently shooting your guns). Why would I not be shooting? Bait fleet warps in. Engages. Drop triage. They jump bridge whatever to us.
Hold fire if you think they are bringing in a titan.... it's not that big a deal! |

Dread Operative
Justified Chaos
18
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 04:50:00 -
[1017] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Dread Operative wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Dread Operative wrote:So, your telling me I have to wait a full minute to pull my HIC out of my alts carrier to point the titan they jumped instead of bridged with?
Between this and "can sell my kill rights" I think I might be done with EVE. :(
Leave my game alone!!! You only have to wait the full minute if you have the weapons flag (because you are currently shooting your guns). Why would I not be shooting? Bait fleet warps in. Engages. Drop triage. They jump bridge whatever to us. Hold fire if you think they are bringing in a titan.... it's not that big a deal!
Not sure if trolling or....... |

Pipa Porto
1190
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 07:59:00 -
[1018] - Quote
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:Of course this leads to potential traps... which would be even better emergent game play. Roving privately formed SPACE POLICE gangs killing criminals, until the Criminals start setting ambushes for the SPACE POLICE.
Except that Criminals cannot set effective ambushes for the Space Police in Crimewatch 2.0 because the Space Police are protected from every individual Suspect that they have not yet fired upon.
Here's how it goes. 10v10 Space Police v Crims.
10 Space Police open fire on Crim 1. Crims 2-10 can do squat. Crim 1 Dies. 10 Space Police open fire on Crim 2. Crims 3-10 can do squat. Crim 2 Dies. etc.
In the alternative, Each Space Police points the Crim across from them then applies DPS to Crim 1. In that case, it's possible that SP 10 might die from Crim 10's DPS before the focused fire reaches Crim 10. But not all that likely.
Great Ambush, guize. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Salpun
Paramount Commerce
391
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 12:07:00 -
[1019] - Quote
I have not seen how the overview will indicate what state a person is in yet. Will a dev post a screen shot please. |

MisterAl tt1
Pretenders Inc W-Space
12
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 13:57:00 -
[1020] - Quote
Back to T3 eject.
Am I getting it right, that a carebear, who never shoots back, receives much privilege over the PVP-pilot, who risks his T3 ship by initiating or taking part in PVP ? Thus carebear will never loose his skill and PVPer will everytime, if T3 is killed.
I thiught this is a game about PVP and a logical result of the idea "more risk = more profit" is "less risks = more losses in case they come" (highsec officer-fitted ratters, e.g.). With the new mechanic carebears in T3 will LOL on the PVPers willing to fight in these ships.
Thank you, CCP it WAS a nice game. |
|

Adrian Dixon
Arbitrary Spaceship Destruction -affliction-
62
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 16:00:00 -
[1021] - Quote
Have the team considered changing the weapon timer on docking in stations from 60 seconds to something like 10 or 15min. This new longer timer would only be for stations in any security systems and not say for stargates or wormholes. I think this is a possible solution to station games. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
638
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 16:11:00 -
[1022] - Quote
Adrian Dixon wrote:Have the team considered changing the weapon timer on docking in stations from 60 seconds to something like 10 or 15min. This new longer timer would only be for stations in any security systems and not say for stargates or wormholes. I think this is a possible solution to station games.
Unneeded in my opinion.... and far too inhibiting... 60s is about the amount of time it takes to warp across a moderate sized system... so if you escape a battle, you can warp to station and dock, and switch ships to a suite the situation, and rejoin the fight... If it were 10 or 15 minutes, this would not be a possibility. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
638
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 16:18:00 -
[1023] - Quote
MisterAl tt1 wrote:Back to T3 eject.
Am I getting it right, that a carebear, who never shoots back, receives much privilege over the PVP-pilot, who risks his T3 ship by initiating or taking part in PVP ? Thus carebear will never loose his skill and PVPer will everytime, if T3 is killed.
I thiught this is a game about PVP and a logical result of the idea "more risk = more profit" is "less risks = more losses in case they come" (highsec officer-fitted ratters, e.g.). With the new mechanic carebears in T3 will LOL on the PVPers willing to fight in these ships.
Thank you, CCP it WAS a nice game.
Imagine a t3 gets tackled by a hunter....
If a carebear sits there and does NOT shoot back... .they have zero chance their t3 escaping, but can eject and get their Pod out and not lose SP.
If a PvP'er shoots back, they have a chance of escape, and but cannot eject if they fail to escape. [more risk (sp) but more profit (their t3)]
Just because you can skirt the t3 sp loss now, does not mean it was intended that way, nor that you should be able to!!! IMO, the ONLY way you should NOT lose sp from a t3 loss is if your opponents capture the ship.... In other words, if you eject, and they blow it up anyway... you should still lose sp....
|

Adrian Dixon
Arbitrary Spaceship Destruction -affliction-
62
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 16:23:00 -
[1024] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Adrian Dixon wrote:Have the team considered changing the weapon timer on docking in stations from 60 seconds to something like 10 or 15min. This new longer timer would only be for stations in any security systems and not say for stargates or wormholes. I think this is a possible solution to station games. Unneeded in my opinion.... and far too inhibiting... 60s is about the amount of time it takes to warp across a moderate sized system... so if you escape a battle, you can warp to station and dock, and switch ships to a suite the situation, and rejoin the fight... If it were 10 or 15 minutes, this would not be a possibility.
Good point Gizznitt. Perhaps 2 or 3 min would be more like it. I need to put more thought into it. My point is station games are terrible people the only thing these types of people commit to is tanking damage for 60seconds then docking when things are not going there own way.
Maybe shooting within 5km of station could increase the 60 seconds docking timer to 5min. That way fighting off station would preserve your 60 second docking timer and allow for a reship. Still I will put more thought into it. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
639
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 17:02:00 -
[1025] - Quote
Adrian Dixon wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Adrian Dixon wrote:Have the team considered changing the weapon timer on docking in stations from 60 seconds to something like 10 or 15min. This new longer timer would only be for stations in any security systems and not say for stargates or wormholes. I think this is a possible solution to station games. Unneeded in my opinion.... and far too inhibiting... 60s is about the amount of time it takes to warp across a moderate sized system... so if you escape a battle, you can warp to station and dock, and switch ships to a suite the situation, and rejoin the fight... If it were 10 or 15 minutes, this would not be a possibility. Good point Gizznitt. Perhaps 2 or 3 min would be more like it. I need to put more thought into it. My point is station games are terrible, the only thing these types of people commit to is tanking damage for 60seconds then docking when things are not going their own way. Maybe shooting within 5km of station could increase the 60 seconds docking timer to 5min. That way fighting off station would preserve your 60 second docking timer and allow for a reship. Still I will put more thought into it.
I just avoid shooting people on a station.... It's strategically dump to do so, as their backup can undock in anything, and most likely something to specifically counter you!
I'm just happy with logistics inheriting the weapons flags of ships they rep.... so if a log pilot undocks to "save" that ship on station, they themselves are exposed up to a full minute of fire. Sure, ships like a carrier can handle this... until they do it too often and their opponents cyno in supercaps... A 60s weapons timer is just about perfect... |

Sirinda
Ekchuah's Shrine Comporium Kill It With Fire
125
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 00:06:00 -
[1026] - Quote
Having to train the same skill over and over and over again is the definition of insanity. 
How 'bout a skill that has a chance to prevent SP loss, or maybe an implant with the same purpose? |

Tarunik Raqalth'Qui
The Kairos Syndicate Transmission Lost
81
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 01:43:00 -
[1027] - Quote
Jarin Arenos wrote:Camera Drone wrote:Mizhir wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Tippia always comes up with flippiant answers that have very little basis in reality. This 15 minute NPC timer means death for any ratter who has an internet outage.
If I remember correctly ships will warp out to a "safe area" if you disconnect, unless you are already pointed. rats point, you know. especially sleepers Which makes it more important than ever to clear the scram NPCs ASAP. But it reduces the issue of deaths due to legit network issues from "all the damn time" to a much narrower set of edge cases. Unlike K-space rats, where the only scrams come from frigs which are rarely, if ever, triggers, scrams from Sleepers (and iSanshas too) can come from rats of any size, AND the scrambling rats can very well be the triggers for the next wave. (see an Unsecured Frontier Database, for an example that matters in this case: warp-scrambling triggers are present in higher-class sites as well, but in that case, disconnecting matters quite a bit less because even if you disco while scrambled, your fleetmates can still RR you for the duration of the timer)
So, while your advice is valid for the average mission or 0.0 anom bear, it has the potential to cause more trouble than it solves when fighting Sleepers. |

Pipa Porto
1192
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 01:54:00 -
[1028] - Quote
Sirinda wrote:Having to train the same skill over and over and over again is the definition of insanity.  How 'bout a skill that has a chance to prevent SP loss, or maybe an implant with the same purpose?
There is one. Use a T1 or T2 ship.
Part of the cost of using a T3 has always been the loss of one of your Sub skills. The fact that you've been able to get around that cost so far is irrelevant. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Nyla Skin
Maximum fun chamber
95
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 08:10:00 -
[1029] - Quote
Tippia wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: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 This really isn't a good idea since it brings those invulnerable logis back stronger than ever. At least before, you could try to chase logis away GÇö neutral or not GÇö but this just makes them plain untouchable and you can pile on as many as you like to make the LE participant untouchable as well. Really, if you're in a corp, they can just bring more guns and active disruption to the party GÇö ECM will work wonders and will enter the newcomer in an LE of his own, with all the personal risk that entails (minus GÇ£because of FalconGÇ¥). I can understand your unwillingness to copy LEs, but really, that's a much smaller headache than adding untouchable ships to the fight. So really: disallow them too (giving them the same S-flags as everyone else) or start thinking up ways of copying LE flagsGǪ 
Chase what away? If the logis are corp mates to the ship being repped, they aren't neutral, are they? |

Robin Barson
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 12:00:00 -
[1030] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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
Does that mean if I remote repair a corpmate who also remote repairs someone in a LE, both of us remote guys become suspects, but at least I do not lose security for repping a suspect in highsec? According to the table in the dev blog I'd lose sec for repping another repping logistics. |
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
652
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 15:36:00 -
[1031] - Quote
Nyla Skin wrote:Tippia wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: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 This really isn't a good idea since it brings those invulnerable logis back stronger than ever. At least before, you could try to chase logis away GÇö neutral or not GÇö but this just makes them plain untouchable and you can pile on as many as you like to make the LE participant untouchable as well. Really, if you're in a corp, they can just bring more guns and active disruption to the party GÇö ECM will work wonders and will enter the newcomer in an LE of his own, with all the personal risk that entails (minus GÇ£because of FalconGÇ¥). I can understand your unwillingness to copy LEs, but really, that's a much smaller headache than adding untouchable ships to the fight. So really: disallow them too (giving them the same S-flags as everyone else) or start thinking up ways of copying LE flagsGǪ  Chase what away? If the logis are corp mates to the ship being repped, they aren't neutral, are they?
Your corp-mate logistics can easily be neutral to to the "opponent"......
Imagine your corpmate Chloe attacks Suspect Steve, which is legal to do because of the suspect flag. Steve probably receive the suspect flag without ever interacting you you, chloe, or any your corp mates,perhaps because someone activated kilrights on him, or he stole from a miner in system, or maybe 5 minutes ago he shot a ship in lowsec.
Then, from going by CCP's statement, you, who are in corp with Corpmate Chloe, can come rep Chloe and remain completely neutral to Suspect Steve, so Steve's only options are to shoot chloe with enough firepower to overcome your reps, or to run away... This is broken...
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
652
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 15:41:00 -
[1032] - Quote
Robin Barson wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: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 Does that mean if I remote repair a corpmate who also remote repairs someone in a LE, both of us remote guys become suspects, but at least I do not lose security for repping a suspect in highsec? According to the table in the dev blog I'd lose sec for repping another repping logistics.
If you remote repair a NON-corpmate in a LE engagement, you get a suspect flag.... If you remote repair a suspect, you gain a suspect flag....
So, it depends on the relationship of your corp mate to the person they are repping in the LE. If he is repping another corp mate, he will not gain a suspect flag, and neither will you. If he is repping a "neutral", he will get a suspect flag... and the you will get one too...
Note, CCP is installing "switches" which, if you activate them, will prevent you from committing an act that gives you a Criminal or Suspect flag.... and there may even be another warning of some type.... |

Nyla Skin
Maximum fun chamber
97
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 16:40:00 -
[1033] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
So, it depends on the relationship of your corp mate to the person they are repping in the LE. If he is repping another corp mate, he will not gain a suspect flag, and neither will you. If he is repping a "neutral", he will get a suspect flag... and the you will get one too...
Note, CCP is installing "switches" which, if you activate them, will prevent you from committing an act that gives you a Criminal or Suspect flag.... and there may even be another warning of some type....
Try reading better:
Quote: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) |

Adree Jericho
The Free Haven Group The Union of Free Worlds
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 21:53:00 -
[1034] - Quote
Because it needs to be said and said often:
Thank you CCP Masterplan!
If you view his forum posts in total, his responses to this thread alone are approaching and will likely exceed three pages of just him clarifying things. This is a complicated issue, and he's working overtime to give us what we want to know.
Remember a year-ish ago when CCP said they were going to talk to us more often?
Yup, they're doing that.
<3 |

Bienator II
madmen of the skies
1017
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 01:04:00 -
[1035] - Quote
@devs what was the reason why the no-eject-if-weapon-timer rule was introduced?
only because of the t3s or something else? a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |

Nendail Smith
Lockheed Nighthawk
52
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 01:06:00 -
[1036] - Quote
Maybe this was already mentioned, I'm sorry I haven't taken the time to read all 53 pages. Is it possible (Despite the tears) to attach a value to the kill rights?
The kill rights should not go away until equal or greater isk is destroyed. Otherwise people will go kill people, if the kill rights go public they will jump in an alt, kill themselves in a nub ship and cancel the kill rights. Putting a value that has to be reached on a kill right before it expires along with the time limit would help this.
Further I'd like to see kill rights extended to 60 days, but I know that won't fly. Just thought I'd toss it out there. I've played on all three sides of this equation. Being ganked/jumped, ganking and jumping others, as well as living with kill rights. 30 days is just not really enough if you ask me. |

Darth Gustav
Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension
1575
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 01:17:00 -
[1037] - Quote
Adrian Dixon wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Adrian Dixon wrote:Have the team considered changing the weapon timer on docking in stations from 60 seconds to something like 10 or 15min. This new longer timer would only be for stations in any security systems and not say for stargates or wormholes. I think this is a possible solution to station games. Unneeded in my opinion.... and far too inhibiting... 60s is about the amount of time it takes to warp across a moderate sized system... so if you escape a battle, you can warp to station and dock, and switch ships to a suite the situation, and rejoin the fight... If it were 10 or 15 minutes, this would not be a possibility. Good point Gizznitt. Perhaps 2 or 3 min would be more like it. I need to put more thought into it. My point is station games are terrible, the only thing these types of people commit to is tanking damage for 60seconds then docking when things are not going their own way. Maybe shooting within 5km of station could increase the 60 seconds docking timer to 5min. That way fighting off station would preserve your 60 second docking timer and allow for a reship. Still I will put more thought into it. If they could actually warp and dock in a minute, why didn't they?
Oh right.
Let's make it so you can't dock in that station for 3 minutes or until you've already docked and undocked from a different station. He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |

Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
1290
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 01:29:00 -
[1038] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:@devs what was the reason why the no-eject-if-weapon-timer rule was introduced?
only because of the t3s or something else?
Saw your point in the locked GD thread. I agree in the loss of options in scenarios of slow death. That self destruct should carry a perk to the denial of more items to the enemy. A self destruct should also give a capsular time to escape as he planed it. 3-5 sec invul time for lag. Yet SP loss was part of the cost for flying such a tough SOB if it went down. Yet it is kind of a hard punch for those who have made use of the eject maneuver for so long. Yet I wouldn't mind giving said pilots a real safety net for a cost. What would you think of a hardwire implant that protects your head from a rapid t3 disconnect, slot 10. Or even a high tier only combat booster , slot 1. that will protect your head for a op. |

Pipa Porto
1202
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 04:44:00 -
[1039] - Quote
Nyla Skin wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
So, it depends on the relationship of your corp mate to the person they are repping in the LE. If he is repping another corp mate, he will not gain a suspect flag, and neither will you. If he is repping a "neutral", he will get a suspect flag... and the you will get one too...
Note, CCP is installing "switches" which, if you activate them, will prevent you from committing an act that gives you a Criminal or Suspect flag.... and there may even be another warning of some type....
Try reading better: Quote: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)
Weapon/PvP/Suspect/Criminal.
Only the Criminal and Suspect flags allow other people to shoot you. LE membership is not a transferable flag (they've made this very clear as they don't want to bother mapping encounters).
With CCP's insistence on not wanting to map encounters, repping a Corpmate could either result in becoming a Suspect or in remaining neutral. CCP, as usual, is choosing the more broken option. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Robin Barson
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 06:59:00 -
[1040] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Robin Barson wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: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 Does that mean if I remote repair a corpmate who also remote repairs someone in a LE, both of us remote guys become suspects, but at least I do not lose security for repping a suspect in highsec? According to the table in the dev blog I'd lose sec for repping another repping logistics. If you remote repair a NON-corpmate in a LE engagement, you get a suspect flag.... If you remote repair a suspect, you gain a suspect flag.... So, it depends on the relationship of your corp mate to the person they are repping in the LE. If he is repping another corp mate, he will not gain a suspect flag, and neither will you. If he is repping a "neutral", he will get a suspect flag... and the you will get one too... Note, CCP is installing "switches" which, if you activate them, will prevent you from committing an act that gives you a Criminal or Suspect flag.... and there may even be another warning of some type....
I am not worried about getting a suspect flag for repping another suspect, but about the security hit. According to the table in the dev blog you lose sec if you rep a suspect in highsec. Since everyone who reps someone in a LE becomes suspect, you'll lose sec if you rep a logi in highsec, even if you do it to defend a friend agains thieves.
Or the other way round: you do not get a sec hit for stealing in highsec, but you get a security hit for repping a thief, even when those two are in the same corp? I am no thief, but I like that there are some who steal things. How boring would it be if there was no theft in eve? Not in highsec, because thieves cannot fight without sec loss, and in low or null there is no point in stealing anyway.
|
|

Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
385
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 14:37:00 -
[1041] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:MisterAl tt1 wrote:Back to T3 eject.
Am I getting it right, that a carebear, who never shoots back, receives much privilege over the PVP-pilot, who risks his T3 ship by initiating or taking part in PVP ? Thus carebear will never loose his skill and PVPer will everytime, if T3 is killed.
I thiught this is a game about PVP and a logical result of the idea "more risk = more profit" is "less risks = more losses in case they come" (highsec officer-fitted ratters, e.g.). With the new mechanic carebears in T3 will LOL on the PVPers willing to fight in these ships.
Thank you, CCP it WAS a nice game. Imagine a t3 gets tackled by a hunter.... If a carebear sits there and does NOT shoot back... .they have zero chance their t3 escaping, but can eject and get their Pod out and not lose SP. If a PvP'er shoots back, they have a chance of escape, and but cannot eject if they fail to escape. [more risk (sp) but more profit (their t3)] Just because you can skirt the t3 sp loss now, does not mean it was intended that way, nor that you should be able to!!! IMO, the ONLY way you should NOT lose sp from a t3 loss is if your opponents capture the ship.... In other words, if you eject, and they blow it up anyway... you should still lose sp....
That all sounds great, and while I'm not happy about it, I can live with it. My bigger concern isn't about this winter, but after the rebalance, as other dev's have said they want to "put down T3's like the rabid dogs they are"
Given the SP loss, I think T3's are configured pretty well, given their big tank and larger potential survivability. Nerf their survivability AND ability to eject, and basically they won't get flown again. (which I am sure some people think would be a GREAT idea, even though it isn't)
|

TWHC Assistant
59
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 17:08:00 -
[1042] - Quote
I love the new CW2. Straight, clear, simple.
I hope Limited Engagements get dropped in the future for a simpler mechanic. I'd like for the suspect flag to carry over to anyone who attacks a player marked as suspect. Then we can have big fights in high-sec and only who fires their weapons can get in on it. All other can still enjoy their safety. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
654
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 17:22:00 -
[1043] - Quote
Nyla Skin wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
So, it depends on the relationship of your corp mate to the person they are repping in the LE. If he is repping another corp mate (that does NOT have a Suspect Flag), he will not gain a suspect flag, and neither will you. If he is repping a "neutral", he will get a suspect flag... and the you will get one too...
Note, CCP is installing "switches" which, if you activate them, will prevent you from committing an act that gives you a Criminal or Suspect flag.... and there may even be another warning of some type....
Try reading better: Quote: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)
Sorry I didn't elaborate clearly enough.... I put in the missing prepositional phrase so you can follow what I meant...
Assuming they are repping a non-suspect corp mate, the will NOT get a suspect flag.... |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
654
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 17:28:00 -
[1044] - Quote
Robin Barson wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Robin Barson wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: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 Does that mean if I remote repair a corpmate who also remote repairs someone in a LE, both of us remote guys become suspects, but at least I do not lose security for repping a suspect in highsec? According to the table in the dev blog I'd lose sec for repping another repping logistics. If you remote repair a NON-corpmate in a LE engagement, you get a suspect flag.... If you remote repair a suspect, you gain a suspect flag.... So, it depends on the relationship of your corp mate to the person they are repping in the LE. If he is repping another corp mate, he will not gain a suspect flag, and neither will you. If he is repping a "neutral", he will get a suspect flag... and the you will get one too... Note, CCP is installing "switches" which, if you activate them, will prevent you from committing an act that gives you a Criminal or Suspect flag.... and there may even be another warning of some type.... I am not worried about getting a suspect flag for repping another suspect, but about the security hit. According to the table in the dev blog you lose sec if you rep a suspect in highsec. Since everyone who reps someone in a LE becomes suspect, you'll lose sec if you rep a logi in highsec, even if you do it to defend a friend agains thieves. Or the other way round: you do not get a sec hit for stealing in highsec, but you get a security hit for repping a thief, even when those two are in the same corp? I am no thief, but I like that there are some who steal things. How boring would it be if there was no theft in eve? Not in highsec, because thieves cannot fight without sec loss, and in low or null there is no point in stealing anyway.
Based on CCP Masterplan's statements, you are NOT automatically flagged as a Suspect when you rep a corp mate in an LE. He seems to think repping a corp mate "shouldn't be punished", so you would only get the Suspect flag if your corp mate has the Suspect flag, irregardless of the LE.
Now, IF you get the suspect flag, then you will take the sec status hit, AND the associated gate gun aggression.....
Note, Sec Status hits by themselves mean very little, to be honest... unless you are some borderline pirate that is trying to keep their sec status up high enough for them to enter highsec without being chased about by the navy police. |

Bienator II
madmen of the skies
1020
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 18:56:00 -
[1045] - Quote
Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:Bienator II wrote:@devs what was the reason why the no-eject-if-weapon-timer rule was introduced?
only because of the t3s or something else? Saw your point in the locked GD thread. I agree in the loss of options in scenarios of slow death. That self destruct should carry a perk to the denial of more items to the enemy. A self destruct should also give a capsular time to escape as he planed it. 3-5 sec invul time for lag. Yet SP loss was part of the cost for flying such a tough SOB if it went down. Yet it is kind of a hard punch for those who have made use of the eject maneuver for so long. Yet I wouldn't mind giving said pilots a real safety net for a cost. What would you think of a hardwire implant that protects your head from a rapid t3 disconnect, slot 10. Or even a high tier only combat booster , slot 1. that will protect your head for a op.
well i simply see it this way: you can't fix something without knowing the issue.
if the issue of self destruct where caps... fix it for caps if the issue of eject was the orca problem + the t3 problem. fix the orca problem and let you lose SP in any case if your t3 explodes
however fixing it by restricting the eject feature can cause more harm as it fixes. Thats why i asked for a dev response to have a clearer picture behind the motivation of that rule change. a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |

Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
148
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 19:15:00 -
[1046] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:Bienator II wrote:@devs what was the reason why the no-eject-if-weapon-timer rule was introduced?
only because of the t3s or something else? Saw your point in the locked GD thread. I agree in the loss of options in scenarios of slow death. That self destruct should carry a perk to the denial of more items to the enemy. A self destruct should also give a capsular time to escape as he planed it. 3-5 sec invul time for lag. Yet SP loss was part of the cost for flying such a tough SOB if it went down. Yet it is kind of a hard punch for those who have made use of the eject maneuver for so long. Yet I wouldn't mind giving said pilots a real safety net for a cost. What would you think of a hardwire implant that protects your head from a rapid t3 disconnect, slot 10. Or even a high tier only combat booster , slot 1. that will protect your head for a op. well i simply see it this way: you can't fix something without knowing the issue. if the issue of self destruct where caps... fix it for caps if the issue of eject was the orca problem + the t3 problem. fix the orca problem and let you lose SP in any case if your t3 explodes however fixing it by restricting the eject feature can cause more harm as it fixes. Thats why i asked for a dev response to have a clearer picture behind the motivation of that rule change.
Because people will simply find a workaround and carry on if all they do is patch one specific abusable aspect, this way shuts it down completely as an option. Saves them wasting time on addressing a different minor variation in the future. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
654
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 20:46:00 -
[1047] - Quote
Darek Castigatus wrote:Bienator II wrote:Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:Bienator II wrote:@devs what was the reason why the no-eject-if-weapon-timer rule was introduced?
only because of the t3s or something else? Saw your point in the locked GD thread. I agree in the loss of options in scenarios of slow death. That self destruct should carry a perk to the denial of more items to the enemy. A self destruct should also give a capsular time to escape as he planed it. 3-5 sec invul time for lag. Yet SP loss was part of the cost for flying such a tough SOB if it went down. Yet it is kind of a hard punch for those who have made use of the eject maneuver for so long. Yet I wouldn't mind giving said pilots a real safety net for a cost. What would you think of a hardwire implant that protects your head from a rapid t3 disconnect, slot 10. Or even a high tier only combat booster , slot 1. that will protect your head for a op. well i simply see it this way: you can't fix something without knowing the issue. if the issue of self destruct where caps... fix it for caps if the issue of eject was the orca problem + the t3 problem. fix the orca problem and let you lose SP in any case if your t3 explodes however fixing it by restricting the eject feature can cause more harm as it fixes. Thats why i asked for a dev response to have a clearer picture behind the motivation of that rule change. Because people will simply find a workaround and carry on if all they do is patch one specific abusable aspect, this way shuts it down completely as an option. Saves them wasting time on addressing a different minor variation in the future.
one of the reasons for limiting the eject mechanics is to prevent ship scooping into carriers / orca's, which is commonly used by pirates to save their precious shiny ships when they bite off more than they can chew.. |

Bienator II
madmen of the skies
1027
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 21:03:00 -
[1048] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: one of the reasons for limiting the eject mechanics is to prevent ship scooping into carriers / orca's, which is commonly used by pirates to save their precious shiny ships when they bite off more than they can chew..
so fix scooping. You shouldn't be able to scoop a 200m long ship and jump INSTANTLY. This makes no sense. Many things which simply make no sense are also the cause of a problem. Thats why we have docking games and other stupid effects in the game. Fix them - but not at the wrong end a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |

Tsukinosuke
Id Est
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 22:11:00 -
[1049] - Quote
Bienator II wrote: if the issue of self destruct where caps... fix it for caps if the issue of eject was the orca problem + the t3 problem. fix the orca problem and let you lose SP in any case if your t3 explodes
however fixing it by restricting the eject feature can cause more harm as it fixes. Thats why i asked for a dev response to have a clearer picture behind the motivation of that rule change.
+1 and why i feel DEVs trying to punish ppl for playing EVE Online? tech3 skill loss is also ridiculous, it is against game mechanics, there are medical clones we have to upgrade for saving SP, there are jumpclones we use them to save our implants. if "eject" is against gameplay, then just remove it, do not try to sell this "improved" crimewatch thing.. |

Nyla Skin
Maximum fun chamber
107
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 11:18:00 -
[1050] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Based on CCP Masterplan's statements, you are NOT automatically flagged as a Suspect when you rep a corp mate in an LE. He seems to think repping a corp mate "shouldn't be punished", so you would only get the Suspect flag if your corp mate has the Suspect flag, irregardless of the LE.
Ok, then that is just ... WRONG. I wish I could use some strong words here without being accused of trying to circumvent profanity filter.
This needs to go immediately. Repper should ALWAYS be subject to the same aggro rights as the one being repped. No exceptions whatsoever. Regardless what corp/alliance/fleet they belong to together.
This here is the main reason why highsec PVP is ... I can't use a strong enough word here. |
|

YariLei
The Asteroid is Depleted Sentinels of Sukanan Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 15:18:00 -
[1051] - Quote
"NPC Flag: This flag is activated when a player uses offensive modules against an NPC (or vice-versa). Having this flag will prevent a ship from being removed from space if the pilot logs off. This flag functions in all areas of space."
Just a wee question... I play eve on a machine which occasionally crashes or overheats (an old laptop), meaning it just shuts down instantly. Yes, I ain't got the dough right now to upgrade, yet. But that's the main reason I do missions instead of PVP, as when all goes blank, I will only lose my drones but not the ship as it will warp back to mission gate once I get the computer and Eve back up (takes about 5 minutes to get back to that point). So, with a 15 minute timer, if my computer crashes, I will quite certainly lose any ship I brought to the mission room as I won't be able to fight back?
Or will there be a safe way to prevent this from happening? I'm all good for the log-off timer but how about getting thrown out by non-player issues? Maybe ping or log if the player just logged off or the game/computer simply crashed? |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
661
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 17:14:00 -
[1052] - Quote
YariLei wrote:"NPC Flag: This flag is activated when a player uses offensive modules against an NPC (or vice-versa). Having this flag will prevent a ship from being removed from space if the pilot logs off. This flag functions in all areas of space."
Just a wee question... I play eve on a machine which occasionally crashes or overheats (an old laptop), meaning it just shuts down instantly. Yes, I ain't got the dough right now to upgrade, yet. But that's the main reason I do missions instead of PVP, as when all goes blank, I will only lose my drones but not the ship as it will warp back to mission gate once I get the computer and Eve back up (takes about 5 minutes to get back to that point). So, with a 15 minute timer, if my computer crashes, I will quite certainly lose any ship I brought to the mission room as I won't be able to fight back?
Or will there be a safe way to prevent this from happening? I'm all good for the log-off timer but how about getting thrown out by non-player issues? Maybe ping or log if the player just logged off or the game/computer simply crashed?
Two thoughts....
1.) Unless you are warp scrambled, your ship will still warp off and await it's despawn timer 1m km's away from that mission. If you happen to crash when you are warp scrambled, there is a much higher chance you will lose your ship... However, you can also choose to fly ships that can permatank LvL 4 missions.... Cap stable dual rep domi's, cap stable shield boosting ravens, passive shield tanked rattlesnakes, etc....
2.) I think it would be reasonable for the NPC's to stop aggroing your ship after a minute or so of when you leave local.... That would solve your issue while still hindering nullbears from "logging off" to save their ships. Really though, you do have options even if they leave the NPC timer at 15 minutes... |

Tsukinosuke
Id Est
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 00:26:00 -
[1053] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:YariLei wrote:"NPC Flag: This flag is activated when a player uses offensive modules against an NPC (or vice-versa). Having this flag will prevent a ship from being removed from space if the pilot logs off. This flag functions in all areas of space."
Just a wee question... I play eve on a machine which occasionally crashes or overheats (an old laptop), meaning it just shuts down instantly. Yes, I ain't got the dough right now to upgrade, yet. But that's the main reason I do missions instead of PVP, as when all goes blank, I will only lose my drones but not the ship as it will warp back to mission gate once I get the computer and Eve back up (takes about 5 minutes to get back to that point). So, with a 15 minute timer, if my computer crashes, I will quite certainly lose any ship I brought to the mission room as I won't be able to fight back?
Or will there be a safe way to prevent this from happening? I'm all good for the log-off timer but how about getting thrown out by non-player issues? Maybe ping or log if the player just logged off or the game/computer simply crashed? Two thoughts.... 1.) Unless you are warp scrambled, your ship will still warp off and await it's despawn timer 1m km's away from that mission. If you happen to crash when you are warp scrambled, there is a much higher chance you will lose your ship... However, you can also choose to fly ships that can permatank LvL 4 missions.... Cap stable dual rep domi's, cap stable shield boosting ravens, passive shield tanked rattlesnakes, etc.... 2.) I think it would be reasonable for the NPC's to stop aggroing your ship after a minute or so of when you leave local.... That would solve your issue while still hindering nullbears from "logging off" to save their ships. Really though, you do have options even if they leave the NPC timer at 15 minutes...
1) current system; you wouldnt lose your ship if you got disconnected or your computer crashed, it is perma-warp off to 1m km away spawn point occurs and your all active moduls would be active. you said "perma tank"? ah, i got it, you joking :)
2)logout wont help you to save your ship actually.
3) NPC flag, how could they call this "CRIMEWATCH"?
4) WEAPON flag, if i shoot a roid/LCO etc for fun???
answer of 3,4; they are trying to sell us what they actually want(t3 eject block), not what we asked for.
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
672
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 00:41:00 -
[1054] - Quote
Tsukinosuke wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:YariLei wrote:"NPC Flag: This flag is activated when a player uses offensive modules against an NPC (or vice-versa). Having this flag will prevent a ship from being removed from space if the pilot logs off. This flag functions in all areas of space."
Just a wee question... I play eve on a machine which occasionally crashes or overheats (an old laptop), meaning it just shuts down instantly. Yes, I ain't got the dough right now to upgrade, yet. But that's the main reason I do missions instead of PVP, as when all goes blank, I will only lose my drones but not the ship as it will warp back to mission gate once I get the computer and Eve back up (takes about 5 minutes to get back to that point). So, with a 15 minute timer, if my computer crashes, I will quite certainly lose any ship I brought to the mission room as I won't be able to fight back?
Or will there be a safe way to prevent this from happening? I'm all good for the log-off timer but how about getting thrown out by non-player issues? Maybe ping or log if the player just logged off or the game/computer simply crashed? Two thoughts.... 1.) Unless you are warp scrambled, your ship will still warp off and await it's despawn timer 1m km's away from that mission. If you happen to crash when you are warp scrambled, there is a much higher chance you will lose your ship... However, you can also choose to fly ships that can permatank LvL 4 missions.... Cap stable dual rep domi's, cap stable shield boosting ravens, passive shield tanked rattlesnakes, etc.... 2.) I think it would be reasonable for the NPC's to stop aggroing your ship after a minute or so of when you leave local.... That would solve your issue while still hindering nullbears from "logging off" to save their ships. Really though, you do have options even if they leave the NPC timer at 15 minutes... 1) current system; you wouldnt lose your ship if you got disconnected or your computer crashed, it is perma-warp off to 1m km away spawn point occurs and your all active moduls would be active. you said "perma tank"? ah, i got it, you joking :) 2)logout wont help you to save your ship actually. 3) NPC flag, how could they call this "CRIMEWATCH"? 4) WEAPON flag, if i shoot a roid/LCO etc for fun??? answer of 3,4; they are trying to sell us what they actually want(t3 eject block), not what we asked for.
1.) You're partially wrong.... Currently, if you are warp scrambled by an NPC rat, or any other means, you do NOT perform that 1m km emergency warp... The current NPC logoff timer is 2 minutes, and if you have it, I believe most of your mods continue to run (assuming you don't cap out). It is fairly rare for your ship to be warp scrambled at the moment of DC, so most people don't lose their ships from it... but it does occasionally happen, and it may happen more often with the upcoming patch... And yes... if you are playing on a shoddy connection, and want to make sure you don't lose your ratting ship... fly a permatanked ratting ship, rather than a burst tank, high dps ship.... Otherwise, risk losing your ship on DC... it's rare ever ccp's fault you dc'd...
2.) Currently, logging out is a very common tactic to save nullbear's from roaming gangs... and it works.....
3.) There has always been an NPC flag, and it's always been part of the crimewatch system... don't get your panties in a bunch now!!!
4.) Read the dev blog.. you don't get a weapons flag for shooting a roid... you get it for shooting another player, player object, or activating an AOE device... |

Tsukinosuke
Id Est
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 15:46:00 -
[1055] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: 3.) There has always been an NPC flag, and it's always been part of the crimewatch system... don't get your panties in a bunch now!!!
4.) Read the dev blog.. you don't get a weapons flag for shooting a roid... you get it for shooting another player, player object, or activating an AOE device...
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
675
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 16:51:00 -
[1056] - Quote
Tsukinosuke wrote:"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein
"Famous remarks are very seldom quoted correctly." -- Simeon Strunsky
|

Alexandrina Intakany
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 03:51:00 -
[1057] - Quote
i think that this system is a bit better here is how i understand it :
basically anybody can attack S flagged ppl but attacking somone S flagged dosent flag you back . (neat) if you help a S flagged you become S flagged aswell. if you help a non-S flagged party attacking a S flagged you become "attackable" flagged for this S flagged .
now in relation with Criminal ( witch already exists) anybody can attack and Concorde reacts where as S concord dosent)
now how will this relating to bounties ? it seams that everyone wille be "bountyable" will this bounty Grant a S flag ? because that be just stupid everybody could just bounty somone and then kill them (byebye high sec...)
|

Dominus Alterai
No Bullshit Jokers Wild.
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 18:20:00 -
[1058] - Quote
Alexandrina Intakany wrote:i think that this system is a bit better here is how i understand it :
basically anybody can attack S flagged ppl but attacking somone S flagged dosent flag you back . (neat) if you help a S flagged you become S flagged aswell. if you help a non-S flagged party attacking a S flagged you become "attackable" flagged for this S flagged .
now in relation with Criminal ( witch already exists) anybody can attack and Concorde reacts where as S concord dosent)
now how will this relating to bounties ? it seams that everyone wille be "bountyable" will this bounty Grant a S flag ? because that be just stupid everybody could just bounty somone and then kill them (byebye high sec...)
This is kinda worrisome (read:awesome, but whatever). I can totally see trade hubs turning into giant battle royale. Good (kinda) thing about this is that you don't have to fight if you don't want to...unless, you know, you killed someone in the past 30 days.. Illigitimate son of Korako "The Rabbit" Kosakami.
Ship miner/corpse collector extrordinaire. |

Bart Starr
Aggressive Structural Steel Expediting Services
127
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 19:05:00 -
[1059] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
one of the reasons for limiting the eject mechanics is to prevent ship scooping into carriers / orca's, which is commonly used by pirates to save their precious shiny ships when they bite off more than they can chew..
Perhaps some people do this, but this can be fixed without eliminating combat ejection and boarding.
The real purpose of this has nothing to do with pirates 'saving' anything from destruction.
Its that carebears die at a ferocious rate in highsec because they shoot at 'helpless' looting frigates, the frigate pilot locks them down, boards a Hurricane, and pwns their multi-billion ISK money printing machine. Carebear cries, Carebear quits, wetnurse CCP comes to the rescue with Crimewatch.
Existence of ninjas makes highsec carebears less safe, so ninjas must be removed from the game.
Silly fringe case low-sec docking games is just a fig leaf, because nobody really cares if you are killed in lowsec or not. If you are in lowsec, you expected a fight.
Unfortunately, ninjas are one of the last threats remaining to highsec carebears, so whats left? Mission rats? LOL.
|
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
836

|
Posted - 2012.10.22 16:39:00 -
[1060] - 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 |
|
|

Grideris
Fleet Coordination Commission Fleet Coordination Coalition
291
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 16:52:00 -
[1061] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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!
For safe logoff, what effect does a gate cloak have, if any? (Cloaking isn't specifically listed as preventing the timer) http://www.dust514.org - the unofficial forum for everything DUST 514 http://www.dust514base.com - the blog site with everything else DUST 514 you need
|

Shandir
Indigo Archive
177
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 17:03:00 -
[1062] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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! Don't know about (don't fly) the dictor changes - but everything else looks like *exactly* how it should work. Suspect NPC flag timer will still kill most people who can't log in within 1-2m, but not sure how much shorter it could be while still being catch-able. Perhaps 2-4m would work better? |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
838

|
Posted - 2012.10.22 17:09:00 -
[1063] - 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 |
|

Grideris
Fleet Coordination Commission Fleet Coordination Coalition
291
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 17:15:00 -
[1064] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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)
\o/ http://www.dust514.org - the unofficial forum for everything DUST 514 http://www.dust514base.com - the blog site with everything else DUST 514 you need
|

Shandir
Indigo Archive
177
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 17:49:00 -
[1065] - Quote
Btw - is there any reason not to give someone an NPC flag for mining, or is this something you've already considered? |

Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
2252
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 18:04:00 -
[1066] - Quote
As always, CCP Masterplan = best plan. I am super excited to hopefully see the end of people logging capital ships off to avoid getting killed when running sleeper sites CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
681
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 18:08:00 -
[1067] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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, are under gate cloak, 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!
Holy ****!!!!! Nice changes... |

Terrorfrodo
Deep Space Darwinian Law Enforcement Agency
212
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 18:25:00 -
[1068] - Quote
Those changes to the changes are 100% spot-on. Perfect! . |

Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
432
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 19:44:00 -
[1069] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: * 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.
A THOUSAND TIMES THIS.
Can I fly to Reykjavik and buy beer for the whole sprint team responsible for this decision? Because you all deserve it. |

Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
432
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 19:52:00 -
[1070] - Quote
Seriously though, all my 5's dude. |
|

Rhavas
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
66
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 20:21:00 -
[1071] - Quote
Still need to solve the T3 issue.
- Solve the problem with logoffskis. This is good.
- Solve the Orca ship-swap problem if it's bothering you in highsec.
- You could take self-destruct out of the game. Can't think of a single reason this is even needed, and it causes lots of problems.
- Due to storyline reasons, I'm fine with characters losing skillpoints if they are in a T3 when it explodes.
However - if you are going to have this mechanic, you have to have a way to NOT be in it when it explodes. This is a play choice that adds potential. Don't bottle it up.
If you must lock the pod in the ship, get rid of the SP loss mechanic. Otherwise let people eject (again - fine if you kill self destruct on eject too - eject should almost always result in your enemy stealing your ship!). |

Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
742
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 20:24:00 -
[1072] - Quote
Rhavas wrote:Still need to solve the T3 issue.
- Solve the problem with logoffskis. This is good.
- Solve the Orca ship-swap problem if it's bothering you in highsec.
- You could take self-destruct out of the game. Can't think of a single reason this is even needed, and it causes lots of problems.
- Due to storyline reasons, I'm fine with characters losing skillpoints if they are in a T3 when it explodes.
However - if you are going to have this mechanic, you have to have a way to NOT be in it when it explodes. This is a play choice that adds potential. Don't bottle it up. If you must lock the pod in the ship, get rid of the SP loss mechanic. Otherwise let people eject (again - fine if you kill self destruct on eject too - eject should almost always result in your enemy stealing your ship!).
Not being able to self destruct leads to people being stuck in wormholes and unable to leave. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/
Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities. |

Rhavas
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
66
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 20:30:00 -
[1073] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Not being able to self destruct leads to people being stuck in wormholes and unable to leave.
Fair point. Pods should be able to self destruct. |

Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
471
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 22:07:00 -
[1074] - Quote
Rhavas wrote:Still need to solve the T3 issue.
- Solve the problem with logoffskis. This is good.
- Solve the Orca ship-swap problem if it's bothering you in highsec.
- You could take self-destruct out of the game. Can't think of a single reason this is even needed, and it causes lots of problems. (EDIT: As per post below, there is a case for pods to self destruct. I can't think of any legit reason to self-destruct a SHIP, however. Even if stuck in a WH, eject and destruct your pod. Leaves lootz in the hole, as appropriate for an abandonment.)
- Due to storyline reasons, I'm fine with characters losing skillpoints if they are in a T3 when it explodes.
However - if you are going to have this mechanic, you have to have a way to NOT be in it when it explodes. This is a play choice that adds potential. Don't bottle it up. If you must lock the pod in the ship, get rid of the SP loss mechanic. Otherwise let people eject (again - fine if you get rid of self destruct on eject too - eject should almost always result in your enemy stealing your ship!).
Seems like they could just make you lose the skill when you eject from a T3 in space if that was the only problem. It would be nice to know what problem they're trying to fix with the no ejecting to be able to offer other solutions.
|

Oxandrolone
Bite Me inc
52
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 22:30:00 -
[1075] - Quote
yay they finally fixed the loging off in sites bullcrap |

TunaKross
Bite Me inc
9
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 22:53:00 -
[1076] - Quote
Best changes in a long time. For to long people have been using ALT+F4 to avoid combat.
Good work CCP Masterplan |

Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
374
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 01:49:00 -
[1077] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:* 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. I'm happy about this one. There was a thread a while back complaining about freighter pilots who got caught in a lowsec tarp being able to log off while under gatecloak. The pilot logging off would expect to be able to tank the agressors for one minute and disappear. It seemed really unfair. |

sc11232
Data Mining INC
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 07:20:00 -
[1078] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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.
So if one disconnects while being tackled by the NPC he or she will stay forever on the field until either downtime or killmail happens?
Sounds about right.
|

MisterAl tt1
Pretenders Inc W-Space
12
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 07:33:00 -
[1079] - Quote
While that is perfect capitals won't be able to escape by logging off while the fleet is warping to them, I still backup each and every of these words:
Rhavas wrote:Still need to solve the T3 issue. ... However - if you are going to have this mechanic, you have to have a way to NOT be in it when it explodes. This is a play choice that adds potential. Don't bottle it up.
If you must lock the pod in the ship, get rid of the SP loss mechanic. Otherwise let people eject (again - fine if you get rid of self destruct on eject too - eject should almost always result in your enemy stealing your ship!).
In addition many people here showed their concerns that not-ejecting will ruin a practice of ejecting to save pods. |

Tharkorn
Cult of the Fluffy Bunny
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 08:22:00 -
[1080] - Quote
I am not a forum freak (and unable to perform a search in here), so please bear me if this was discussed earlier...
Situation: There is a way that flipped cans can safely be taken from a third party: Pirate flips a can and gets aggression (later: suspect flag). He has a buddy which is +10 towards him and thereby able to drag the can to his far away Orca/Hauler to safely scoop the content.
Suggestion: Shouldn't dragging someones can also pull the timers in such an situation? I did this several times myself and got tricked this way as well. But tbh, this is stupid gap in game mechanics and really goony gameplay. So pulling timers while dragging such cans would IMHO be very reasonable.
Side Effects: Sure this also means Noctis pilots are not that safe anymore while a missioning pilot still is in the site keeping aggro, but that also solves this equally lame situation. Usually you should clean up after the work not while mucking the site up. Ok, with better upcoming NPC AI this would have been solved as well ;-) |
|

Vegare
Stranger Things A Point In Space
59
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 10:05:00 -
[1081] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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.
Does the bit about the weapons flag also apply if the bubble owner has already left the grid/system? Could imagine some ways to use this mechanic to make dictor pilots placing defensive bubbles fall behind when travelling (escaping) with their gang... |

Josef Huffenpuff
H A V O C
14
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 10:28:00 -
[1082] - Quote
CCP Masterplan. [b wrote:Interdictor bubbles:[/b] 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.
Thankyou Masterplan. This is a positive change and helps keep Dictors viable in small gang roaming PvP. |

Poloturion
Lead Farmers Kill It With Fire
12
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 12:29:00 -
[1083] - Quote
sc11232 wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: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.
So if one disconnects while being tackled by the NPC he or she will stay forever on the field until either downtime or killmail happens? Sounds about right.
If you only have NPC aggro no you will not stay forever. You will stay on grid until your 5 minutes NPC flag expires and then disappear. If you were not tackled you would ewarp off grid and stay wherever you land for 5 minutes until the NPC timer is gone and then you will also disappear.
This is exactly how it has worked previously with the exception of the NPC timer now being 5 minutes.
The changes making it possible to give pvp timers to people who have already logged off however is new and made of an enormous amount of win. Big shout out to the teams at CCP. |

June Ting
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 12:35:00 -
[1084] - Quote
Thank you for listening to the suggestions about PvP flags being applyable after logout and closing the exploit/loophole the lack thereof permitted. |

Barney Goldwing
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 13:17:00 -
[1085] - Quote
Quote: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.
well, if for any reason a industrial ship(heck even a slow combat ship) disconnects on a gate(or enroute to a gate, or departing a gate), with those rules, it will be "massively penalising", a blocade runner may be able to warp off to a safe and MAY be lucky enough to survive the non-agression (1minute?) timer before being scanned and given a PVP timer.
But anything that requires mwd to stay safe will be dead, I presume gatecloak works as today, so after 1 minute the ship decloaks, and the ppl at the gate have 10seconds to flag it... easy. After that they have forever to kill it, as long as they can get 1 shot off every 15 minutes, they dont even have to keep scram on it, since e-warp is only attempted once, local will tell them if the victim logs back in.
Im sure you know there are alot of unstable issues with jumping, im fairly new and have had my share of unforseen events after jumping (lag, crash, etc)
Also how long is this safety logoff timer ? and is it stopped on a successful target lock, or an attempted target lock ? |

Alx Warlord
The Scope Gallente Federation
186
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 15:31:00 -
[1086] - Quote
Vegare wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: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. Does the bit about the weapons flag also apply if the bubble owner has already left the grid/system? Could imagine some ways to use this mechanic to make dictor pilots placing defensive bubbles fall behind when travelling (escaping) with their gang...
The currently inside means that after the probe is released incoming ships will not trigger anything only the currently inside can get/provide flags ....
So you can bubble and jump.... and this will give you some time to escape incoming fleets... Please read this! > New POS system ( Block Built - Starbasecraft) Please read this! >-á[Debate] - ISK SINK |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
683
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 17:16:00 -
[1087] - Quote
sc11232 wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: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.
So if one disconnects while being tackled by the NPC he or she will stay forever on the field until either downtime or killmail happens? Sounds about right.
No... you will stay on field until:
a.) your non-renewable NPC timer ends (5 minutes).... b.) until your ship explodes, and your capsule's NPC timer ends... c.) if you happen to be attacked by a player before your (5 min) NPC timer ends, you will stay in space until 15minutes after the player quits shooting you... |

Che Biko
Humanitarian Communists
110
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 17:19:00 -
[1088] - Quote
Do many players actually try to warp inside a dictor bubble? If not, it might be better to give the flags when someone is inside the bubble, wether they try to warp or not. Contraband Smuggling: Player Assisted Customs |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
683
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 17:31:00 -
[1089] - Quote
Barney Goldwing wrote:Quote: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. well, if for any reason a industrial ship(heck even a slow combat ship) disconnects on a gate(or enroute to a gate, or departing a gate), with those rules, it will be "massively penalising", a blocade runner may be able to warp off to a safe and MAY be lucky enough to survive the non-agression (1minute?) timer before being scanned and given a PVP timer. But anything that requires mwd to stay safe will be dead, I presume gatecloak works as today, so after 1 minute the ship decloaks, and the ppl at the gate have 10seconds to flag it... easy. After that they have forever to kill it, as long as they can get 1 shot off every 15 minutes, they dont even have to keep scram on it, since e-warp is only attempted once, local will tell them if the victim logs back in. Im sure you know there are alot of unstable issues with jumping, im fairly new and have had my share of unforseen events after jumping (lag, crash, etc) Also how long is this safety logoff timer ? and is it stopped on a successful target lock, or an attempted target lock ?
1.) What requires an MWD to stay safe?? that doesn't make a lot of sense to me! Sure, MWD's help you stay safe when active, but if you legitimately dc, an MWD wont' save you now!!!! The only thing that saves a player dc'ing into a gate camp is a high amount of HP so they can survive until they despawn.... which they can no longer do....
2.) They will release more info on the safety logoff timer... my impression is it's a tool that allows you to despawn your ship while still logged in, thereby making sure your ship despawns safely... My assumption is it will take 1 minute base, up to 5 minutes if you have an NPC timer, and up to 15 minutes if you have a PvP timer...
3.) While unstable clients do occasionally occur upon jumping, for the most part jumping is fine (just be careful after every patch until you know it's stable). If you are taking a slow-moving ship through a dangerous area of space (nullsec/lowsec), then make sure you are on a stable client, use scouts, and don't warp gate to gate... then you'll be alright... People, especially in big ships, purposely dc to "save their ship" far, far more often than people legitimately dc....
Truthfully, moving a freighter (the most awkward since it warps real slow and cannot cloak) doesn't change much... if you currently web to warp it, you have to deal with a 15 minute extendable PvP timer.... if you don't, it takes 50s to get it into warp.... during which time someone can come and attack it... |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
683
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 17:33:00 -
[1090] - Quote
Che Biko wrote:Do many players actually try to warp inside a dictor bubble? If not, it might be better to give the flags when someone is inside the bubble, wether they try to warp or not.
It is VERY common to warp while inside a dictor bubble...
1.) People do it to purposely aggress the dictor/hictor... 2.) People do it because they are idiots and aggress their dictor fleet mates while powering out of the bubble...
|
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
684
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 17:38:00 -
[1091] - Quote
Rhavas wrote:Still need to solve the T3 issue.
- Solve the problem with logoffskis. This is good.
- Solve the Orca ship-swap problem if it's bothering you in highsec.
- You could take self-destruct out of the game. Can't think of a single reason this is even needed, and it causes lots of problems. (EDIT: As per post below, there is a case for pods to self destruct. I can't think of any legit reason to self-destruct a SHIP, however. Even if stuck in a WH, eject and destruct your pod. Leaves lootz in the hole, as appropriate for an abandonment.)
- Due to storyline reasons, I'm fine with characters losing skillpoints if they are in a T3 when it explodes.
However - if you are going to have this mechanic, you have to have a way to NOT be in it when it explodes. This is a play choice that adds potential. Don't bottle it up. If you must lock the pod in the ship, get rid of the SP loss mechanic. Otherwise let people eject (again - fine if you get rid of self destruct on eject too - eject should almost always result in your enemy stealing your ship!).
First off, you CAN eject from a t3... just as long as you don't have a weapons timer....
If you don't want the skill loss, then don't PvP in a t3.....
You have a choice... shoot your opponent and be locked in your ship.... or don't shoot them, and be able to eject...
|

Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
433
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 21:30:00 -
[1092] - Quote
CCP Masterplan:
Now that you've fixed the root of the logoffski problem (that people would vanish 60 seconds after logging out un-aggressed regardless of what transpired), you guys should drop the "vanishing" time for an unaggressed ship down to ~15-20 seconds.
This leaves plenty of time for aggressing people who deliberately logoffski while not providing enough time for people to jump on legitimate disconnects. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
686
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 21:40:00 -
[1093] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:CCP Masterplan:
Now that you've fixed the root of the logoffski problem (that people would vanish 60 seconds after logging out un-aggressed regardless of what transpired), you guys should drop the "vanishing" time for an unaggressed ship down to ~10-15 seconds.
This leaves plenty of time for aggressing people who deliberately logoffski while not providing enough time for people to jump on legitimate disconnects.
Can you elaborate what your suggesting here... I don't think I understand what you mean... |

Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
433
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 22:00:00 -
[1094] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:CCP Masterplan:
Now that you've fixed the root of the logoffski problem (that people would vanish 60 seconds after logging out un-aggressed regardless of what transpired), you guys should drop the "vanishing" time for an unaggressed ship down to ~10-15 seconds.
This leaves plenty of time for aggressing people who deliberately logoffski while not providing enough time for people to jump on legitimate disconnects. Can you elaborate what your suggesting here... I don't think I understand what you mean...
With the current vanishing timer, it's easily possible to scan out and aggress someone who either logs out or is involuntarily DCed? Generally speaking 60 seconds has always been enough time to probe out, land on grid with, and shoot someone who logs out. Historically though, that was about all you could do, since you generally didn't have enough time to actually kill them. With the new system, you'll have all the time in the world. Essentially noone will be able to log out or DC without dying as long as there's a hostile prober in system, which is kind of silly.
There's very little reason not to shorten the unaggressed vanishing timer under the proposed mechanics, since it's no longer necessary to have a 60 second timer to allow people a chance at killing people who, say, jump unscouted into a gatecamp and control-q. Under the proposed mechanics, you only need enough time to lock and fire on someone in this scenario, and you're then given as much time as it takes to finish them off. A 10-15 second vanishing timer would make it so that legit logoffs are safe (IE if you log out with no hostiles on grid with you, its basically impossible to become aggressed) while still allowing plenty of time for people to aggress those who attempt to use Ctrl-q to dodge combat. |

Tiberizzle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 22:14:00 -
[1095] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:CCP Masterplan:
Now that you've fixed the root of the logoffski problem (that people would vanish 60 seconds after logging out un-aggressed regardless of what transpired), you guys should drop the "vanishing" time for an unaggressed ship down to ~10-15 seconds.
This leaves plenty of time for aggressing people who deliberately logoffski while not providing enough time for people to jump on legitimate disconnects.
These changes as presented are basically all pure ****, insane over-reaching which excessively punishes common cloaking playstyles and players with marginal connections or real lives because CCP can't be assed to come up with actual solutions.
As someone who both has a marginal connection and yet has been frequently frustrated by ******** logoffski abuse, I'd still rather they back completely out of this heap of **** than overstep this far in the realm of assfucking cloaking playstyles, players with connection issues, or players with A Need To Logoff.
At the very least, you should be able to initiate a safe logoff while cloaked. This still leaves the 'if you DC unaggressed, cloaked, in deep space, with no hostiles on or even near your grid (i.e. in one of the most tactically secure positions in the game), but a poopsocking prober is about, enjoy your solo lossmail to autocannon Cheetah' vulnerability. It also leaves the 'if you DC while ratting then I mean basically get ******, if the rats don't kill you before you disappear then some roaming gang that wasn't even in the region when your connection dropped will' opening.
That is to say, the changes would still be pure **** even with significant rebalancing because this path, the path of shrugging and announcing loudly "**** everyone without a flawless connection and perfectly stable PC" that they've sanely been avoiding for years, leads nowhere. |

Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
172
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 01:11:00 -
[1096] - Quote
Tiberizzle wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:CCP Masterplan:
Now that you've fixed the root of the logoffski problem (that people would vanish 60 seconds after logging out un-aggressed regardless of what transpired), you guys should drop the "vanishing" time for an unaggressed ship down to ~10-15 seconds.
This leaves plenty of time for aggressing people who deliberately logoffski while not providing enough time for people to jump on legitimate disconnects. These changes as presented are basically all pure ****, insane over-reaching which excessively punishes common cloaking playstyles and players with marginal connections or real lives because CCP can't be assed to come up with actual solutions. As someone who both has a marginal connection and yet has been frequently frustrated by ******** logoffski abuse, I'd still rather they back completely out of this heap of **** than overstep this far in the realm of assfucking cloaking playstyles, players with connection issues, or players with A Need To Logoff. At the very least, you should be able to initiate a safe logoff while cloaked. This still leaves the 'if you DC unaggressed, cloaked, in deep space, with no hostiles on or even near your grid (i.e. in one of the most tactically secure positions in the game), but a poopsocking prober is about, enjoy your solo lossmail to autocannon Cheetah' vulnerability. It also leaves the 'if you DC while ratting then I mean basically get ******, if the rats don't kill you before you disappear then some roaming gang that wasn't even in the region when your connection dropped will' opening. That is to say, the changes would still be pure **** even with significant rebalancing because this path, the path of shrugging and announcing loudly "**** everyone without a flawless connection and perfectly stable PC" that they've sanely been avoiding for years, leads nowhere.
10-15 seconds is far too short. 1 minute is perfect. This ensures that people who jump in gatecamps and then logoffski will not be able to simply run away.
When you play eve you consent to PVP period, whether you are pvping or pveing. Accept that the game has risks, both predictable and unpredictable.
Having bad internet connection does not give an excuse. The majority of players have fairly good internet connection. If something happens, tough **** nothing is fair. I've lost ships due to DC issues, but you don't hear me whining about it. |

Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
433
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 01:39:00 -
[1097] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:
10-15 seconds is far too short, when you factor in lag, invulnerability from warp/jump and time to lock(battleships take more than 10-15 seconds to lock a frig). 10-15 seconds is far too short.
15 seconds is plenty of time. If a player in a frigate jumps into your battleship that takes 20 seconds to lock them, they don't need to control-q to be safe do they? They could just warp off. 15 seconds is more than the align time of most ships in EVE, and the ones that can't align in less than 15 seconds certainly take far less than 15 seconds to be locked by anything short of a capital ship. If your camp can't lock a target in 15 seconds you're doing it pretty wrong.
Soon Shin wrote: 1 minute is perfect. This ensures that people who jump in gatecamps and then logoffski will not be able to simply run away.
When you play eve you consent to PVP period, whether you are pvping or pveing. Accept that the game has risks, both predictable and unpredictable.
Do you understand what the new mechanics do? There's zero reason to have a 60 second timer under the proposed mechanics because as soon as your ship is aggressed your timer essentially becomes infinite. That's the whole reason for the change. Anyone who jumps into a gatecamp and logoffskis can be aggressed in well under 60 seconds, at which point the camp has as long to kill the target as they require, since the aggro flag continually resets as long as the target is being engaged.
A 60-second timer for un-aggressed ship disappearance is far too long under the new mechanics. Here's an example: say you're sitting in a safespot cloaked and want to log out. Under the proposed mechanics, you either quit the game and stay vulnerable in space for a good ~30+ seconds after your ewarp completes or you need to decloak and sit there for a full 60 seconds with no modules running before you can "manually" disappear your ship.
In either case, hostile probers have more than enough time to scan you out, warp in, and flag your ship before it disappears from space. Since your response will probably be "then don't log out with hostile probes out," consider that not all systems in EVE are very large (many are small enough to easily cover with 1-2 sets of probes, meaning there's nowhere to log off inconspicuously) and it's not always possible to change systems in order to log.
Basically, if you're in a system, and hostiles camp the outgates (so you can't go somewhere else to log) and have probes out, it becomes impossible for you to log off (or DC) without losing your ship, even if you log in a safespot and are un-aggressed. This is not really acceptable game design.
If you shorten the timer for un-aggressed ships, though, it becomes way less possible to probe out and aggress someone who logs in a safespot without aggression. By cutting the timer to 10-15 seconds you leave plenty of time for people who attempt to ctrl-q as a way to avoid combat to be aggressed while eliminating the "you can never log off" problem. |

Tiberizzle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 01:43:00 -
[1098] - Quote
Quote:10-15 seconds is far too short, when you factor in lag, invulnerability from warp/jump and time to lock(battleships take more than 10-15 seconds to lock a frig). 10-15 seconds is far too short.
1 minute is perfect. This ensures that people who jump in gatecamps and then logoffski will not be able to simply run away.
Are you seriously going to run a nullsec tuff guy probing mechanics routine (that obviously doesn't ******* apply to accidental d/c) then act like a complete idiot about gate tackling? 15 seconds is the align time of a goddamn plated Abaddon, if you are the kind of ****-up who needs that much of a hand out to get a kill maybe you should skip the logoff safe spot bouncing and chill in highsec. If it's something that nothing in your entire gang can lock in less than 15 seconds to tackle, why the **** would it intentionally log off when it can just warp past your gaggle of mouthbreathing chucklefucks piled on a gate?
Quote:When you play eve you consent to PVP period, whether you are pvping or pveing. Accept that the game has risks, both predictable and unpredictable.
You are a dumb ass.
Quote:Having bad internet connection does not give an excuse. The majority of players have fairly good internet connection. If something happens, tough **** nothing is fair. I've lost ships due to DC issues, but you don't hear me whining about it.
Please stop posting. |

Powers Sa
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
352
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 01:50:00 -
[1099] - Quote
Tiberizzle wrote:Quote:10-15 seconds is far too short, when you factor in lag, invulnerability from warp/jump and time to lock(battleships take more than 10-15 seconds to lock a frig). 10-15 seconds is far too short.
1 minute is perfect. This ensures that people who jump in gatecamps and then logoffski will not be able to simply run away. Are you seriously going to run a nullsec tuff guy probing mechanics routine (that obviously doesn't ******* apply to accidental d/c) then act like a complete idiot about gate tackling? 15 seconds is the align time of a goddamn plated Abaddon, if you are the kind of ****-up who needs that much of a hand out to get a kill maybe you should skip the logoff safe spot bouncing and chill in highsec. If it's something that nothing in your entire gang can lock in less than 15 seconds to tackle, why the **** would it intentionally log off when it can just warp past your gaggle of mouthbreathing chucklefucks piled on a gate? Quote:When you play eve you consent to PVP period, whether you are pvping or pveing. Accept that the game has risks, both predictable and unpredictable. You are a dumb ass. Quote:Having bad internet connection does not give an excuse. The majority of players have fairly good internet connection. If something happens, tough **** nothing is fair. I've lost ships due to DC issues, but you don't hear me whining about it. Please stop posting. Can you summarize in 5 sentences or less why you are raging your balls off in this thread? |

Tiberizzle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 02:22:00 -
[1100] - Quote
Powers Sa wrote:Can you summarize in 5 sentences or less why you are raging your balls off in this thread?
(1) The change to the effect of allowing a 60-second vanishing player to gain a 15-minute timer from aggression has the consequence that any termination of a game session while undocked and outside of a POS shield allows an active prober to score a free kill off of you because probing, warping to, and aggressing a dude in under 60 seconds is extremely possible.
(2) In the extreme: he can extend the timer indefinitely to whittle you down, he doesn't even need to tackle you because you won't warp off from your e-warp spot, you could be cloaked in a deep safe entirely unaggressed when you logged/dc'd and as long as his probes were reasonably close and probing skills decent you just lost your Cynabal to a solo civilian gunned Imicus or what the **** ever.
(3) The NPC flagging system is similar in the extent to which it overshoots 'punishing logoffski' and lands more in the territory of 'punishing everyone for logging in / free kill giveaway'.
(4) I'm pretty mad about it because the real pvp tactical error legit kills from this will dry up so fast it will resemble them having never been there in the first place as people realize certain actions have new risks and minimize them or Just Don't Do Them Anymore while we'll be left with its extremely cool spectre of awesome gameplay logging in from d/c to stations with no idea what happened to find lossmails to kkkomedy probing ships.
(5) CCP is dumb. |
|

Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
172
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 03:17:00 -
[1101] - Quote
I hear this claim about "involuntary DC" or having a "bad connection".
Out of everything that goes on, how common and often is it for you to suddenly lose connection at a bad time compared to most other times where everything is working perfectly fine and normal?
I had an "involuntary DC" and lost my ship in PVP, do I get a reimbursement?
CCP does not reimburse ships lost due to lag issues in fleet fights.
Unfair? Probably, but you knew what you were getting into when that happened.
The same can apply to this, if you play with a bad connection and you know you have a bad connection, you should accept the consequences that may happen.
Example: I drive a car that is beat up and poorly maintained, chances of something going bad increases the longer and longer I neglect the car. But I continue to drive and neglect the car.
Eventually the car goes out of control and I end up in the hospital paralyzed for life. Who is to blame, the car or the owner of the car?
Maybe sounds like an ******* thing to say, but really the excuse for "bad connection" and involuntary DC" can easily abused.
How will you prevent that, how can you prove that the customer did actually dced rather than pulling the plug on the computer?
CCP says: "Sorry the logs show nothing."
Back to the 10-15 second timer. Let say you suddenly see a bunch of enemy ships appear on your dscan of 14 AU max range, you Alt-F4, you will most likely disappear before the enemy can get out of warp and lock you up.
That is something CCP doesn't want to allow. Alt-F4 is official considered to be an unacceptable way to avoid PVP. |

Tiberizzle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 03:58:00 -
[1102] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:I hear this claim about "involuntary DC" or having a "bad connection".
Out of everything that goes on, how common and often is it for you to suddenly lose connection at a bad time compared to most other times where everything is working perfectly fine and normal?
I had an "involuntary DC" and lost my ship in PVP, do I get a reimbursement?
CCP does not reimburse ships lost due to lag issues in fleet fights.
Unfair? Probably, but you knew what you were getting into when that happened.
The same can apply to this, if you play with a bad connection and you know you have a bad connection, you should accept the consequences that may happen.
Example: I drive a car that is beat up and poorly maintained, chances of something going bad increases the longer and longer I neglect the car. But I continue to drive and neglect the car.
Eventually the car goes out of control and I end up in the hospital paralyzed for life. Who is to blame, the car or the owner of the car?
Maybe sounds like an ******* thing to say, but really the excuse for "bad connection" and involuntary DC" can easily abused.
How will you prevent that, how can you prove that the customer did actually dced rather than pulling the plug on the computer?
CCP says: "Sorry the logs show nothing."
Even with a relatively stable PC and stable connection your client will crash, your power will go out, CCP's datacenter will randomly drop a main uplink, or your own Internet connection will develop issues. If you play regularly it follows that these events will inevitably occur at a 'bad time'.
The purpose of the changes is to eliminate the possibility of entering a less vulnerable state by intentionally terminating your session.
If there is no credible threat to the player at the time they disconnect, there is no logical reason for 'free kill' flagging them towards the end of reducing the efficacy of session termination as evasion.
There are certain additional conditions which could be inserted into the logic of the proposed changes to further discriminate between 'credibly threatened / intentionally disconnected' events and 'not at threat / unintentional disconnection'.
You seem unsatisfied with these proposals for fairly nebulous reasons ('you should accept the consequences', 'consent to PVP', ??? having a hard time pulling a cohesive argument out of your inane babbling) and seem to be in essence advocating for players to enter a much more vulnerable state by logging off or losing connection than they would have been if they remained logged in simply because you want them to.
If you would like to advocate for Eve to be made easier because you are bad at it, perhaps you should start a new thread rather than derailing this discussion which concerns changes that are intended to address another issue. |

Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
172
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 04:15:00 -
[1103] - Quote
Tiberizzle wrote:
Even with a relatively stable PC and stable connection your client will crash, your power will go out, CCP's datacenter will randomly drop a main uplink, or your own Internet connection will develop issues. If you play regularly it follows that these events will inevitably occur at a 'bad time'.
The purpose of the changes is to eliminate the possibility of entering a less vulnerable state by intentionally terminating your session.
If there is no credible threat to the player at the time they disconnect, there is no logical reason for 'free kill' flagging them towards the end of reducing the efficacy of session termination as evasion.
There are certain additional conditions which could be inserted into the logic of the proposed changes to further discriminate between 'credible threatened / intentionally disconnected' events and 'not at threat / unintentional disconnection'.
You seem unsatisfied with these proposals for fairly nebulous reasons ('you should accept the consequences', 'consent to PVP', ??? having a hard time pulling a cohesive argument out of your inane babbling) and seem to be in essence advocating for players to enter a much more vulnerable state by logging off or losing connection than they would have been if they remained logged in simply because you want them to.
If you would like to advocate for Eve to be made easier because you are bad at it, perhaps you should start a new thread rather than derailing this discussion which concerns changes that are intended to address another issue.
You're rather quick to accuse me of want to get easy kills. You are wrong, what I want is that people should not be able to simply be able to avoid PVP by pressing Ctrl-Q.
It is a mechanic that has long been abused and these changes now prevent such a thing along with the Self-destruct changes.
You cannot balance things because of outside events such as power outage and bad connections. If something happened, you are always free to petition it.
Otherwise it should remain a separate issue to legitimate and actual gameplay.
Allowing potential disconnects and such things to be a factor in gameplay will open a window to people pulling the plug on their router and saying that they "accidentally" disconnected in order to avoid getting shot at.
CCP has said it: "Manually closing the client should never be an option to avoid PVP."
Stuff happens, nothing CCP can do to stop that. What they can stop is the willful and knowing abuse of the logoffski mechanic, that requires Zero pilot input rather than pressing Ctrl-Q.
1 Minute is a sufficient time to avoid being probed.
1.Once you ewarp you will have spent a fair amount of time in warp.
2.The prober will have to precisely be able to pin you down in the time you exit from ewarp.
3.Then spend time in warp getting to you.
4.By that time that one minute will most likely be spent and you will be gone.
You are also forgetting one of the biggest rules in eve: The only time you are truly safe is when you are docked in a station. If safety is what you want then you dock in a station. If you don't like the risks of being in space, well that's simply your problem.
tl:dr: Being out in space is NOT SAFE, Deal with it. |

ShadowandLight
Black Aces Against ALL Anomalies
63
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 04:24:00 -
[1104] - Quote
Ya know this whole new PVE timer thing has me extremely annoyed.
Just now I just had all my clients disconnect, a friend disconnected too so If its not the entire server dying then its probably a routing issue to CCP.
Either way, now I cannot log in.
I was JUST about to run wormhole sites.
If this happened after the new patch, I can guarantee that all my ships would be dead. Sleepers scramble almost every single ship when you are in a WH site.
So all of our ships would be scrambled by sleepers and would certainty be dead in the 5 minute timer that CCP is going to implement.
They wouldnt be able to e-warp out as suggested, unlike people running level 4 missions in high sec who this really doesnt effect.
Now lets say CCP is really, really generous that day and they do replace my hulls. Fantastic. But lets be honest, WH sites are f***ing hard. T2 fits do NOT cut it. So I am going to definitely be out a good amount of isk.
Is the goal for people to earn isk running high sec missions by making 0.0 or WH ratting harder or more dangerous then it already is?
Time to start moving some ships to Motsu and run level 4's again, at least I wont die due to disconnection issues.
|

Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
173
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 04:30:00 -
[1105] - Quote
ShadowandLight wrote:Ya know this whole new PVE timer thing has me extremely annoyed.
Just now I just had all my clients disconnect, a friend disconnected too so If its not the entire server dying then its probably a routing issue to CCP.
Either way, now I cannot log in.
I was JUST about to run wormhole sites.
If this happened after the new patch, I can guarantee that all my ships would be dead. Sleepers scramble almost every single ship when you are in a WH site.
So all of our ships would be scrambled by sleepers and would certainty be dead in the 5 minute timer that CCP is going to implement.
They wouldnt be able to e-warp out as suggested, unlike people running level 4 missions in high sec who this really doesnt effect.
Now lets say CCP is really, really generous that day and they do replace my hulls. Fantastic. But lets be honest, WH sites are f***ing hard. T2 fits do NOT cut it. So I am going to definitely be out a good amount of isk.
Is the goal for people to earn isk running high sec missions by making 0.0 or WH ratting harder or more dangerous then it already is?
Time to start moving some ships to Motsu and run level 4's again, at least I wont die due to disconnection issues.
Wormhole PVE makes you lots of isk for lots of risk.
If you want isk you will have to accept the risk that comes with the package.
This is not hello kitty L4 mission running, this is wormhole space. |

Tiberizzle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 06:08:00 -
[1106] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:Tiberizzle wrote:
Even with a relatively stable PC and stable connection your client will crash, your power will go out, CCP's datacenter will randomly drop a main uplink, or your own Internet connection will develop issues. If you play regularly it follows that these events will inevitably occur at a 'bad time'.
The purpose of the changes is to eliminate the possibility of entering a less vulnerable state by intentionally terminating your session.
If there is no credible threat to the player at the time they disconnect, there is no logical reason for 'free kill' flagging them towards the end of reducing the efficacy of session termination as evasion.
There are certain additional conditions which could be inserted into the logic of the proposed changes to further discriminate between 'credible threatened / intentionally disconnected' events and 'not at threat / unintentional disconnection'.
You seem unsatisfied with these proposals for fairly nebulous reasons ('you should accept the consequences', 'consent to PVP', ??? having a hard time pulling a cohesive argument out of your inane babbling) and seem to be in essence advocating for players to enter a much more vulnerable state by logging off or losing connection than they would have been if they remained logged in simply because you want them to.
If you would like to advocate for Eve to be made easier because you are bad at it, perhaps you should start a new thread rather than derailing this discussion which concerns changes that are intended to address another issue.
You're rather quick to accuse me of want to get easy kills. You are wrong, what I want is that people should not be able to simply be able to avoid PVP by pressing Ctrl-Q. It is a mechanic that has long been abused and these changes now prevent such a thing along with the Self-destruct changes. You cannot balance things because of outside events such as power outage and bad connections. If something happened, you are always free to petition it. Otherwise it should remain a separate issue to legitimate and actual gameplay. Allowing potential disconnects and such things to be a factor in gameplay will open a window to people pulling the plug on their router and saying that they "accidentally" disconnected in order to avoid getting shot at. CCP has said it: "Manually closing the client should never be an option to avoid PVP." Stuff happens, nothing CCP can do to stop that. What they can stop is the willful and knowing abuse of the logoffski mechanic, that requires Zero pilot input rather than pressing Ctrl-Q. 1 Minute is a sufficient time to avoid being probed. 1.Once you ewarp you will have spent a fair amount of time in warp. 2.The prober will have to precisely be able to pin you down in the time you exit from ewarp. 3.Then spend time in warp getting to you. 4.By that time that one minute will most likely be spent and you will be gone. You are also forgetting one of the biggest rules in eve: The only time you are truly safe is when you are docked in a station. If safety is what you want then you dock in a station. If you don't like the risks of being in space, well that's simply your problem. tl:dr: Being out in space is NOT SAFE, Deal with it.
No, 60 seconds is not adequate time in many cases to avoid being probed. It is not effortless but it is possible with regularity to probe a player in an unknown position in <60s, and even outright destroy players in lightly tanked ships logging unaggressed from nearby known positions.
The only case where it is regularly not possible to probe a player before disappearance is when, as you suggest earlier, they log on a reasonably long mid-warp. This is indeed a very common theme in many intentional logoffskis, but none of the changes address this and no degree of enthusiasm for misguided changes resolving non-issues and/or with high rates of false positive will apply said gaffes to this an actual issue.
I would like to further clarify a possible misunderstanding. People aren't playing the game to randomly lose their **** for no reason, that's not a risk you accept. This isn't Waste My ******* Time Online. 'Consenting to PVP' implies two players ('Player ... Player') and a contest ('Versus'). Not one player, an inanimate construct, and a foregone conclusion.
The imperfect state of the game with regard to disconnection, lag, client stability etc. does not represent the ideal towards which continued development strives and the fact that it is imperfect is not in itself adequate or rational justification for taking large steps backwards.
I'm not sure how else you expect me to interpret a steadfast refusal to examine the possibility of constraining the scope of speculative flagging to scenarios where players actually log off to evade PVP, other than a desperate appeal for low hanging fruit, but you aren't exactly leading me further away from that conclusion. |

Tsukinosuke
Id Est
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 06:22:00 -
[1107] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote: If you are under rat aggression, you remain in space for 2 minutes under current mechanics, you would probably be dead before you reached even one minute with sleepers.
Wormhole PVE makes you lots of isk for lots of risk.
If you want isk you will have to accept the risk that comes with the package.
This is not hello kitty L4 mission running, this is wormhole space.
tl:dr: Being out in space is NOT SAFE, Deal with it.
think about that some of us have real life here, not like you. i still cant understand your point of defending ridiculously those "benefit to pirates" flags(NPC-PVP-WEAPON). you say "This is not hello kitty L4 mission running, this is wormhole space. Being out in space is NOT SAFE, Deal with it." but you dont think same about your piracy life? and you dont ask DEVs for extended CRIMINAL flag thats i mean "if you have under 0.0 sec so you will be all time CRIMINAL, not for 15minutes" because you are not pirate only for 15minutes, instead. |

Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
173
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 06:57:00 -
[1108] - Quote
Tiberizzle wrote:
No, 60 seconds is not adequate time in many cases to avoid being probed. It is not effortless but it is possible with regularity to probe a player in an unknown position in <60s, and even outright destroy players in lightly tanked ships logging unaggressed from nearby known positions.
The only case where it is regularly not possible to probe a player before disappearance is when, as you suggest earlier, they log on a reasonably long mid-warp. This is indeed a very common theme in many intentional logoffskis, but none of the changes address this and no degree of enthusiasm for misguided changes resolving non-issues and/or with high rates of false positive will apply said gaffes to this an actual issue.
I would like to further clarify a possible misunderstanding. People aren't playing the game to randomly lose their **** for no reason, that's not a risk you accept. This isn't Waste My ******* Time Online. 'Consenting to PVP' implies two or more players ('Player ... Player') and a contest ('Versus'). Not one player, an inanimate construct, and a foregone conclusion.
The imperfect state of the game with regard to disconnection, lag, client stability etc. does not represent the ideal towards which continued development strives and the fact that it is imperfect is not in itself adequate or rational justification for taking large steps backwards.
I'm not sure how else you expect me to interpret a steadfast refusal to examine the possibility of constraining the scope of speculative flagging to scenarios where players actually log off to evade PVP, other than a desperate appeal for more low hanging fruit, but you aren't exactly leading me further away from that conclusion.
First off, you cannot use disconnect, bad internet, etc as an excuse. Because everyone will use that excuse and lie about it.
Second, the new "safe log off" method will be so that you sit in a safe area, for 1 minute timer, once that timer disappears you are shown as log off and disappear right away. If you don't use that feature, you will be shown as logged off and will take 1 minute to disappear, in which them your "prober" will come and try to scan you down, warp to you, and point you in 1 minute.
Third, In EVE when you play this game you consent to PVP regardless. Whether it be getting killed in a lowsec gatecamp or getting suicide ganked in a freighter at Niarja. Of course people don't play to get ganked, but in this game you have agreed to such conditions and you have no say if something happens from those conditions. Players didn't play to getting suicide ganked or gatecamped, but they consent to the possibilities that it would happen. You as a member of Goonswarm should understand that well.
EVE is not safe and it has risks. It is by the very nature of this game, your complaints goes against those very fundamentals, this is not Hello Kitty Online, this is EVE Online aka HTFU or adapt or die. If you don't like that then this game isn't for you.
Tsukinosuke wrote: think about that some of us have real life here, not like you. i still cant understand your point of defending ridiculously those "benefit to pirates" flags(NPC-PVP-WEAPON). you say "This is not hello kitty L4 mission running, this is wormhole space. Being out in space is NOT SAFE, Deal with it." but you dont think same about your piracy life? and you dont ask DEVs for extended CRIMINAL flag thats i mean "if you have under 0.0 sec so you will be all time CRIMINAL, not for 15minutes" because you are not pirate only for 15minutes, instead.
"Some of us have real life here, not like you." Really you're throwing some outside gaming stuff to insult me. So what if you have a "life", that doesn't matter in this game.
If stuff happens I deal with it. I may get annoyed here and there, but change happens good and bad. You just to accept the fact that this game is changing.
You are narrow minding to think this will benefit pirates; this will benefit gameplay as a whole. Logoffski is a ridiculous and silly game mechanic used to avoid PVP, without any use of piloting or game input other than simply closing the client.
EVE is 100% active consensual constant PVP. You undocking is a consent for PVP, whether you like it or not.
|

Barney Goldwing
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 07:03:00 -
[1109] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: 1.) What requires an MWD to stay safe?? that doesn't make a lot of sense to me! Sure, MWD's help you stay safe when active, but if you legitimately dc, an MWD wont' save you now!!!! The only thing that saves a player dc'ing into a gate camp is a high amount of HP so they can survive until they despawn.... which they can no longer do....
3.) While unstable clients do occasionally occur upon jumping, for the most part jumping is fine (just be careful after every patch until you know it's stable). If you are taking a slow-moving ship through a dangerous area of space (nullsec/lowsec), then make sure you are on a stable client, use scouts, and don't warp gate to gate... then you'll be alright... People, especially in big ships, purposely dc to "save their ship" far, far more often than people legitimately dc....
Truthfully, moving a freighter (the most awkward since it warps real slow and cannot cloak) doesn't change much... if you currently web to warp it, you have to deal with a 15 minute extendable PvP timer.... if you don't, it takes 50s to get it into warp.... during which time someone can come and attack it...
1) Any ship with an align time in excess of 10seconds, like deep space transports, battleships, etc. Im sure you know about "cloak mwd trick"
If you today crash on a gate jump, the ship will be visible for 5-10seconds, and given that these are bulky ships, they stand a chance of surviving. With the new changes, that is much less likely, since the ship is not e-warping under gate cloak, so it will spend its entire align time uncloaked, giving you at least 15-20seconds to scram it (scram may not stop it, but it will start the 15min timer).
3) well a blocade runner is kinda made for going unscouted trough at least low-sec, otherwise I could just as well use a T1 with scout.
I agree that it should not be possible to logoff to avoid a freighter gank, niether in high or low/nullsec. At the same time I dont think its fair to make it that easy to lose it on a disconnect.
I rarely get crashes/disconnects, buy it does happen(my worst case being 3 crashes in 10jumps), thankfully it has not yet caused death, even my scout ship survived DCing on grid with a gate camp :) |

Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
173
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 07:11:00 -
[1110] - Quote
Barney Goldwing wrote:
I agree that it should not be possible to logoff to avoid a freighter gank, niether in high or low/nullsec. At the same time I dont think its fair to make it that easy to lose it on a disconnect.
I rarely get crashes/disconnects, buy it does happen(my worst case being 3 crashes in 10jumps), thankfully it has not yet caused death, even my scout ship survived DCing on grid with a gate camp :)
The problem becomes is how do you distinguish between an accidental and a knowing and willful disconnect?
How will CCP make it so without requiring spyware programs to monitor your every move and whatsoever?
From what I can see it virtually impossible without resort to questionable and illegitimate methods that breach privacy.
If something happens that you believe is not your fault, then you are always free to petition it.
Otherwise I applaud the end to this ridiculous Logoffski that has been rampant for a while now. |
|

Barney Goldwing
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 09:17:00 -
[1111] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote: The problem becomes is how do you distinguish between an accidental and a knowing and willful disconnect?
How will CCP make it so without requiring spyware programs to monitor your every move and whatsoever?
From what I can see it virtually impossible without resort to questionable and illegitimate methods that breach privacy.
If something happens that you believe is not your fault, then you are always free to petition it.
From what I read on forums, petition rarely results in reimbursement, esp. if its indirectly your fault. (Its your internet, your memory, computer, fan, even if its CCP' s less-than-perfect code)
I agree its hard to impossible to track if a DC/crash is real or forced, they could still fix the "login and logoff" trick to move the safespot, so you always return to the gate or where ever on login. |

Terrorfrodo
Deep Space Darwinian Law Enforcement Agency
214
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 11:45:00 -
[1112] - Quote
Scanning down a player, warping to him, locking and aggressing him in under 60 seconds is only possible if -the scanner already had his probes out and placed -near the target -immediately scans -has a very short warp distance -has a fast-aligning -and fast locking ship In summary, it is very, very unlikely. That this player will be there and have his probes ready just at the moment where you have a legitimate disconnect, which he immediately notices and takes advantage of, is extremely unlikely.
Players abusing illegitimate logoffskis to avoid pvp is much more likely and much more common. For example, I recently stalked a group of ISK farmers in a C5 wormhole who ratted with two dreads and two carriers. After many hours of work, taking great care to not be detected, I had 30 people logged out in the system. When the farmers ratted the next day, we jumped on top of them to get our well-earned capital kills. We aggressed the carriers and killed them, but the dreads had immediately logged off and vanished shortly thereafter, even though they were in siege when we attacked and we of course pointed them. Under the new rules, those dreads would now be as dead as they should be.
So we have some theoretical edge cases where some people will suffer losses because of legitimate network issues, and we have a ton of cases where the new system will be a massive improvement. Without a doubt CCP made the right call.
And btw, when you crash after a gate-jump, and get pointed by a camp before your ship can e-warp, chances are they will kill you in under a minute anyway, with all your modules turned off. So this is hardly a change. . |

Barney Goldwing
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 12:33:00 -
[1113] - Quote
Terrorfrodo wrote:Scanning down a player, warping to him, locking and aggressing him in under 60 seconds is only possible if -the scanner already had his probes out and placed -near the target -immediately scans -has a very short warp distance -has a fast-aligning -and fast locking ship In summary, it is very, very unlikely. That this player will be there and have his probes ready just at the moment where you have a legitimate disconnect, which he immediately notices and takes advantage of, is extremely unlikely.
Players abusing illegitimate logoffskis to avoid pvp is much more likely and much more common. For example, I recently stalked a group of ISK farmers in a C5 wormhole who ratted with two dreads and two carriers. After many hours of work, taking great care to not be detected, I had 30 people logged out in the system. When the farmers ratted the next day, we jumped on top of them to get our well-earned capital kills. We aggressed the carriers and killed them, but the dreads had immediately logged off and vanished shortly thereafter, even though they were in siege when we attacked and we of course pointed them. Under the new rules, those dreads would now be as dead as they should be.
So we have some theoretical edge cases where some people will suffer losses because of legitimate network issues, and we have a ton of cases where the new system will be a massive improvement. Without a doubt CCP made the right call.
And btw, when you crash after a gate-jump, and get pointed by a camp before your ship can e-warp, chances are they will kill you in under a minute anyway, with all your modules turned off. So this is hardly a change. Most of the time a ship(at least mine) is on the way to a gate, if you DC the ship will still warp to the gate, realign and attempt to warp off, in that case, the new and old system is not much different, both is going to get most ships killed, if the gate is active, only fast agile ships will get away in time, but with the new system, a smart bomb can ensure you have 15minutes to find it, not 1.
The change to the jump-in is that most of the current 1 minute timer is spent under gate cloak, so they dont have a minute to lock and kill, they have at the very most 20seconds if it was a real crash, seems unlikely the client would crash after 20+ seconds idle, if it crashes it usually does it early, at times even before the system name changes. With the new system they have the same seconds, but now just need to aggress the ship, with point/bomb/whatever. |

Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
435
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 12:53:00 -
[1114] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:I hear this claim about "involuntary DC" or having a "bad connection".
Out of everything that goes on, how common and often is it for you to suddenly lose connection at a bad time compared to most other times where everything is working perfectly fine and normal?
Are you deliberately being thick? Keeping the 60 second timer with the new mechanics makes "a bad time" literally all of the time-- any time there is a prober in system you can't disconnect without dying. What's so hard to understand here?
Soon Shin wrote: Back to the 10-15 second timer. Let say you suddenly see a bunch of enemy ships appear on your dscan of 14 AU max range, you Alt-F4, you will most likely disappear before the enemy can get out of warp and lock you up.
That is something CCP doesn't want to allow. Alt-F4 is official considered to be an unacceptable way to avoid PVP.
Are you being intentionally thick? If you see a bunch of enemy ships on scan 10-15 seconds away you could, I don't know, warp out?
If you had been doing anything relevant previously (shooting players, ratting, etc) then under the new system you can't ctrl-q anyway-- if you were fighting you have a combat timer. If you were ratting you still have an NPC timer. Either way your ship stays in space for several more minutes. The only time your objection becomes semi-plausible is when the DCer was doing nothing at all prior to disconnecting, and even in this case they could just as easily avoid your hostiles by warping out as they could by DCing. Much like your complaint that "a 15 second timer would allow frigates to jump into lone battleships camping a gate and escape the battleship by closing the client," I fail to see how your argument makes any practical sense. Why would you DC your client to avoid something that you could much more easily avoid by simply moving?
The 60 second timer has the potential to punish anyone who logs off the game at all, at any time, for any reason. Do you not see a problem with this? Or are we supposed to buy your argument that you should always be killed in EVE, no matter how many precautions you take? I think if you compare your attitude to the attitude of the developers (which can be inferred pretty clearly from the body of existing game mechanics) you'll find that EVE is really based around consensual PvP-- the only way you'll find your ship getting blown up in EVE is if you deliberately expose yourself to risks, either by ignorance, laziness, or intentionally. If you know how the game works and deliberately avoid combat, there's basically zero risk of dying in EVE. Until now, apparently. The proposed mechanics will leave you extremely vulnerable to being killed REGARDLESS of what you do any time there's a hostile covops in system with you. This is not acceptable. |

Terrorfrodo
Deep Space Darwinian Law Enforcement Agency
214
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 13:04:00 -
[1115] - Quote
Barney Goldwing wrote:The change to the jump-in is that most of the current 1 minute timer is spent under gate cloak, Shouldn't your ship attempt the e-warp upon disconnect, thus ending the gate cloak and making you attackable anyway? Not having died under such circumstances I don't know for sure, but this is what I'd expect.
Whatever, CCP always has to weigh the concern that people with real connection issues can be penalized versus the fact that people exploit any measures to protect against that to avoid losses. And with EVE being a hard and mean place, CCP should lean towards a "HTFU" attitude when in doubt. . |

Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
435
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 13:18:00 -
[1116] - Quote
Terrorfrodo wrote:Scanning down a player, warping to him, locking and aggressing him in under 60 seconds is only possible if -the scanner already had his probes out and placed -near the target -immediately scans -has a very short warp distance -has a fast-aligning -and fast locking ship In summary, it is very, very unlikely.
Actually, it's not unlikely at all. I've spent whole days in nullsec with pissed off people continuously trying to probe me out. Some of them do it for literally twelve hours at a time. Now imagine the gates to the system are camped. What are you going to do? You literally can't log off without dying. Pretty stupid IMHO.
Without a timer reduction for un-aggressed ships, the change is heavily skewed against anyone who doesn't have a station or POS to log off in-- essentially, anyone who works in hostile space. Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with fighting in hostile space being "risky"-- that's what I do it pretty much full time. I'm also all for CCP eliminating the logoffski as a way to avoid combat-- IE, I'm in a Drake and jump into a system and find a Jaguar on the gate-- I DC because I know my Drake can absorb a Jag's damage for at leas 60 seconds. Or, I'm in a carrier and I jump to a cyno beacon. As I appear, a Rapier decloaks next to me. I ctrl-q before my invuln timer ends or the Rapier's targeting delay ends because I figure I can probably survive for 60 seconds.
In those kinds of scenarios, logging off should never be a viable way to avoid combat; you should never be able to make up for your own laziness, stupidity, or both by simply ctrl-q'ing.
The problem with the 60 second timer under the proposed mechanics is that suddenly ANY logoff becomes a great opportunity for you to get killed. As long as there's someone willing to poopsock probes all day you can't log off of the game, regardless of whether the log is intentional or not and regardless of whatever precautions you've taken to avoid dying (e.g. making a safespot and cloaking in it to avoid people). It's not right to punish players for circumstances entirely outside their control. When you jump into a small gatecamp unscouted, that's not something beyond your control. You should be punished. You can't expect though that players should be able to avoid disconnecting from the game until the next downtime. That's just not reasonable.
By shortening the vanishing timer, you retain the ability to punish people for their bad decisions (unless you live in Soon Shin's world where its impossible for campers to shoot at a DCing ship in under 15 seconds-- I guess all the lone campers in his region camp in sieged Dreads? v0v), but players who were deliberately avoiding engaging in risky behavior (by, say, being cloaked in a safespot) don't get killed in spite of the precautions they deliberately took.
There's simply no reason to argue against shortening the timer under the proposed mechanics unless you're that person who intends to sit in a gatecamped system with probes out all day long waiting for someone to log off so you can get a free kill. Personally I don't think people who are deliberately employing techniques to avoid being killed (in stark contrast to those who bumble around hoping to survive on "luck" and their ability to DC) should become free kills. I know there's probably a lot of people who would love a mechanic to be inserted that let them kill people simply based on the amount of poopsocking time they're willing to put in, regardless of whether or not their target made a poor decision but that's not how EVE works. In EVE, things are risky, but there's always a way for the determined to avoid being killed if that's what they want. The only people you can actually kill in EVE are the ignorant and the lazy (or people who are some combination of both!), and that's probably how it should stay. |

Terrorfrodo
Deep Space Darwinian Law Enforcement Agency
214
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 14:16:00 -
[1117] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote: I've spent whole days in nullsec with pissed off people continuously trying to probe me out. Some of them do it for literally twelve hours at a time. Now imagine the gates to the system are camped. What are you going to do? You literally can't log off without dying. As someone else already explained to you, this isn't true. Make a safespot. Make another safespot as far away from the first as possible. Initiate warp from one safe to the other and log off as soon as you enter warp. Your 60-second timer begins immediately while you are warping all the way to your destination. When your ship arrives, it initiates the emergency warp. By the time it finishes that and arrives in its final position, it has already disappeared or is a few seconds away from disappearing. Nobody has any chance to scan you down in time, let alone warp to you.
Now you can't do that in a case of disconnect. But as I mentioned, it is highly unlikely that you disconnect just at the time you are hunted by such a relentless prober. If you get disconnected so often that this happens more than once a year to you, you probably die constantly due to connection problems anyway, and EVE can't be much fun for you.
. |

Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
435
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 14:45:00 -
[1118] - Quote
Terrorfrodo wrote:Ganthrithor wrote: I've spent whole days in nullsec with pissed off people continuously trying to probe me out. Some of them do it for literally twelve hours at a time. Now imagine the gates to the system are camped. What are you going to do? You literally can't log off without dying. As someone else already explained to you, this isn't true. Make a safespot. Make another safespot as far away from the first as possible. Initiate warp from one safe to the other and log off as soon as you enter warp. Your 60-second timer begins immediately while you are warping all the way to your destination. When your ship arrives, it initiates the emergency warp. By the time it finishes that and arrives in its final position, it has already disappeared or is a few seconds away from disappearing. Nobody has any chance to scan you down in time, let alone warp to you. Now you can't do that in a case of disconnect. But as I mentioned, it is highly unlikely that you disconnect just at the time you are hunted by such a relentless prober. If you get disconnected so often that this happens more than once a year to you, you probably die constantly due to connection problems anyway, and EVE can't be much fun for you.
I bolded the funny parts.
WHAT PART OF "I HAVE REGULARLY ENCOUTERED SCENARIOS IN WHICH PEOPLE HAVE PROBED FOR ME ALL DAY LONG" DO YOU NOT COMPREHEND?
If people are probing for you constantly, it is in fact highly likely that any disconnect will coincide with a moment in which you are actively being probed! What a coincidence!
The real question here is, why do you feel this need to institute game mechanics that leave the door wide open to players going killed through involuntary disconnects when shortening the timer has zero adverse effects on your ability to kill players who deliberately do something stupid. As I've reiterated about a hundred times already, you DO NOT NEED 60 seconds to aggress someone who jumps into your camp unscouted.
This is the kind of behavior CCP (and I, for that matter) want to see punished. Since you can punish this behavior without also screwing over anyone who happens to get DCed involuntarily (by shortening the vanishing timer) why would you insist on maintaining a 60 second timer that punishes both legitimate and illegitimate DCs? There's simply NO REASON not to shorten the timer. |

Tsukinosuke
Id Est
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 15:17:00 -
[1119] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote: "Some of us have real life here, not like you." Really you're throwing some outside gaming stuff to insult me. So what if you have a "life", that doesn't matter in this game.
If stuff happens I deal with it. I may get annoyed here and there, but change happens good and bad. You just to accept the fact that this game is changing.
You are narrow minding to think this will benefit pirates; this will benefit gameplay as a whole. Logoffski is a ridiculous and silly game mechanic used to avoid PVP, without any use of piloting or game input other than simply closing the client.
EVE is 100% active consensual constant PVP. You undocking is a consent for PVP, whether you like it or not.
if i want PvP like this, i have better choices. "die and respawn" games for example. but in EVE both to kill and to die are much more important, you shouldnt change this less important.
im not playing this game for being punished. rule #1 "family(Real Life) comes first" even EVE cant penatrate this rule for many many players you cant imagine.
i think you are complately wrong, there is no logoffski, my friend logged out at our POS and his ship existed last15-30sec approx., if you cant kill a defensless ship in 30sec, then either you are flying a mining barge or exhumer..
you say i am narrow minded but have you checked yourself recently? how about system crash? disconnects? powercut? sickness?
but you must be agreed with extended Criminal flag, because i cant see anything you say... |

Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
173
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 16:33:00 -
[1120] - Quote
Tsukinosuke wrote:Soon Shin wrote: "Some of us have real life here, not like you." Really you're throwing some outside gaming stuff to insult me. So what if you have a "life", that doesn't matter in this game.
If stuff happens I deal with it. I may get annoyed here and there, but change happens good and bad. You just to accept the fact that this game is changing.
You are narrow minding to think this will benefit pirates; this will benefit gameplay as a whole. Logoffski is a ridiculous and silly game mechanic used to avoid PVP, without any use of piloting or game input other than simply closing the client.
EVE is 100% active consensual constant PVP. You undocking is a consent for PVP, whether you like it or not.
if i want PvP like this, i have better choices. "die and respawn" games for example. but in EVE both to kill and to die are much more important, you shouldnt change this less important. im not playing this game for being punished. rule #1 "family(Real Life) comes first" even EVE cant penatrate this rule for many many players you cant imagine. i think you are complately wrong, there is no logoffski, my friend logged out at our POS and his ship existed last15-30sec approx., if you cant kill a defensless ship in 30sec, then either you are flying a mining barge or exhumer.. you say i am narrow minded but have you checked yourself recently? how about system crash? disconnects? powercut? sickness? but you must be agreed with extended Criminal flag, because i cant see anything you say...
You are wrong logoffski does exist and is being abused. Whether you acknowledge that it happens, the testimonies that exist far outnumber your claims it does not.
Besides if you log off in a pos you have the opportunity to to safely log in that pos.
Now back to the claim made by the member of go on swarm and ridiculous hyperbole of having connection accidents when people are trying to probe him down.
Unless the pilot already has combat probes out and knows precisely where and when you exit warp, he will most likely not catch you in one minute.
Stop using occassional and seldom real life events to justify things. The game will move on regardless of what happens. HTFU and adapt or die. |
|

Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
442
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 17:05:00 -
[1121] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:
Stop using occassional and seldom real life events to justify things. The game will move on regardless of what happens. HTFU and adapt or die.
A short timer given to everyone is a short timer and opportunity given to logoffski.
A minute ensures that logoffski can no longer be exploited and gives a clear message that you must play the game if you want to survive.
Maybe if your fear of being probed is so bad then you should dock in a station or safe log in a pos. If someone traps you where you are and you allow yourself to get trapped well ctrl-q shouldn't be a get out of jail free card for you.
Your constant "htfu, adapt or die, etc" rhetoric is a waste of everyone's time, especially mine. I don't need some wormhole carebear giving me attitude pointers, thanks. How about you take your ultimate badass attitude and check it at the door. Some sort of reasonable argument would be much more compelling than a stream of ineptly-constructed platitudes.
Speaking of which, perhaps you could enlighten us all as to the scenario you've obviously constructed in that head of yours in which a full, minute-long timer is necessary to avoid "logoffskiing." I've already pointed out to you that the typical scenarios (in which someone logs off because they jumped unscouted into a camp, jumped unscouted to a beacon with a tackler on it, or logged while tackled by rats to avoid being gibbed by a gang) don't require a 60 second timer as a remedy under the proposed mechanics. If someone was fighting other players, ratting, or otherwise doing some form of "dangerous" or "risky" activity, they will not be able to logoffski successfully under the proposed changes.
With regard to your "why don't you sit in a POS or station" comment, well, not everyone has access to POSes or stations! It's as simple as that. If you're going to go ahead and say that anyone who doesn't have their own station or POS to cower in deserves to die for daring to log off of EVE without your permission, well, you're welcome to your own opinion I suppose but I'm pretty sure the devs don't share it with you.
You're the one claiming that you need a full minute to probe out and shoot at someone who logs out (manifestly untrue as I've done it myself on numerous occasions without even using a highly-specialized probing character). You're the one claiming that anyone who logs out in a system in which a hostile prober is present should be a free kill, whether their logout was voluntary or not. It's really on you to convince the rest of us that your attitude is warranted. So far you're doing a ****-poor job.
So, explain the scenario in which a 15 second vanishing timer causes you to be unable to kill someone that you deserve to be able to kill. I'm all ears. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
690
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 17:51:00 -
[1122] - Quote
Barney Goldwing wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: 1.) What requires an MWD to stay safe?? that doesn't make a lot of sense to me! Sure, MWD's help you stay safe when active, but if you legitimately dc, an MWD wont' save you now!!!! The only thing that saves a player dc'ing into a gate camp is a high amount of HP so they can survive until they despawn.... which they can no longer do....
3.) While unstable clients do occasionally occur upon jumping, for the most part jumping is fine (just be careful after every patch until you know it's stable). If you are taking a slow-moving ship through a dangerous area of space (nullsec/lowsec), then make sure you are on a stable client, use scouts, and don't warp gate to gate... then you'll be alright... People, especially in big ships, purposely dc to "save their ship" far, far more often than people legitimately dc....
Truthfully, moving a freighter (the most awkward since it warps real slow and cannot cloak) doesn't change much... if you currently web to warp it, you have to deal with a 15 minute extendable PvP timer.... if you don't, it takes 50s to get it into warp.... during which time someone can come and attack it...
1) Any ship with an align time in excess of 10seconds, like deep space transports, battleships, etc. Im sure you know about "cloak mwd trick" If you today crash on a gate jump, the ship will be visible for 5-10seconds, and given that these are bulky ships, they stand a chance of surviving. With the new changes, that is much less likely, since the ship is not e-warping under gate cloak, so it will spend its entire align time uncloaked, giving you at least 15-20seconds to scram it (scram may not stop it, but it will start the 15min timer).
What?? If you crash on gate jump today, your ship will attempt to ewarp as soon as the server notices your dc.... you will attempt to warp (and can easily be caught right away), and will take 60 seconds to despawn.... sure... big BS's, Orca's, and freighters can survive for 60 seconds, but your survival is really based on how many ships are on gate and your tank... a MWD only helps you are LOGGED IN and ACTIVE.... You ship won't automatically perform the cloaky MWD trick... If you DC, an MWD does NOTHING to help "save your ship".
Barney Goldwing wrote: 3) well a blocade runner is kinda made for going unscouted trough at least low-sec, otherwise I could just as well use a T1 with scout.
I agree that it should not be possible to logoff to avoid a freighter gank, niether in high or low/nullsec. At the same time I dont think its fair to make it that easy to lose it on a disconnect.
I rarely get crashes/disconnects, buy it does happen(my worst case being 3 crashes in 10jumps), thankfully it has not yet caused death, even my scout ship survived DCing on grid with a gate camp :)
It is NOT easy to lose your ship on DC.... to lose your ship on DC, someone has to be able to attack you before you despawn... sure, if you are on gate with an enemy when you dc, you're ship is given to them on a silver platter. However, if you make it hard to kill in that scenario, then you essentially make logging off an illegitimate tactic to escape ship destruction whenever you jump into a system and happen to be on grid with a tackling frigate...
As for a blockade runner running unscouted.... You will die NOW if you enter a system unscouted and DC with an enemy on gate... because your ship won't cloak to warp... Perhaps, if your stabbed, the new mechanics allow them to aggress you, then scan you down and gank you... but sorry, so what! The loss is worth it to prevent logoffski "I'm afraid of loss" mechanics! |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
692
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 19:48:00 -
[1123] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Soon Shin wrote:
10-15 seconds is far too short, when you factor in lag, invulnerability from warp/jump and time to lock(battleships take more than 10-15 seconds to lock a frig). 10-15 seconds is far too short.
15 seconds is plenty of time to aggress someone when on grid... but not enough when they are off grid...
I originally aggreed with Soon Shin here... 15 seconds, on the surface, feels far too short... If no probes are in the air, it takes 8 seconds to release 4 probes (2 seconds each), 5 seconds to position them, 5-10 seconds to scan, 10+ seconds to warp to the target, and 1 second to aggress them with aoe (longer for targetted aggresssion). While I'll admit 60 seconds is enough time to scan down a target, it is not an easy task unless you already have probes out and are waiting for the DC.... If you DC while cloaked in a safe, unless you are in a very big ship, I highly doubt you'll get scanned down within 60 seconds... At the same point in time, it is very possible to scan down a big ship and aggress them within 60 seconds, especially if you are ready for them...
Now, I honestly have the impression Ganthrithor is trying to keep a titan safe, because, unless you are fielding bling, people are not going to waste 12 hours to hunt down your precious ship... A titan can be easily scanned down and aggressed within 60 seconds.... And truthfully, if you are cloaked in a ship (be it a titan or impairor), without any flags, you should be able to DC safely....
I'd like to discuss three situations:
A.) Hazardous: If you have an enemy on grid, you are in a hazardous situation. You are in immediate danger (even if cloaked). The only way you should be able to "confidently" get safe, is to use in-game mechanics to get your ship out. For example: If you enter a system, and there is a hostile on grid, your options should be deal with / escape from that hostile by flying your ship, or die.... Logging off should be almost equivalent to self destructing in that scenario. If you truly do DC in this scenario.... sorry for your loss, **** happens, go save a kitten to up your karma... This type of situation is why we need the despawn timer to begin with. The despawn timer allows that hostile to aggress you, and ensure your righteous destruction! In reducing the despawn timer (to say 15 seconds), it's important that the despawn timer does not count down until your ship attempts its emergency warp. This means if you dc while warping a freighter across system, you won't disappear before landing on the gate. This means if you DC under gate cloak, you wont despawn before breaking cloak. I think this is extremely important to implement!
B.) Semi-Hazardous: I would define this as a situation, where you are in space, and have a timer. Essentially, when in this situation, you MUST use in-game mechanics to get your ship out of harms way. In-game mechanics would be warping to a POS, docking up in a station, warping around until your timers expire, cloaking up, etc... If you are currently (or recently) engaged in any in-space PvE or PvP activity, you should considered in a Semi-Hazardous situation, and should NOT be able to use log-off mechanics to risklessly get Safe. As such, I think NPC timers need to be extended to most Flying in Space PvE activities. If you activate mining lasers, gas harvesters, hacking/salvaging/analyzing modules, scan with a probe, or interacting with the PI system, you should receive the 5 minute NPC timer. (note: Activating a Jump Portal should also give you a timer). -- Why? One of the major reasons ships have slow align times is to enhance the dangers in using that ship, and you should deal with that drawback in a manner that doesn't involve disconnecting. If you are ratting in an Archon with a 30s align time, then you should need to warp off to a safe spot, cloak up, etc, to avoid potential PvP. Disconnecting should NOT be a (good) option... I don't care if you are ratting, mining, etc... logging off should not be a tool to get your ship safe! To get save, you should first use in-game mechanics to avoid a fight, and wait out any timers you have, and ONLY then should you be able to DC safely!!
C.) Safe: When you are in space, away from hostiles, and free of all PvP, NPC, Suspect, criminal, and Weapons timers, you should be able to disconnect from the game in a riskless fashion. The despawn timer should NOT put a player at risk when leaving the game under this situation. With this in mind, I'm actually going to aggree with Ganthrithor that a 15 second despawn timer is more-less appropriate. Much longer than that, and it becomes very possible for an organized enemy to scan and aggress you before you despawn... and while we all want titan killmails, if someone is cloaked, in a mid spot, with no timers... they should be able to disconnect safely!! I really can't see any good reason why logging off or disconnecting under this scenario should be risky, in any fashion! In truth, most losses in this game should primarily come from piloting error, not an uncontrollable ISP packet loss. As such, the 15 second despawn rate is reasonable, because it's long enough to aggress someone DC'ing when in a hazardous situation, but short enough that you are very unlikely to be aggressed when DC'ing in a Safe Situation.
p.s. I know this sounds contradictory to suggest a player legitimately dc'ing when they jump through a gate into an enemy deserves to die, yet advocate that most losses in game should primarily come from piloting error. The truth is, getting yourself into that hazardous situation IS a piloting error, even if your piloting skills / equipment typically allows you to get back out of that situation safely. |

Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
175
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 20:18:00 -
[1124] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:[quote=Ganthrithor][quote=Soon Shin] p.s. I know this sounds contradictory to suggest a player legitimately dc'ing when they jump through a gate into an enemy deserves to die, yet advocate that most losses in game should primarily come from piloting error. The truth is, getting yourself into that hazardous situation IS a piloting error, even if your piloting skills / equipment typically allows you to get back out of that situation safely.
Well said. That is what I have been trying to say, though I admit probably did not word it as well as you have. If you fly in dangerous space, then you have the right to minimize your risk, but you can never completely eliminate the risk.
I do not know if Ganthrithor(paranoid dude who is not willing to accept the consequences of dangerous space) is a Titan or Supercarrier pilot, looking at his kill records he does fly capital ships.
At that point its no surprise you can probe down a capital in a very short amount of time and why people are constantly probing for him. But this is the cost of flying large and bulky ships, you have to accept the consequences for your actions, get some friends, a capital should never be flown alone.
With that being said, I maintain my position that 10-15 seconds is much too short, it needs to be longer than that. If many people (not just their whiny crybaby with bad connection and paranoid dude who claims that people are constantly after him) believe that 1 minute is too long, then perhaps something in between. |

Rhavas
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
67
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 21:30:00 -
[1125] - Quote
MisterAl tt1 wrote:While that is perfect capitals won't be able to escape by logging off while the fleet is warping to them, I still backup each and every of these words: Rhavas wrote:Still need to solve the T3 issue. ... However - if you are going to have this mechanic, you have to have a way to NOT be in it when it explodes. This is a play choice that adds potential. Don't bottle it up.
If you must lock the pod in the ship, get rid of the SP loss mechanic. Otherwise let people eject (again - fine if you get rid of self destruct on eject too - eject should almost always result in your enemy stealing your ship!). In addition many people here showed their concerns that not-ejecting will ruin a practice of ejecting to save pods.
I've never had any situation where ejecting from a ship nets me anything different than having the ship blow up around me. In my experience (high, low, npc null and wormhole) I've never had a problem getting my pod out after ship loss so long as there is no bubble and I have a pod saver (planets, sun and gates only) tab on the overview to get me out of there. Is there some scenario where the pod actually lives longer if you eject? I have no TiDi experience, so maybe there's a difference there. But outside that, I don't see that it makes any difference in any ship other than a T3. |

Rhavas
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
67
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 21:34:00 -
[1126] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:If you don't want the skill loss, then don't PvP in a t3.....
You have a choice... shoot your opponent and be locked in your ship.... or don't shoot them, and be able to eject...
This is precisely my point. By doing this, CCP makes the choice "fight vs. don't" - and so more people will choose not to fight.
Less fights is bad, m'kay?
Better to have flee, fight to eject, and fight to the end as viable options. That means MOAR FIGHTS. That's good.
What's even better is getting a free shiny T3 when someone bails to save their SP. |

Tarunik Raqalth'Qui
The Kairos Syndicate Transmission Lost
81
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 21:38:00 -
[1127] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: p.s. I know this sounds contradictory to suggest a player legitimately dc'ing when they jump through a gate into an enemy deserves to die, yet advocate that most losses in game should primarily come from piloting error. The truth is, getting yourself into that hazardous situation IS a piloting error, even if your piloting skills / equipment typically allows you to get back out of that situation safely.
Well said. That is what I have been trying to say, though I admit probably did not word it as well as you have. If you fly in dangerous space, then you have the right to minimize your risk, but you can never completely eliminate the risk. I do not know if Ganthrithor(paranoid dude who is not willing to accept the consequences of dangerous space) is a Titan or Supercarrier pilot, looking at his kill records he does fly capital ships. At that point its no surprise you can probe down a capital in a very short amount of time and why people are constantly probing for him. But this is the cost of flying large and bulky ships, you have to accept the consequences for your actions, get some friends, a capital should never be flown alone. With that being said, I maintain my position that 10-15 seconds is much too short, it needs to be longer than that. If many people (not just that whiny crybaby with bad connection and paranoid dude who claims that people are constantly after him) believe that 1 minute is too long, then perhaps something in between. About this paranoid guy: Question 1: How does he KNOW he has people probing him for 12hrs straight? What breed of terrible prober leaves combats on scan to their target for that long? (Read Penny's tutorial on combat scanning if you think I'm full of you-know-what about this.) Question 2: Has he thought about the time it'd take a prober (at least 1 additional combat scanner pass in all but the smallest systems or >5-10s using D-scan) to acquire an initial fix on his position? The adversary has to do that as well as the 100% pass, the warp-in, and gaining aggression within the length of the logout timer...or is there something that keeps Mr. Paranoid from throwing the scanners off his tail long enough to make them re-acquire from scratch (which is what the "log off mid warp" trick does, basically)? |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
692
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 22:02:00 -
[1128] - Quote
Rhavas wrote:MisterAl tt1 wrote:While that is perfect capitals won't be able to escape by logging off while the fleet is warping to them, I still backup each and every of these words: Rhavas wrote:Still need to solve the T3 issue. ... However - if you are going to have this mechanic, you have to have a way to NOT be in it when it explodes. This is a play choice that adds potential. Don't bottle it up.
If you must lock the pod in the ship, get rid of the SP loss mechanic. Otherwise let people eject (again - fine if you get rid of self destruct on eject too - eject should almost always result in your enemy stealing your ship!). In addition many people here showed their concerns that not-ejecting will ruin a practice of ejecting to save pods. I've never had any situation where ejecting from a ship nets me anything different than having the ship blow up around me. In my experience (high, low, npc null and wormhole) I've never had a problem getting my pod out after ship loss so long as there is no bubble and I have a pod saver (planets, sun and gates only) tab on the overview to get me out of there. Is there some scenario where the pod actually lives longer if you eject? I have no TiDi experience, so maybe there's a difference there. But outside that, I don't see that it makes any difference in any ship other than a T3.
I've had situations, where my ship was "held" and not destroyed so my opponent could bring in a bubbler to get my pod... recognizing the situation, I've ejected and warped to save my pod before the bubble could be deployed around me... I'm still willing to lose my pod occasionally if it prevents Orca/Carrier Scoop-to-save mechanics... |

Rhavas
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
67
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 22:04:00 -
[1129] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I've had situations, where my ship was "held" and not destroyed so my opponent could bring in a bubbler to get my pod... recognizing the situation, I've ejected and warped to save my pod before the bubble could be deployed around me... I'm still willing to lose my pod occasionally if it prevents Orca/Carrier Scoop-to-save mechanics...
And that's where we differ, my friend. CCP needs to fix THAT problem, not cause a new one. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
692
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 22:06:00 -
[1130] - Quote
Rhavas wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:If you don't want the skill loss, then don't PvP in a t3.....
You have a choice... shoot your opponent and be locked in your ship.... or don't shoot them, and be able to eject...
This is precisely my point. By doing this, CCP makes the choice "fight vs. don't" - and so more people will choose not to fight. Less fights is bad, m'kay? Better to have flee, fight to eject, and fight to the end as viable options. That means MOAR FIGHTS. That's good. What's even better is getting a free shiny T3 when someone bails to save their SP.
I've picked up many BC's, BS's, and even a freighter due to pilots prematurely ejecting to get their pod out...
If people chose to "not fight", as you so elegantly put it, then you still get to collect that T3 when/if they eject...
And lets be honest... very few people are going to "not fight" so they can save their pods or sp... they are going to fight back. This change really means there will be less ships captured, and that t3 pilots will lose sp when PvP'ing...
I really don't think this is a big deal.... |
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
692
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 22:15:00 -
[1131] - Quote
Tarunik Raqalth'Qui wrote:Soon Shin wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: p.s. I know this sounds contradictory to suggest a player legitimately dc'ing when they jump through a gate into an enemy deserves to die, yet advocate that most losses in game should primarily come from piloting error. The truth is, getting yourself into that hazardous situation IS a piloting error, even if your piloting skills / equipment typically allows you to get back out of that situation safely.
Well said. That is what I have been trying to say, though I admit probably did not word it as well as you have. If you fly in dangerous space, then you have the right to minimize your risk, but you can never completely eliminate the risk. I do not know if Ganthrithor(paranoid dude who is not willing to accept the consequences of dangerous space) is a Titan or Supercarrier pilot, looking at his kill records he does fly capital ships. At that point its no surprise you can probe down a capital in a very short amount of time and why people are constantly probing for him. But this is the cost of flying large and bulky ships, you have to accept the consequences for your actions, get some friends, a capital should never be flown alone. With that being said, I maintain my position that 10-15 seconds is much too short, it needs to be longer than that. If many people (not just that whiny crybaby with bad connection and paranoid dude who claims that people are constantly after him) believe that 1 minute is too long, then perhaps something in between. About this paranoid guy: Question 1: How does he KNOW he has people probing him for 12hrs straight? What breed of terrible prober leaves combats on scan to their target for that long? (Read Penny's tutorial on combat scanning if you think I'm full of you-know-what about this.) Question 2: Has he thought about the time it'd take a prober (at least 1 additional combat scanner pass in all but the smallest systems or >5-10s using D-scan) to acquire an initial fix on his position? The adversary has to do that as well as the 100% pass, the warp-in, and gaining aggression within the length of the logout timer...or is there something that keeps Mr. Paranoid from throwing the scanners off his tail long enough to make them re-acquire from scratch (which is what the "log off mid warp" trick does, basically)?
If you are in a titan, orca, or any capital, it takes 30-60s to ALIGN, which means they will not be able to enter warp prior to a tackler landing on grid with them. These ships are very easy to scan down, and don't require a lot of "focusing" with probes. Additionally, for supercap kills, people WILL spend 12 hours waiting for them to decloak...
With the new system, where they can gain a PvP timer after logging off, a determined alliance wil camp a system until DT to get that supercap killmail.
There really needs to be a balance on the despawn timer. It needs to be long enough that you can't log off to save yourself when you are in a hazardous situation (enemy on grid), but short enough that you can't be caught and ganked when you're in a mostly safe situation (like cloaked in a safe spot without aggresion, even IF people have probes out ready to scan and warp in). |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
692
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 22:16:00 -
[1132] - Quote
Rhavas wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I've had situations, where my ship was "held" and not destroyed so my opponent could bring in a bubbler to get my pod... recognizing the situation, I've ejected and warped to save my pod before the bubble could be deployed around me... I'm still willing to lose my pod occasionally if it prevents Orca/Carrier Scoop-to-save mechanics...
And that's where we differ, my friend. CCP needs to fix THAT problem, not cause a new one.
Ironically, "most" of the time this has happened to me, I haven't been aggressed so I could still eject... |

Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
175
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 23:04:00 -
[1133] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: If you are in a titan, orca, or any capital, it takes 30-60s to ALIGN, which means they will not be able to enter warp prior to a tackler landing on grid with them. These ships are very easy to scan down, and don't require a lot of "focusing" with probes. Additionally, for supercap kills, people WILL spend 12 hours waiting for them to decloak...
With the new system, where they can gain a PvP timer after logging off, a determined alliance wil camp a system until DT to get that supercap killmail.
There really needs to be a balance on the despawn timer. It needs to be long enough that you can't log off to save yourself when you are in a hazardous situation (enemy on grid), but short enough that you can't be caught and ganked when you're in a mostly safe situation (like cloaked in a safe spot without aggresion, even IF people have probes out ready to scan and warp in).
While you do have a point there, Titans and capitals are ships that require a good deal of responsibility. What are you doing with a multibillion ship with no support?
The problem can easily be avoided by simply fleeting up with a cyno and then jumping out of a system, after all nothing can prevent you from jumping out a system.
I think if you have an enemy around waiting in to get your titan and you're worried about being aggressed after when logging, I don't think the logging mechanic is an issue compared to having an unprotected supercap.
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
692
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 23:24:00 -
[1134] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: If you are in a titan, orca, or any capital, it takes 30-60s to ALIGN, which means they will not be able to enter warp prior to a tackler landing on grid with them. These ships are very easy to scan down, and don't require a lot of "focusing" with probes. Additionally, for supercap kills, people WILL spend 12 hours waiting for them to decloak...
With the new system, where they can gain a PvP timer after logging off, a determined alliance wil camp a system until DT to get that supercap killmail.
There really needs to be a balance on the despawn timer. It needs to be long enough that you can't log off to save yourself when you are in a hazardous situation (enemy on grid), but short enough that you can't be caught and ganked when you're in a mostly safe situation (like cloaked in a safe spot without aggresion, even IF people have probes out ready to scan and warp in).
While you do have a point there, Titans and capitals are ships that require a good deal of responsibility. What are you doing with a multibillion ship with no support? The problem can easily be avoided by simply fleeting up with a cyno and then jumping out of a system, after all nothing can prevent you from jumping out a system. I think if you have an enemy around waiting in to get your titan and you're worried about being aggressed after when logging, I don't think the logging mechanic is an issue compared to having an unprotected supercap.
An orca cannot jump out, and could be trapped until DT by a determined foe... Its true all other cloakable capitals can just jump out if they are in known space, but they can't use that as an escape if living in a WH. Thereby, potentially trapped until DT by a determined foe...
I really think, if a capital ship successfully warps to a safespot, then cloaks up long enough to remove all of their timers, that they should be able to log off from the game without being "at risk" of someone scanning them down and warping a ship to them prior to them despawning... even if those players have probes setup and ready to scan... Otherwise that player is stuck until DT... which is just a bad design!!!
As such, the despawn timer should not be longer than it takes an agility fit covops to complete a scan cycle and warp 1 au to the target to ECM burst... This means the despawn timer really should realistically be about 15-25 seconds... and not much more...
In my post above, I put in an extremely important caveat to the despawn timer; namely, the despawn timer should not start until the ship attempts it's emergency warp.... This way, you cannot despawn while warping across the system.... This way, you cannot despawn while under gate cloak (or any cloak)... |

Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
443
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 00:40:00 -
[1135] - Quote
Gizznitt, thanks for your well-considered reply. I wish everyone made use of reasoned explanation!
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:In reducing the despawn timer (to say 15 seconds), it's important that the despawn timer does not count down until your ship attempts its emergency warp. This means if you dc while warping a freighter across system, you won't disappear before landing on the gate. This means if you DC under gate cloak, you wont despawn before breaking cloak. I think this is extremely important to implement!
This is an extremely good point and something that I'd neglected to consider. You're absolutely right that the timer starting before an ewarp would have disastrous consequences as far as the intent of these changes is concerned.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:B.) Semi-Hazardous: I would define this as a situation, where you are in space, and have a timer. Essentially, when in this situation, you MUST use in-game mechanics to get your ship out of harms way. In-game mechanics would be warping to a POS, docking up in a station, warping around until your timers expire, cloaking up, etc... If you are currently (or recently) engaged in any in-space PvE or PvP activity, you should considered in a Semi-Hazardous situation, and should NOT be able to use log-off mechanics to risklessly get Safe. As such, I think NPC timers need to be extended to most Flying in Space PvE activities. If you activate mining lasers, gas harvesters, hacking/salvaging/analyzing modules, scan with a probe, or interacting with the PI system, you should receive the 5 minute NPC timer. (note: Activating a Jump Portal should also give you a timer).
I don't know that its necessary to extend timer application quite this far. I don't think there's a need to extend it to activities like probing or other passive activities that don't affect players or NPCs. Miners are reasonably likely (maybe especially so with the new AI?) to be affected by NPC timers (assuming I understand it right-- being engaged by NPCs yields a timer). I don't think its necessary to make any in-space activity cause NPC flagging.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:C.) Safe: When you are in space, away from hostiles, and free of all PvP, NPC, Suspect, criminal, and Weapons timers, you should be able to disconnect from the game in a riskless fashion. The despawn timer should NOT put a player at risk when leaving the game under this situation. With this in mind, I'm actually going to aggree with Ganthrithor that a 15 second despawn timer is more-less appropriate. Much longer than that, and it becomes very possible for an organized enemy to scan and aggress you before you despawn... and while we all want titan killmails, if someone is cloaked, in a mid spot, with no timers... they should be able to disconnect safely!! I really can't see any good reason why logging off or disconnecting under this scenario should be risky, in any fashion! In truth, most losses in this game should primarily come from piloting error, not an uncontrollable ISP packet loss. As such, the 15 second despawn rate is reasonable, because it's long enough to aggress someone DC'ing when in a hazardous situation, but short enough that you are very unlikely to be aggressed when DC'ing in a Safe Situation.
Totally agree.
Soon Shin wrote: Well said. That is what I have been trying to say, though I admit probably did not word it as well as you have. If you fly in dangerous space, then you have the right to minimize your risk, but you can never completely eliminate the risk.
I do not know if Ganthrithor(paranoid dude who is not willing to accept the consequences of dangerous space) is a Titan or Supercarrier pilot, looking at his kill records he does fly capital ships.
At that point its no surprise you can probe down a capital in a very short amount of time and why people are constantly probing for him. But this is the cost of flying large and bulky ships, you have to accept the consequences for your actions, get some friends, a capital should never be flown alone.
With that being said, I maintain my position that 10-15 seconds is much too short, it needs to be longer than that. If many people (not just that whiny crybaby with bad connection and paranoid dude who claims that people are constantly after him) believe that 1 minute is too long, then perhaps something in between.
For the record, I used to fly a supercap. In fact, I used to to profoundly risky things with my supercap. I'll leave it to you to figure out the details if you want, but let's just say there are capital wrecks with my name on them everywhere from Period Basis to Cobalt Edge. Don't get me wrong, I'm no Zungen (which probably explains why I sold my Nyx instead of buying replacements), but I'm not exactly risk-averse either.
However, my concerns here aren't based on my experience flying supers. In fact, with a 60-second timer, the vast majority of ships in EVE become targets-- anything either very large (with an align time of 30+ seconds-- so, carriers, dreads, armor supers, etc) or relatively small (anything from frigates to nano-battleships) would suffer from the same basic problem; anything with a long or short align time is vulnerable to being probed out and aggroed before they can vanish. With small or otherwise agile ships this is the case because their align time is low, meaning they spend the majority of their 60 second timer sitting stopped after completing their e-warp. For very large ships, the risk is that they can be probed and warped to before their e-warp even begins, since 30 seconds is more than enough time to run probes and warp to a result. Actually, something like an armor tanked battleship probably has the "best" chance of not being probed down under the 60-second timer, since it spends just long enough entering ewarp to burn a significant portion of the 60 seconds, but doesn't give a prober enough time to do their work... |

Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
443
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 00:58:00 -
[1136] - Quote
... An armor tanked BS takes about 15 seconds to enter warp, then another ~8-10 seconds in warp before landing at its 1m km spot. That's 25 seconds. If the prober then runs their probes (another ~5 seconds) and warps to the result (another ~10 seconds) that brings us to 35 seconds.
As you can see, this still leaves about 25 "extra" seconds of wiggle room to account for human error in the probing process-- plenty of time for a player to probe the BS out and aggro it. Still, it's far better off than, say, a nano cruiser (which takes about 4.5 seconds to align-- 14ish seconds to its final destination, 46 seconds sitting stationary waiting to get fisted) or a titan (~44 second align-- more than enough time for a prober to just probe it out and land on it before it can even e-warp).
As you can see, not only is it ~*possible*~ to easily aggress someone who DCs in a safespot, it's not even particularly difficult. I'd also like to reassure everyone (since people don't seem to realize how common a phenomenon this is) that poopsocking probers are by no means a rarity in EVE online. Every alliance has their poopsocking prober, whether they're elite-PvP alliances like NCdot or alloy-farming (not anymore I guess :\) serfs like IRC. You also don't need to fly a titan to attract these probers-- people will poopsock you for all kinds of reasons. Maybe you are flying a Big Ship(TM). Maybe you ganked one too many of their m8m8m8s and they're just angry. Or maybe, as seemed to be the case with NCdot, you're just bored because there's literally nothing else to do in your space between op formups.
People poopsock probes literally all the time, sometimes for seemingly no reason at all except vindictiveness. I'll add that under the current system (the "unfair" "logoffski" one), these poopsockers still rack up a decent killcount (and good on'em)-- usually by bookmarking other people's tactical bookmark spots and then suddenly appearing on top of them when they go to re-use them. This is a totally legitimate and clever way to get kills and I have zero issue with people being able to do things like this. What I don't consider acceptable is the presence of one of these people making it impossible to log off for any reason without sacrificing your ship. There's just no way they should be able to force you to stay connected until downtime (if that's even possible) or die. That's bad game design.
Shortening the timer is A: necessary to prevent what I just described and B: assuming the conditions elaborated by Giznitt are met, doesn't interfere with players ability to aggress and kill people who attempt to blatantly exploit a disconnect to avoid a scenario they brought on themselves by pilot error. |

Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
443
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 01:09:00 -
[1137] - Quote
Tarunik Raqalth'Qui wrote: About this paranoid guy: Question 1: How does he KNOW he has people probing him for 12hrs straight? What breed of terrible prober leaves combats on scan to their target for that long? (Read Penny's tutorial on combat scanning if you think I'm full of you-know-what about this.) Question 2: Has he thought about the time it'd take a prober (at least 1 additional combat scanner pass in all but the smallest systems or >5-10s using D-scan) to acquire an initial fix on his position? The adversary has to do that as well as the 100% pass, the warp-in, and gaining aggression within the length of the logout timer...or is there something that keeps Mr. Paranoid from throwing the scanners off his tail long enough to make them re-acquire from scratch (which is what the "log off mid warp" trick does, basically)?
I'm not paranoid, I've just spent enough time living in hostile space and using probes and the d-scanner to know that its easily possible to probe people out. If you don't believe that people will keep scanner probes out all day long, talk to Flashrain from IRC or eirnee (I think that's his name) from NCdot. Ask me about the time I moved my Nyx to Cobalt Edge and, once people realized who and what I was, regularly had people TAKING SHIFTS probing the system I had my supercarrier parked in. As it happens, I chose a very large system for this reason (although supers are still extremely easy to probe with large-radius probe setups due to their enormous sig size), only cynoed in when local was free of hostiles (so they could never get an approximation of my safe location), and back then you could generate deep safes that would put you in very... unexpected locations, but still. There would be people with probes out for hours and hours on end. If I hadn't been in such a ridiculous safespot, I would have been extremely concerned. Even with that safe I always tried to keep my logon/offs to an absolute minimum in order to minimize their chances of finding me-- if I logged on I would stay online cloaked until DT if I could. I have a pretty good internet connection so *usually* this was possible.
Also worth noting-- its really not that hard to predict where people's safes are when you can see them warp off of a grid towards them and know how to use your d-scanner. It's easily possible to estimate where their safe is, at which point all you need to do is put probes out in that approximate area. I'll grant you that this is much more difficult in a large system, but the game can't be designed to work fairly in systems that are 40-60+ au across when plenty of systems have all celestials within d-scan range of each other. You have to design for the worst (from the DCer's perspective-- best for the prober) possible scenario.
I've done most of this stuff before myself (including scanning people out on log-off and landing on them in time to shoot them-- afaik under current mechanics this gives them an aggro timer if they log back in, thus preventing them from logging off again without dying (which people do sometimes to "check" local to see if the hostiles have gone yet)). I'm actually not sure if this is still a thing (EVE mechanics frequently undergo undocumented changes) but figure its always worth doing when I can (which is more often than you'd think). It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you :3 |

Kilroy Nightbarr
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 01:54:00 -
[1138] - Quote
Lack of resolution of the T3 ejection issue is disappointing. Is it a coincidence that the only way to recover a T3 loss is more game time, for which we pay? |

Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
175
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 03:42:00 -
[1139] - Quote
The question remains is why are you flying a nyx which is generally an alliance asset without alliance support?
And if there are guys in local are wanting to get you, why not just simply cyno to another system?
I can see your reasons why you would want this, but you put yourself in this situation which you did not find favorable. There were plenty of ways you could have done to make it less so, but simply rely on closing the client to solve your problems.
When you fly a super, of course you can expect people to come after your ass and the long align times are an intented mechanic put in by CCP.
If one minute is too long fine, but 10-15 seconds just so you can logoffski your caps rather than warp/jump them is not.
10-15 seconds is far too short, it needs to be longer than that, so it gives a clear message that logoff is completely unviable, not just maybe. |

Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
443
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 04:39:00 -
[1140] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:The question remains is why are you flying a nyx which is generally an alliance asset without alliance support?
And if there are guys in local are wanting to get you, why not just simply cyno to another system?
I can see your reasons why you would want this, but you put yourself in this situation which you did not find favorable. There were plenty of ways you could have done to make it less so, but simply rely on closing the client to solve your problems is not the way things should be done. Not only is it silly, it does not work. People will know you logged off in that system and will keep coming back, keeping the problem existent for you.
When you fly a super, of course you can expect people to come after your ass and the long align times are an intented mechanic put in by CCP.
Big ships come with big responsibility, I'm sure you've learned that.
If one minute is too long fine, but 10-15 seconds just so you can logoffski your caps rather than warp/jump them is not.
10-15 seconds is far too short, it needs to be longer than that, so it gives a clear message that logoff is completely unviable, not just maybe.
You're wrong about almost everything in this post. I already told you:
- I don't fly supers (or even caps outside of a pve / transport ship role) anymore - I've been probe-poopsocked more often while flying normal ships (cruisers, etc) than I was flying my Nyx - Keeping the 60-second timer would be just as bad for people flying small ships as those flying supercaps - A properly-implemented 15 second timer provides plenty of time to aggress legitimate targets - Etc
Feel free to keep talking out of your arse, though. First I'm "paranoid and risk-averse" and now I'm "reckless for flying alliance-assets around without a whole alliance's worth of support." Giznitt and I explain to you exactly why a 60-second timer is inappropriate, you continue spewing platitudes about "responsibility" and hardening up. I guess I can't win with you.
You still haven't provided a single example of a scenario in which a 15 second timer that begins with an ewarp would deprive you of a deserved kill, by the way.
I'm rapidly tiring of repeating myself over and over again hoping you'll actually read, comprehend, and incorporate what I say into your replies. I kind of feel like I'm talking to a brick wall, so instead of writing another wordy post, I'll simply refer you to my previous ones and Giznitt's. Between the two of us I feel like we covered the relevant points pretty thoroughly. |
|

Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
175
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 05:37:00 -
[1141] - Quote
Oh I have read your points, like I said before and I'll say it again:
If 1 minute timer is too long then it can be reduced, but 10-15 seconds that you suggest is simply too short of a timer when you factor in invulnerability that happens when jumping/exiting warp, lag in client-server interaction, session timer, lock timers, etc.
Now 10-15 seconds may seem like a long time in a "perfect world". But unfortunately people can't exactly read minds of other people and register and predict if that person is going to logoff or not.
Those quickly diminishing seconds are important. Receiving information and acting on that information takes time, then you factor that along with delay between what happens on your client and what happens on the server a lot of time is lost.
10-15 seconds in a "realistic world" is a very short amount of time, therefore should not be considered.
For example:
Newbie Freighter pilot hears that the gate is camped just as he jumps. He quickly closes the client during a loading session.
The 10-15 second timer starts after that disconnect, depending on the server load may takes 5-10 seconds to load into the system. Now the campers must lock within the very little time remaining, but they are unable to lock on the target right away due to the target that has not quite left invulnerability state wasting another second or 2.
They then waste another few seconds finally being able to lock the target.
They finally activate their modules, but due to the delay between client and server, 1-2 second is spent relaying that to the server, the client show the target is "pointed" but the server does not.
By then the freighter has disappeared from space before the module activation is received by the server.
As you can see 10-15 seconds is not enough. |

Tsukinosuke
Id Est
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 06:28:00 -
[1142] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:Stop using occassional and seldom real life events to justify things. The game will move on regardless of what happens. HTFU and adapt or die.
A short timer given to everyone is a short timer and opportunity given to logoffski.
"adapt or die" this is natural selection of real life, isnt this?
honestly, can you tell me the number of whom you attacked could menage to escape by logoffksi? all time, per month and per week please.
|

Vegare
Stranger Things A Point In Space
59
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 11:16:00 -
[1143] - Quote
Alx Warlord wrote:Vegare wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: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. Does the bit about the weapons flag also apply if the bubble owner has already left the grid/system? Could imagine some ways to use this mechanic to make dictor pilots placing defensive bubbles fall behind when travelling (escaping) with their gang... The currently inside means that after the probe is released incoming ships will not trigger anything only the currently inside can get/provide flags .... So you can bubble and jump.... and this will give you some time to escape incoming fleets...
How do you know the dictor pilot must be inside the bubble (as well as the provider) to get the flag. Masterplan does not say so as far as I understand.
My issue was if it will be possible to have one pilot initiate warp in a hostile defensive bubble before jumping with the rest of your gang and continuing pursuit, which would give the escaping dictor a flag in the next system. He would then be trapped for the duration of the timer, unable to keep up with his gang. In effect this would then be very similar to the change supposed earlier (making launching a disruption probe an agressive act). Well at least you can still bubble both sides of a gate with a single dictor. |

Tarunik Raqalth'Qui
The Kairos Syndicate Transmission Lost
82
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 12:23:00 -
[1144] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Soon Shin wrote:The question remains is why are you flying a nyx which is generally an alliance asset without alliance support?
And if there are guys in local are wanting to get you, why not just simply cyno to another system?
I can see your reasons why you would want this, but you put yourself in this situation which you did not find favorable. There were plenty of ways you could have done to make it less so, but simply rely on closing the client to solve your problems is not the way things should be done. Not only is it silly, it does not work. People will know you logged off in that system and will keep coming back, keeping the problem existent for you.
When you fly a super, of course you can expect people to come after your ass and the long align times are an intented mechanic put in by CCP.
Big ships come with big responsibility, I'm sure you've learned that.
If one minute is too long fine, but 10-15 seconds just so you can logoffski your caps rather than warp/jump them is not.
10-15 seconds is far too short, it needs to be longer than that, so it gives a clear message that logoff is completely unviable, not just maybe. You're wrong about almost everything in this post. I already told you: - I don't fly supers (or even caps outside of a pve / transport ship role) anymore - I've been probe-poopsocked more often while flying normal ships (cruisers, etc) than I was flying my Nyx - Keeping the 60-second timer would be just as bad for people flying small ships as those flying supercaps - A properly-implemented 15 second timer provides plenty of time to aggress legitimate targets - Etc Feel free to keep talking out of your arse, though. First I'm "paranoid and risk-averse" and now I'm "reckless for flying alliance-assets around without a whole alliance's worth of support." Giznitt and I explain to you exactly why a 60-second timer is inappropriate, you continue spewing platitudes about "responsibility" and hardening up. I guess I can't win with you. You still haven't provided a single example of a scenario in which a 15 second timer that begins with an ewarp would deprive you of a deserved kill, by the way. I'm rapidly tiring of repeating myself over and over again hoping you'll actually read, comprehend, and incorporate what I say into your replies. I kind of feel like I'm talking to a brick wall, so instead of writing another wordy post, I'll simply refer you to my previous ones and Giznitt's. Between the two of us I feel like we covered the relevant points pretty thoroughly. I'm thinking that ~30-45s is about right for this timer, no? And yes, you still haven't explained why mid-warp -> ewarp timer burning doesn't work for you when flying subcaps. (I do get your points about caps/supers taking most of the timer to simply align) |

Rhavas
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
67
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 17:05:00 -
[1145] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:C.) Safe: When you are in space, away from hostiles, and free of all PvP, NPC, Suspect, criminal, and Weapons timers, you should be able to disconnect from the game in a riskless fashion ... if someone is cloaked, in a mid spot, with no timers... they should be able to disconnect safely!! Totally agree. +1
Also, for those asking "why can't you log out midwarp and deal with the timer that way (by bolting on more time), the answer is pretty simple IMHO: it's a horrible kludge. It's planning for a workaround to be the norm. Much like the T3 issue, this is an overkill response, building in bad design and asking the majority of the playerbase to "work around" the issue instead of having the decent current experience.
Don't misunderstand me here, I think the logoffski problem is terribad and needs solving. But in the "safe" case Ganthrithor and Malikite outline above, logging off should work EXACTLY as it does today. No timer, no probe-ability, no BS. If you are cloaked, in a POS, by yourself, or on grid with only your corp/fleet/alliance mates and your timers are gone, you should be able to cleanly log out without fear of getting popped after logout. |

Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
443
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 17:11:00 -
[1146] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote: For example:
Newbie Freighter pilot hears that the gate is camped just as he jumps. He quickly closes the client during a loading session.
The 10-15 second timer starts after that disconnect, depending on the server load may takes 5-10 seconds to load into the system. Now the campers must lock within the very little time remaining, but they are unable to lock on the target right away due to the target that has not quite left invulnerability state wasting another second or 2.
They then waste another few seconds finally being able to lock the target.
They finally activate their modules, but due to the delay between client and server, 1-2 second is spent relaying that to the server, the client show the target is "pointed" but the server does not.
By then the freighter has disappeared from space before the module activation is received by the server.
As you can see 10-15 seconds is not enough.
So in Soon Shin's world where newbies who blind-jump into camped gates but are actually scouted because they know about the hostiles on the other side before they even load grid freighter's timers can start before they ewarp?
No.
Here's how this scenario actually works:
1. Either the freighter pilot is scouted, in which case they don't jump, or they aren't scouted and do 2. They load grid on the other side of the gate, see hostiles 3. They exit the client 4. If there are whole seconds of lag (which there aren't typically, by the way), nothing happens for a few seconds 5. Server figures out the player has logged off 6. Ewarp begins and 15 second timer begins 7. Campers take ~2 seconds to lock and point freighter 8. Freighter is aggressed and dies in a fire
It's pretty hilarious though that after all your bitching about how "YOU CANT BRING YOUR BAD INTERNET CONNECTION INTO THIS ITS IRRELEVANT" with regard to people talking about legitimate DCs you've now chosen to posit an absurd scenario in which anything any player does takes 2-10 seconds to "register with the server."
Maybe you're the one who needs to get a real internet connection. Personally I've locked covert-cloaking ships with an RSB'ed interceptor before they've been able to cloak in the past. That's hardly dealing with whole seconds of lag on every action.
Seriously. If you have a 2000ms ping you should probably give up on online games. You can't balance the game based on the need to support players who communicate with London via carrier pigeon.
Tarunik Raqalth'Qui wrote: I'm thinking that ~30-45s is about right for this timer, no? And yes, you still haven't explained why mid-warp -> ewarp timer burning doesn't work for you when flying subcaps. (I do get your points about caps/supers taking most of the timer to simply align)
Because you can't warp between two distant safespots and log mid warp when your client DCs unintentionally? The system has to handle involuntary DCs as well as "logoffskis." 30-45 seconds is, as mentioned, enough time to probe out a ship and land on it to aggress it. If the timer is 30 seconds, capital ships become deathtraps by default-- bad game design.
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
692
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 18:17:00 -
[1147] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Gizznitt, thanks for your well-considered reply. I wish everyone made use of reasoned explanation! Gizznitt Malikite wrote:In reducing the despawn timer (to say 15 seconds), it's important that the despawn timer does not count down until your ship attempts its emergency warp. This means if you dc while warping a freighter across system, you won't disappear before landing on the gate. This means if you DC under gate cloak, you wont despawn before breaking cloak. I think this is extremely important to implement! This is an extremely good point and something that I'd neglected to consider. You're absolutely right that the timer starting before an ewarp would have disastrous consequences as far as the intent of these changes is concerned. Gizznitt Malikite wrote:B.) Semi-Hazardous: I would define this as a situation, where you are in space, and have a timer. Essentially, when in this situation, you MUST use in-game mechanics to get your ship out of harms way. In-game mechanics would be warping to a POS, docking up in a station, warping around until your timers expire, cloaking up, etc... If you are currently (or recently) engaged in any in-space PvE or PvP activity, you should considered in a Semi-Hazardous situation, and should NOT be able to use log-off mechanics to risklessly get Safe. As such, I think NPC timers need to be extended to most Flying in Space PvE activities. If you activate mining lasers, gas harvesters, hacking/salvaging/analyzing modules, scan with a probe, or interacting with the PI system, you should receive the 5 minute NPC timer. (note: Activating a Jump Portal should also give you a timer). I don't know that its necessary to extend timer application quite this far. I don't think there's a need to extend it to activities like probing or other passive activities that don't affect players or NPCs. Miners are reasonably likely (maybe especially so with the new AI?) to be affected by NPC timers (assuming I understand it right-- being engaged by NPCs yields a timer). I don't think its necessary to make any in-space activity cause NPC flagging. Gizznitt Malikite wrote:C.) Safe: When you are in space, away from hostiles, and free of all PvP, NPC, Suspect, criminal, and Weapons timers, you should be able to disconnect from the game in a riskless fashion. The despawn timer should NOT put a player at risk when leaving the game under this situation. With this in mind, I'm actually going to aggree with Ganthrithor that a 15 second despawn timer is more-less appropriate. Much longer than that, and it becomes very possible for an organized enemy to scan and aggress you before you despawn... and while we all want titan killmails, if someone is cloaked, in a mid spot, with no timers... they should be able to disconnect safely!! I really can't see any good reason why logging off or disconnecting under this scenario should be risky, in any fashion! In truth, most losses in this game should primarily come from piloting error, not an uncontrollable ISP packet loss. As such, the 15 second despawn rate is reasonable, because it's long enough to aggress someone DC'ing when in a hazardous situation, but short enough that you are very unlikely to be aggressed when DC'ing in a Safe Situation. Totally agree.
Thanks for the compliment!
As for my extension of timers to "most" flying in space activities, perhaps I went a little overboard. Perhaps truly passive activities, like probing, shouldn't be flagged. At the same point in time, I really think that activities like mining should. The new AI aggresses ships based on their threat level and sig size, and I highly doubt a mining barge or exhumer has a significant threat level. If you put a BC on grid near to them, they won't be aggressed, and can use the 15s logoff to get safe while not dealing with any timers. I think we could debate what should or should not qualify, but a simple rule might be better. If it directly provides you isk or materials, it should flag you. |

Oxandrolone
Bite Me inc
53
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 18:19:00 -
[1148] - Quote
The problem is people are using the logoff and emergency warp mechanic as a game mechanic to use as they see fit. It is meant to be an emergency warp so if your connection dies you do not die.
With the new change you will still warp off to a safespot and sit there. Now it will be for 5 minutes, if you are pointed by an NPC you will sit in the site as usual for 5 minutes instead of 2 and if a player agresses you during this time it will be extended to a PvP flag.
So much tears from people who use the logoff emergency mechanics to avoid PvP or having to bounce safes. Long live playing the game to avoid PvP and not abusing logoff mechanics to avoid PvP. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
692
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 18:22:00 -
[1149] - Quote
Quick thought....
Activating a Warfare Link should give you a Weapons Timer... (i.e. You can't dock, jump, eject, etc)
In FW, often pilots leave their fleet boosting alts sitting at zero on a gate. This allows them to immediately exit through the gate if they get in trouble.... Stations can be used in a similar fashion. While they make fun alpha targets to those with enough tornado pilots online, they are essentially performing a service similar to logistics, and should not be able to abuse gates and stations to get a clean escape anytime things go south...
|

Oxandrolone
Bite Me inc
53
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 18:24:00 -
[1150] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:[quote=Soon Shin]
Here's how this scenario actually works:
1. Either the freighter pilot is scouted, in which case they don't jump, or they aren't scouted and do 2. They load grid on the other side of the gate, see hostiles 3. They exit the client 4. If there are whole seconds of lag (which there aren't typically, by the way), nothing happens for a few seconds 5. Server figures out the player has logged off 6. Ewarp begins and 15 second timer begins 7. Campers take ~2 seconds to lock and point freighter 8. Freighter is aggressed and dies in a fire
this is exactly how it SHOULD work, why should the freighter pilot survive by exploiting log-off mechanics?
|
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
692
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 18:52:00 -
[1151] - Quote
Oxandrolone wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:[quote=Soon Shin]
Here's how this scenario actually works:
1. Either the freighter pilot is scouted, in which case they don't jump, or they aren't scouted and do 2. They load grid on the other side of the gate, see hostiles 3. They exit the client 4. If there are whole seconds of lag (which there aren't typically, by the way), nothing happens for a few seconds 5. Server figures out the player has logged off 6. Ewarp begins and 15 second timer begins 7. Campers take ~2 seconds to lock and point freighter 8. Freighter is aggressed and dies in a fire
this is exactly how it SHOULD work, why should the freighter pilot survive by exploiting log-off mechanics?
The ability to gain a renewable PvP Aggression flag after you log off when you did NOT have one prior is very new from CCP...
As such, the main discussion is how long the despawn timer should be given this change...
Ganthrithor requested it be reduced from 60 seconds (which is long enough to scan down and attack most ships in the game) to 15 seconds (which is too short to scan and aggress a ship under most circumstances).
I think 15 seconds is fine, so long as the logoff timer does NOT start counting down until your ship attempts it's emergence warp. Otherwise people could just despawning while in warping across a system, or perhaps even despawning while under gate cloak.
Soon Shin feels 15 seconds is too short.... and want's it increased... --- The whole point of the logoff timer is to prevent people from logoff/despawning to avoid an immediate threat. I do not consider a threat that is in system, but not on grid, an immediate threat, and as such, would suggest the despawn timer should be short enough that a person cannot scan you down and attack you, even if they have probes out... but it should be long enough, that they can target and aggress you if you do dc on grid with them.
|

Oxandrolone
Bite Me inc
53
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 19:30:00 -
[1152] - Quote
@Gizznitt and anyone else who doesnt know.
One of the primary reasons wormholers are often for this change is because people in WH's run sites with capitals and no support. Up untill now they just log off whenever a new sig spawns in their system (indicating a wormhole) they stay on grid untill their siege/triage timer ends and then they disapear. The inclusion of a mechanic to firsly give them NPC aggression so they do not disapear within 5 minutes and secondly to extend it to a PvP timer if a player agresses them is necessary to kill such capitals. A subcap fleet cannot get to them and kill them before they disapear, it is literally impossible.
Since people started abusing this mechanic they became impossible to kill while running sleeper sites even while pointed by sleepers and getting shot by 20-30 battleships. |

Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
443
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 22:01:00 -
[1153] - Quote
Oxandrolone wrote:@Gizznitt and anyone else who doesnt know.
One of the primary reasons wormholers are often for this change is because people in WH's run sites with capitals and no support. Up untill now they just log off whenever a new sig spawns in their system (indicating a wormhole) they stay on grid untill their siege/triage timer ends and then they disapear. The inclusion of a mechanic to firsly give them NPC aggression so they do not disapear within 5 minutes and secondly to extend it to a PvP timer if a player agresses them is necessary to kill such capitals. A subcap fleet cannot get to them and kill them before they disapear, it is literally impossible.
Since people started abusing this mechanic they became impossible to kill while running sleeper sites even while pointed by sleepers and getting shot by 20-30 battleships.
This situation is already solved by both the NPC flag and the ability to trigger PvP flags after the target has logged out. If someone was ratting in their dread, they're stuck for five minutes after logging even if you don't shoot them. If you shoot them, the timer is essentially indefinite.
This is absolutely fine.
Gizznitt and I were just arguing with Soon Shin about the amount of time after logoff during which players should be PvP-flaggable. We both think 15 seconds (subject to Gizznitt's restriction on the timer beginning with your ewarp and no sooner) allows plenty of time for flagging people who try and control-q to dodge combat, while not allowing enough time for people to probe people out in safespots and aggress them when they go to log out or DC due to connection issues.
That's all. Believe me, I've been robbed of plenty of kills in the past by people control-q'ing after jumping into a camp or landing on a cyno beacon next to a rapier-- I'm all for the changes generally. They just need a little tweaking. |

Oxandrolone
Bite Me inc
53
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 22:17:00 -
[1154] - Quote
The situation is not at all solved unless the NPC flag can be converted into a PvP at any time during the NPC flag eg 5 minutes.
Otherwise capitals just log out and cannot be agressed quick enough in order to stop them disappearing.
If i jump into a wormhole and see capitals in a site, the fastest way to get to them is to combat them down usually, this takes about 1 minute to scan and then additional time to warp to them and aggress them. Aprox 2 minutes on a very good prober (like myself) Bearing in mind the wormhole sig in their systems spawns as soon as i initiate warp to it which gives them another minute so it takes about 3 minutes for a perfect skilled, virtue set prober who knows what their doing like myself to agress them.
So the timer needs to be atleast 3 minutes for it to even be possible to agress them (let alone try to kill them) 5 minutes is a much more reasonable amount of time to expect a non-perfect skills, non-virtue set prober to have any chance of aggressing them.
I was hoping for the 15 minute timer but i understand this is too high for legitimate disconnects. |

Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
443
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 23:28:00 -
[1155] - Quote
Oxandrolone wrote:The situation is not at all solved unless the NPC flag can be converted into a PvP at any time during the NPC flag eg 5 minutes.
Otherwise capitals just log out and cannot be agressed quick enough in order to stop them disappearing.
If i jump into a wormhole and see capitals in a site, the fastest way to get to them is to combat them down usually, this takes about 1 minute to scan and then additional time to warp to them and aggress them. Aprox 2 minutes on a very good prober (like myself) Bearing in mind the wormhole sig in their systems spawns as soon as i initiate warp to it which gives them another minute so it takes about 3 minutes for a perfect skilled, virtue set prober who knows what their doing like myself to agress them.
So the timer needs to be atleast 3 minutes for it to even be possible to agress them (let alone try to kill them) 5 minutes is a much more reasonable amount of time to expect a non-perfect skills, non-virtue set prober to have any chance of aggressing them.
I was hoping for the 15 minute timer but i understand this is too high for legitimate disconnects.
They could just allow PvP flags to be applied during the 5 minute PvE timer. 5m is plenty of time to probe someone out and aggro them. I wouldn't be adverse to it.
|

Schwein Hosen
DuckPus Fightclub
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 03:08:00 -
[1156] - Quote
Don't know if this was brought up already, but I'm not looking through 58 pages to find out...
Concerning the new feature where anyone can kill you if you steal from a can. Please make sure that it does not count as stealing when you are at war with the entity that you 'stole' from. Currently, when I blow up someone else's pos modules and cans drop, it counts as stealing if I take the loot. I think we can all agree that it would be really dumb if everyone could now attack me because I looted what should be my loot in this case.
Please read this, and please make sure this gets into the patch!
Thanks, -Schwein |

Green Looter
Basic Tritanium Mining North
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 08:02:00 -
[1157] - Quote
I have a some questions:
If you attack or kill an innocent ship in low sec and you get the suspect flag will you still take a "negative standing" hit on your personal sec-status like you do now?
And will the security status system work like it does now
Players with better than -2.0 can enter any system Players with -2.0 or worse cannot enter 1.0 systems Players with -2.5 or worse cannot enter 0.9 systems Players with -3.0 or worse cannot enter 0.8 systems Players with -3.5 or worse cannot enter 0.7 systems Players with -4.0 or worse cannot enter 0.6 systems Players with -4.5 or worse cannot enter 0.5 systems
and so or will the be changed?
|

Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
747
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 09:05:00 -
[1158] - Quote
Schwein Hosen wrote:Don't know if this was brought up already, but I'm not looking through 58 pages to find out...
Concerning the new feature where anyone can kill you if you steal from a can. Please make sure that it does not count as stealing when you are at war with the entity that you 'stole' from. Currently, when I blow up someone else's pos modules and cans drop, it counts as stealing if I take the loot. I think we can all agree that it would be really dumb if everyone could now attack me because I looted what should be my loot in this case.
Please read this, and please make sure this gets into the patch!
Thanks, -Schwein
If someone is a legal target for you, you can steal from them to your hearts content, without going suspect.
Legal targets include: Criminals. Suspects. War Targets. Corp Mates. 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. |

Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
747
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 09:10:00 -
[1159] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Oxandrolone wrote:The situation is not at all solved unless the NPC flag can be converted into a PvP at any time during the NPC flag eg 5 minutes.
Otherwise capitals just log out and cannot be agressed quick enough in order to stop them disappearing.
If i jump into a wormhole and see capitals in a site, the fastest way to get to them is to combat them down usually, this takes about 1 minute to scan and then additional time to warp to them and aggress them. Aprox 2 minutes on a very good prober (like myself) Bearing in mind the wormhole sig in their systems spawns as soon as i initiate warp to it which gives them another minute so it takes about 3 minutes for a perfect skilled, virtue set prober who knows what their doing like myself to agress them.
So the timer needs to be atleast 3 minutes for it to even be possible to agress them (let alone try to kill them) 5 minutes is a much more reasonable amount of time to expect a non-perfect skills, non-virtue set prober to have any chance of aggressing them.
I was hoping for the 15 minute timer but i understand this is too high for legitimate disconnects. They could just allow PvP flags to be applied during the 5 minute PvE timer. 5m is plenty of time to probe someone out and aggro them. I wouldn't be adverse to it.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2079573#post2079573
Specifically
Quote: * 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.
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. |

TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc
437
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 10:53:00 -
[1160] - Quote
I still don't like the current war mechanics (namely how the ally, mutual war, and joining/leaving alliance mechanics work) or the global suspect flag for canflipping. It feels like they're attempting to make fighting in hisec much more risky. Pro-tip CCP: The severe lack of risk in high sec isn't on the side of people who start wars, steal, or otherwise attempt to engage other players.
The gradual shift to high sec being hello kitty online disappoints me.
|
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
699
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 16:25:00 -
[1161] - Quote
Green Looter wrote:I have a some questions:
If you attack or kill an innocent ship in low sec and you get the suspect flag will you still take a "negative standing" hit on your personal sec-status like you do now?
And will the security status system work like it does now
Players with better than -2.0 can enter any system Players with -2.0 or worse cannot enter 1.0 systems Players with -2.5 or worse cannot enter 0.9 systems Players with -3.0 or worse cannot enter 0.8 systems Players with -3.5 or worse cannot enter 0.7 systems Players with -4.0 or worse cannot enter 0.6 systems Players with -4.5 or worse cannot enter 0.5 systems
and so on, or will that be changed?
You will take a negative standings hit on your sec status like you do now... The security status is not changing yet... but there are cogs in motion to change this soon(tm) (Probably Summer)... |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
699
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 16:47:00 -
[1162] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:Oh I have read your points, like I said before and I'll say it again:
If 1 minute timer is too long then it can be reduced, but 10-15 seconds that you suggest is simply too short of a timer when you factor in invulnerability that happens when jumping/exiting warp, lag in client-server interaction, session timer, lock timers, etc.
Now 10-15 seconds may seem like a long time in a "perfect world". But unfortunately people can't exactly read minds of other people and register and predict if that person is going to logoff or not.
Those quickly diminishing seconds are important. Receiving information and acting on that information takes time, then you factor that along with delay between what happens on your client and what happens on the server a lot of time is lost.
10-15 seconds in a "realistic world" is a very short amount of time, therefore should not be considered.
For example:
Newbie Freighter pilot hears that the gate is camped just as he jumps. He quickly closes the client during a loading session.
The 10-15 second timer starts after that disconnect, depending on the server load may takes 5-10 seconds to load into the system. Now the campers must lock within the very little time remaining, but they are unable to lock on the target right away due to the target that has not quite left invulnerability state wasting another second or 2.
They then waste another few seconds finally being able to lock the target.
They finally activate their modules, but due to the delay between client and server, 1-2 second is spent relaying that to the server, the client show the target is "pointed" but the server does not.
By then the freighter has disappeared from space before the module activation is received by the server.
As you can see 10-15 seconds is not enough.
I suggested a very important change that fixes your dilemmas:
The despawn timer does NOT start until your ship INITIATEs its emergency warp. This solves that delimma, becuase when the client initiates warp, the ship will decloaks, the ship breaks all invulnerabilities (from docking, cynoing, warping, etc), and will immediately become a target-able object.
This won't solve lag delays,perhaps... but lag delays are not going to add more than 3 seconds to your actions. Perhaps 15-20s would set your mind at ease... If you are on grid with that freighter, that still leaves you plenty of time to target and aggress it... Anything that fails to aggro the DC'd player with the remaining 10 seconds is irrelevant, because they weren't going to stop it's ewarp anyway!
By the way, one more caveat... The EWARP despawn timer needs to be approprately influenced by TiDi, but I think that's implied! |

Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
444
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 18:58:00 -
[1163] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:Oxandrolone wrote:The situation is not at all solved unless the NPC flag can be converted into a PvP at any time during the NPC flag eg 5 minutes.
Otherwise capitals just log out and cannot be agressed quick enough in order to stop them disappearing.
If i jump into a wormhole and see capitals in a site, the fastest way to get to them is to combat them down usually, this takes about 1 minute to scan and then additional time to warp to them and aggress them. Aprox 2 minutes on a very good prober (like myself) Bearing in mind the wormhole sig in their systems spawns as soon as i initiate warp to it which gives them another minute so it takes about 3 minutes for a perfect skilled, virtue set prober who knows what their doing like myself to agress them.
So the timer needs to be atleast 3 minutes for it to even be possible to agress them (let alone try to kill them) 5 minutes is a much more reasonable amount of time to expect a non-perfect skills, non-virtue set prober to have any chance of aggressing them.
I was hoping for the 15 minute timer but i understand this is too high for legitimate disconnects. They could just allow PvP flags to be applied during the 5 minute PvE timer. 5m is plenty of time to probe someone out and aggro them. I wouldn't be adverse to it. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2079573#post2079573Specifically Quote: * 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.
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. |

Dersen Lowery
Knavery Inc. StructureDamage
147
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:13:00 -
[1164] - Quote
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. |

Tarunik Raqalth'Qui
The Kairos Syndicate Transmission Lost
82
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 20:51:00 -
[1165] - 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. Thankfully, the NPC flag being separate from the normal "disappear upon logoff" timer makes the issue of ships vanishing shortly after a no-flags disconnect moot WRT the concerns about carebear-logoffski tricks.
|
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
851

|
Posted - 2012.10.27 00:27:00 -
[1166] - 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 |
|

Oxandrolone
Bite Me inc
53
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 10:51:00 -
[1167] - Quote
somewon was saying on duality it still has a build with a 15 minute timer for NPC aggression, i know its Saturday and your probably not working but anyone else know if this is the case? Soundwave says on twitter it will be changed. |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
851

|
Posted - 2012.10.27 14:25:00 -
[1168] - 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 |
|

General Jung
Asgard Intelligence Services Most Usual Suspects
8
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 17:04:00 -
[1169] - Quote
Hello Forum,
I really hope that non-podkillers in lowsec won-¦t drop below -5.0, as mentioned by CCP Greyscale. |

Tsukinosuke
Id Est
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 13:31:00 -
[1170] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Green Looter wrote:I have a some questions:
If you attack or kill an innocent ship in low sec and you get the suspect flag will you still take a "negative standing" hit on your personal sec-status like you do now?
And will the security status system work like it does now
Players with better than -2.0 can enter any system Players with -2.0 or worse cannot enter 1.0 systems Players with -2.5 or worse cannot enter 0.9 systems Players with -3.0 or worse cannot enter 0.8 systems Players with -3.5 or worse cannot enter 0.7 systems Players with -4.0 or worse cannot enter 0.6 systems Players with -4.5 or worse cannot enter 0.5 systems
and so on, or will that be changed? You will take a negative standings hit on your sec status like you do now... The security status is not changing yet... but there are cogs in motion to change this soon( tm) (Probably Summer)...
because CCP is too busy making it "improved" with NPC/WEAPON/PVP ridiculous flags instead.. also those arent about CRIMEWATCH imho..
p.s. how many pilots could escape from you in the middle of fight by your famous logoffski? all time, per week please??? or it is only your imagine.. |
|

Enik3
Ubiquity Inc. Punkz 'n Monkeys
65
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 19:48:00 -
[1171] - Quote
This is great, CCP. I can't really see any downside to this. It will take away station games and risk-less ratting, it balances ganker vs. gankee, and it helps protect noobs from cheap PVP by can-flippers and the like. Very nice! |

Johan Civire
Dirty Curse inc.
180
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 00:27:00 -
[1172] - Quote
really i`am scared now for sure  |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
703
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 17:32:00 -
[1173] - Quote
Tsukinosuke wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Green Looter wrote:I have a some questions:
If you attack or kill an innocent ship in low sec and you get the suspect flag will you still take a "negative standing" hit on your personal sec-status like you do now?
And will the security status system work like it does now
Players with better than -2.0 can enter any system Players with -2.0 or worse cannot enter 1.0 systems Players with -2.5 or worse cannot enter 0.9 systems Players with -3.0 or worse cannot enter 0.8 systems Players with -3.5 or worse cannot enter 0.7 systems Players with -4.0 or worse cannot enter 0.6 systems Players with -4.5 or worse cannot enter 0.5 systems
and so on, or will that be changed? You will take a negative standings hit on your sec status like you do now... The security status is not changing yet... but there are cogs in motion to change this soon( tm) (Probably Summer)... because CCP is too busy making it "improved" with NPC/WEAPON/PVP ridiculous flags instead.. also those arent about CRIMEWATCH imho.. p.s. how many pilots could escape from you in the middle of fight by your famous logoffski? all time, per week please??? or it is only your imagine..
1.) While the system has the name Crimewatch.. it's not entirely focused on criminal actions... It is a system which deals with all forms of aggression in EvE, including NPC, Player vs Player, etc. As such, NPC, Weapons, and PvP flags are completely within it's scope...
2.) What are you talking about in your P.S.?? The new changes pretty much prevent people from logoffski'ing to avoid destruction, and strive to define a time when it is OK to logoff in a safe manner. The last major change (renewable PvP flags) really inhibit people logoffsking to avoid their death, but there are still some loopholes that the new crimewatch system is very much addressing (i.e. you can gain a PvP flag after logoff even if you didn't have one prior to logging off!)!!!1! This swings the pendulum a little too far given you can scan down almost any ship within the 1min non-aggressed despawn timer, which is why we're advocating a reduced despawn timer (like 15 seconds) which is short enough to prevent this. |

Rutger Gist
Lords of Larceny
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 01:20:00 -
[1174] - Quote
Quote:Q: My corporation's acquisition specialists are concerned they will be out of a job once these Crimewatch changes go into effect. What is CONCORD doing to prevent massive layoffs in the private sector of wealth redistribution?
A: CONCORD acknowledges the free enterprise of the capsuleers and respects their acceptance of the risks and consequences related to their chosen careers. To that end, the primary aim of Crimewatch is to provide clearer information to those seeking it. CONCORD's goal is to reduce the level of creative abuse without adversely affecting the capsuleers' options for creative acquisition.
CCP, why the non answer?
Bottom line is that Crimewatch is more Crimestop. I'm not talking about suicide ganking or jumping from a ship that you attracted aggro in, to then use another ship to free gank a non participating target. I'm strictly writing about ore thieves and looting / salvaging another player's wrecks.
If I understand the system correctly, stealing or salvaging another player's wreck will now allow every player in the system to freely attack you. But not only killing your ship, but your pod will be flagged as well. But wait, if they do attack you, they then get flagged and are free to being attacked by everyone in the system as well.
The you are also flagged for killing NPCs in this system as well. So mission runners and ratters alike will also be flagged and vulnerable? Killing NPC will also block us from going through gates or docking while the timer is running? We have to wait for a timer to return to our agent to turn in a mission?
This all seems really kind of silly to me. Ore Thieves and Ninja Looter / Salvagers had always had the risk of retaliation from the individual pilot or his or her corp members. There is no need to expand this to everyone in the system.
The chain reaction of this system is nothing less than total chaos. Even if you say, "Oh look an outlaw, let me shoot him." , you will then become flagged for anyone else to shoot you. The result is either everyone flies cheap frigates or no one ever shoots anyone or anything (NPC rats included) in High Sec.
Working as intended? |

Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
754
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 01:42:00 -
[1175] - Quote
You've not been reading it closely enough.
Salvage, as always, is free.
Steal loot, and you'll be suspect flagged, making you a viable target for all.
If you attack a suspect, you enter into a limited engagement with them, allowing them to fight back. No-one else gets to interfere (other than to attack the suspect.) without becoming a suspect themselves (unless they're repping a corp mate)
Engaging NPCs gives you the NPC flag. This flag will stop you from disappearing on logoff, for 5 minutes. That's all it will do. (if you get shot within that 5 minutes, you'll pick up the pvp flag. Which stops you vanishing for 15 minutes. sucks to be a ratter trying a logoffski) 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. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
704
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 17:15:00 -
[1176] - Quote
Rutger Gist wrote:.... rant about changes that mostly aren't being implemented...
Please train reading comprehension.... somehow you woefully misread or misunderstood the upcoming changes.... |

Rutger Gist
Lords of Larceny
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 21:03:00 -
[1177] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Rutger Gist wrote:.... rant about changes that mostly aren't being implemented... Please train reading comprehension.... somehow you woefully misread or misunderstood the upcoming changes....
Somehow you managed to attribute a quote to me, I did not make.
But, I do see that I misread the relationship between having a Suspect Flag and Limited Engagement. I still don't understand why there is an aggression timer for shooting Pirate (MOB) NPCs, but it is at least only 5 minutes.
I'm still not a huge fan of everyone having kill rights because I stole from another player, completely disassociated with those that attack me. As I said early, I don't mind being attacked by the pilot / corp I steal from but that is not really anyone else's business.
|

Debir Achen
The Red Circle Inc.
31
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 02:11:00 -
[1178] - Quote
Belated question on "Limited Engagements" and assistance.
Scenario 1:
Logi and guy with war dec are missioning / incursioning / other together. * does Logi get war-flagged?
WT warps in and engages combat ship * does this create a "limited engagement"? If so, does the logi get suspect flagged if he continues to rep?
Scenario 2:
Incursion fleet. Some guy warps in and attempts to suicide gank a gunship. * does this create a "limited engagement"? * in any case, what is the status of a logi that attempts to rep the target?
Possible exploit: - warp expendable ship into incursion. - attack same target as Sansha (concord retaliates) - logi is suspect flagged when it attempts to (keep) repping target - gank "suspect" logi
Also, it would be really nice to be able to create a consensual fleet vs fleet engagement. Example of how this might work: - Fleet A boss challenges Fleet B boss to consensual engagement - Fleet B boss accepts - All members of both fleets receive a warning message: accept engagement or be auto-kicked from fleet in 1 minute. - At expiration of timer, engagement begins
Refinements: - do the bosses get to see the enemy fleet numbers / composition before confirming the engagement? - can other people join fleet subsequent to the challenge?
In a strict mechanic, the answers would be "yes" and "no", but maybe that level of strictness isn't needed in the situations where this might be used. Aren't Caldari supposed to have a large signature? |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
706
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 21:37:00 -
[1179] - Quote
Debir Achen wrote:Belated question on "Limited Engagements" and assistance.
Scenario 1:
Logi and guy with war dec are missioning / incursioning / other together. * does Logi get war-flagged?
WT warps in and engages combat ship * does this create a "limited engagement"? If so, does the logi get suspect flagged if he continues to rep?
Scenario 2:
Incursion fleet. Some guy warps in and attempts to suicide gank a gunship. * does this create a "limited engagement"? * in any case, what is the status of a logi that attempts to rep the target?
Possible exploit: - warp expendable ship into incursion. - attack same target as Sansha (concord retaliates) - logi is suspect flagged when it attempts to (keep) repping target - gank "suspect" logi
Also, it would be really nice to be able to create a consensual fleet vs fleet engagement. Example of how this might work: - Fleet A boss challenges Fleet B boss to consensual engagement - Fleet B boss accepts - All members of both fleets receive a warning message: accept engagement or be auto-kicked from fleet in 1 minute. - At expiration of timer, engagement begins
Refinements: - do the bosses get to see the enemy fleet numbers / composition before confirming the engagement? - can other people join fleet subsequent to the challenge?
In a strict mechanic, the answers would be "yes" and "no", but maybe that level of strictness isn't needed in the situations where this might be used.
Scenario 1: No information has been provided on the interaction between flags and wardecs.... Essentially, we are in the dark here. There has been ONE comment that has not been thoroughly explained that is VERY applicable here:
I believe this "rule" was proposed to flag all neutral logistics ships as suspect if they stick there head into the middle of a legal war.
Scenario 2: A suicide ganker will gain a Criminal Flag when they attack their target... As long as the target does not fire back, no Limited Engagement is created, so the original proposal would NOT create a suspect flag for the logi's. However, quote above changes things. When the suicide ganker aggresses their target, both the suicide ganker and the target gain a PvP Flag. From the above statement, you could infer that non-corp/alliance/militia logi's WILL get a suspect flag if they rep the target of the suicide ganker....
I HOPE that the quote was slightly miss-stated, and that they meant Assisting a non-corp/alliance/miliitia-mate with a WEAPONS flag would get you a Suspect flag[/b] Again, this one is still under discussion. This would solve the incursion fleet exploit you elude to, as well as flag neutral logistics as Suspects when they stick there head into a fight (although neutral logi's could rep a ship that doesn't shoot back all day long!).
It would be really nice to here back from CCP on this.... |

Iwant Urstuff
Iwant Urstuff Corp
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 07:54:00 -
[1180] - Quote
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. |
|

Durzel
The Xenodus Initiative. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
85
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 09:57:00 -
[1181] - Quote
I'd like some clarity on the "safe logoff" function.
The implication from earlier in the thread is that it is something that you activate (right click on ship, select option?) and then wait for it to "wind up". If any of the variables previously mentioned exist then you won't be able to initiate "safe logoff", or it'll be cancelled mid-windup.
The dev post linked above suggests by saying "Weapons/PvP flag" specifically that someone with a 5 minute NPC timer could warp to a safe spot, activate the "safe logoff" option and disappear from space, potentially before their NPC timer would otherwise allow them to. Is this correct? In other words - I'm imagining it that if someone Ctrl+Qs as soon as a hostile appears on grid, when they have an NPC timer, then they will e-warp and hang around in space for ~5 minutes. If on the other hand they manage to warp out before getting aggressed by the player, and are able to "safe logoff" before the hostile can find them with probes, then they will disappear even if they would've had an NPC timer running?
Is this accurate? How long is the windup on "safe logoff" ? |

Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
763
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 10:14:00 -
[1182] - 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.
Most mission runners aren't going to give a damn about it. The NPC flag only affects disappearing in space on logoff/disconnect. Most mission runners won't see it.
Ratters used to use Ctrl+Q to escape people roaming, they're another matter. 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. |

Solstice Project
Carebear Cadaver Productions
2013
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 13:24:00 -
[1183] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Green Looter wrote:I have a some questions:
If you attack or kill an innocent ship in low sec and you get the suspect flag will you still take a "negative standing" hit on your personal sec-status like you do now?
And will the security status system work like it does now
Players with better than -2.0 can enter any system Players with -2.0 or worse cannot enter 1.0 systems Players with -2.5 or worse cannot enter 0.9 systems Players with -3.0 or worse cannot enter 0.8 systems Players with -3.5 or worse cannot enter 0.7 systems Players with -4.0 or worse cannot enter 0.6 systems Players with -4.5 or worse cannot enter 0.5 systems
and so on, or will that be changed? You will take a negative standings hit on your sec status like you do now... The security status is not changing yet... but there are cogs in motion to change this soon( tm) (Probably Summer)... "can not enter" is totally misleading, or actually plain wrong.
He will get attacked by the avoidable local faction police.
Thats all. Inappropriate signature removed. Spitfire |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
869

|
Posted - 2012.11.03 00:13:00 -
[1184] - 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 |
|

Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Ev0ke
399
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 00:18:00 -
[1185] - Quote
what BPOs are we talking about ? :D |

Dersen Lowery
Knavery Inc. StructureDamage
151
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 01:05:00 -
[1186] - Quote
Durzel wrote:I'd like some clarity on the "safe logoff" function. The implication from earlier in the thread is that it is something that you activate (right click on ship, select option?) and then wait for it to "wind up". If any of the variables previously mentioned exist then you won't be able to initiate "safe logoff", or it'll be cancelled mid-windup. The dev post linked above suggests by saying "Weapons/PvP flag" specifically that someone with a 5 minute NPC timer could warp to a safe spot, activate the "safe logoff" option and disappear from space, potentially before their NPC timer would otherwise allow them to. Is this correct? In other words - I'm imagining it that if someone Ctrl+Qs as soon as a hostile appears on grid, when they have an NPC timer, then they will e-warp and hang around in space for ~5 minutes. If on the other hand they manage to warp out before getting aggressed by the player, and are able to "safe logoff" before the hostile can find them with probes, then they will disappear even if they would've had an NPC timer running? Is this accurate? How long is the windup on "safe logoff" ?
My reading is that safe logoff is only possible with no flags active and no-one on grid. So if you warp to safe and log off with 5 minutes left on your NPC timer, your ship sits in space until that timer runs down. In those 5 minutes, someone can scan your ship down, shoot it, and put a 15 minute PVP timer on your ship, which will also prevent it from disappearing.
The idea is there's no more vanishing at the first sign of hostiles in system.
Iwant Urstuff: Mission runners will only notice this if their client crashes during a mission and their ship is warp scrambled at the time of the crash and their ship is incapable of perma-tanking the rats. That could be me, because I deliberately fly woefully non-cap-stable ships into missions just to make them more interesting, and my client has crashed in missions before, but I'm not really sweating this. Mass unsubscriptions are just not going to happen; if anything pisses off carebears, it'll be the change to the NPC AI. But I'm not really going to sweat that either; I've long since traded reliable DPS for incredibly conservative drone management. In missions, it's not that big a deal. |

ParkRanger Bill
Parks 'n Wrecks Wildlife Management
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 05:11:00 -
[1187] - Quote
My question was answered, danka.
You only lose the ability to eject if you fire back, if your pointed first, you can bail or run if not scramed.
My application was to mining, can a miner eject into a combat ship if they have not engaged, answer 'yes'. |

Lors Dornick
Kallisti Industries Solar Assault Fleet
283
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 08:03:00 -
[1188] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: 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.
Me thinks that Masterplan is wee bit ironic in that post ;)
|

fukier
Flatline.
92
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 13:26:00 -
[1189] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:Nope, I definitely didn't do any of this before CCP hired me. And I'm definitely not still bitter about those agent offers.
so you are pro trashing all tech II BPO? cool me too bro.
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |

Azrael Dinn
The 20th Legion Mildly Sober
17
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 07:17:00 -
[1190] - Quote
Too much to read so I hope someone will just answer this. (Yes I was lazy and did'nt read all of this and busy)
Anyhow... I blew up... in a pod... in high sec. And I learned that I should fly a ship always cause otherwise I will not get a kill right so I could go and get even.
Now the question. In the new system, will I get kill right if I'm podded or is this all still limited to ships and if I loose a ship? And if this is all limited to ships again could a dev answer why in the !"#-ñ% it is only limited to ships? |
|

Fragbox
Lynx Squad Tribal Band
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 09:55:00 -
[1191] - Quote
Thank you for killing Dreadnaught ratting cccp and restricting them entirly to Blobfare glad i dont have to train siege mod t2 anymore now |

Che Biko
Humanitarian Communists
113
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 14:59:00 -
[1192] - Quote
Azrael Dinn wrote:In the new system, will I get kill right if I'm podded or is this all still limited to ships and if I loose a ship? CCP Masterplan wrote: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. The way I interpret this is that you will get a killright if your pod is attacked in highsec/lowsec while your pod is not a legal target, as that will give the attacker a Criminal flag. Contraband Smuggling: Player Assisted Customs |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
714
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 17:55:00 -
[1193] - Quote
Che Biko wrote:Azrael Dinn wrote:In the new system, will I get kill right if I'm podded or is this all still limited to ships and if I loose a ship? CCP Masterplan wrote: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. The way I interpret this is that you will get a killright if your pod is attacked in highsec/lowsec while your pod is not a legal target, as that will give the attacker a Criminal flag.
The new system provides two methods to get a killright:
1.) Attack a Pod illegally in highsec or lowsec. 2.) Attack a player illegally in highsec.
You don't have to kill them, you only need attack.
|

Iwant Urstuff
Iwant Urstuff Corp
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 08:21:00 -
[1194] - Quote
Hey Masterplan,
You must be the exception that proves the rule?
What happens when you end up in your pod in your own (sov) system, do you still have to wait for the timers to run out to reship?
I just don't like waiting, 15 minutes is an eternity when your waiting. You should really think that over. 15 minutes of waiting is a lot of time to develop something called boredom. Or just say some will get bored of waiting 15 minutes since they can't shoot until that timer runs out.
Can I have urstuff? |

Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 09:10:00 -
[1195] - Quote
CCP Gargant wrote: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.
I was trying these things on test server. I really liked those indicators telling you when you can dock or log safely etc. Also i liked that when you choose something from overview your camera turns there. Saves alot time when you dont have to find it from space by turning your camera manually. Round shaped red aggres icon on agressor was cool also. Not sure if i like those round shaped target icons tho. Sure i can live with them but i dont know.. If their any better... |

Azrael Dinn
The 20th Legion Mildly Sober
17
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 10:09:00 -
[1196] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Che Biko wrote:Azrael Dinn wrote:In the new system, will I get kill right if I'm podded or is this all still limited to ships and if I loose a ship? CCP Masterplan wrote: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. The way I interpret this is that you will get a killright if your pod is attacked in highsec/lowsec while your pod is not a legal target, as that will give the attacker a Criminal flag. The new system provides two methods to get a killright: 1.) Attack a Pod illegally in highsec or lowsec. 2.) Attack a player illegally in highsec. You don't have to kill them, you only need attack.
Sweet... |

Gneeznow
Ship spinners inc To be Announced.
6
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 14:45:00 -
[1197] - Quote
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? |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
716
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 17:54:00 -
[1198] - Quote
Iwant Urstuff wrote:Hey Masterplan,
You must be the exception that proves the rule?
What happens when you end up in your pod in your own (sov) system, do you still have to wait for the timers to run out to reship?
I just don't like waiting, 15 minutes is an eternity when your waiting. You should really think that over. 15 minutes of waiting is a lot of time to develop something called boredom. Or just say some will get bored of waiting 15 minutes since they can't shoot until that timer runs out.
Can I have urstuff?
You misread the blog....
The Re-ship timer is tied to the WEAPONS timer.... which is 60 seconds, NOT 15 minutes... Until recently, all session change timers were 30 seconds (meaning you couldn't docking/jumping/re-ship for 30 seconds), and we managed just fine... I'm pretty sure a 60 second timer is very manageable, and won't ruin your ability to reship and rejoing a decent sized fight. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
716
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 18:05:00 -
[1199] - Quote
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....
As for you killrights question: Killrights are ONLY generated for CRIMINAL actions...
Criminal actions are: Illegally Attacking a POD in lowsec or highsec. Illegally Attacking a SHIP in highsec.
If you attack a ship (not pod) in lowsec, you are NOT committing a criminal act. You will take a sec hit and gain a Suspect.
The implications of this: A nasty wannabe pirate sitting on a gate can shoot that ship that jumped in, going Suspect.... Suddenly some trap is triggered, and you need to escape.... you now have the option of de-aggressing (if you can survive 60 s) and jumping into highsec... In highsec, you will still be flagged as a suspect, meaning everyone can shoot you... but no NPC police force (like concord) will be coming to shoot you (note: if your sec status is low enough, then you'll draw the normal police action from entering highsec)
|
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
877

|
Posted - 2012.11.09 18:17:00 -
[1200] - 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 |
|
|

Gneeznow
Ship spinners inc To be Announced.
6
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 18:25:00 -
[1201] - Quote
Thanks Masterplan but it still does not answer how severe your sec hit will be, at the moment you get a whomp of a sec hit for killing someone who doesn't get to fire back, and they get killrights on you; you get a far less severe sec hit if they aggro back at you. Which will you get when you attack someone in low sec now, since it is front loaded? |

Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
185
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 18:43:00 -
[1202] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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?
So if i shoot someone once and they warp out in low sec, can i shoot them at the next spot i find them without gateguns?!?!?
hint: say yes |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
716
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 18:48:00 -
[1203] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: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? So if i shoot someone once and they warp out in low sec, can i shoot them at the next spot i find them without gateguns?!?!? hint: say yes
That's exactly what is implied.... gate guns only fire when they see you commit an act that incurs a sec hit.... they will fire on you the first time you shoot at them, but if you leave grid... they will no longer shoot you. And since shooting them again won't incur any additional sec hits, they will leave you alone while you keep chasing and shooting. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
716
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 19:21:00 -
[1204] - Quote
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? |

Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
123
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 19:44:00 -
[1205] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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?
It makes sense, but you really didn't answer the question. What people are trying to find out is WHAT the sec hit will be, not how the sec hits will be counted. From what I (and many) understand is the hit to ones security status will happen as soon as an engagement starts (front loaded?) so since that security hit was previously calculated by how the two parties reacted during the fight (did the victim shoot back?) then if the hit is now front loaded HOW is that calculated? Is there no longer any difference in sec status loss if the victim shoots back or not? |

Mal journ
Desertus Caterva Casoff
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 21:33:00 -
[1206] - Quote
ok i need some clarification, lets assume this scenario,
I am mining, I kill npc belt rats in defense, Am I now a target for attack from players in system?
what am I going to need to worry about form this change.
I know I'm looking forward to the can flippers ...lol |

Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
1129
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 23:36:00 -
[1207] - Quote
Mal journ wrote:ok i need some clarification, lets assume this scenario,
I am mining, I kill npc belt rats in defense, Am I now a target for attack from players in system?
what am I going to need to worry about form this change.
I know I'm looking forward to the can flippers ...lol No, they get no additional rights to shoot you after you shoot NPCs. But if after shooting an NPC you log out in space, your ship will e-warp then sit there for a long time. During that time someone could scan you out and suicide gank you, and you would not know it happened until you logged back in. But its still a suicide gank. You are hardly more vulnerable than if you were logged in and sitting in the belt.
After you get can flipped, type "Flipper in belt xx-##" into local, get popcorn and watch. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |

Berluth Luthian
14th Legion Black Core Alliance
19
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 15:33:00 -
[1208] - Quote
Any public effect for carrying illegal cargo in empire space? |

Natalya Bondarenko
Lazarus Triumvirate Ethereal Dawn
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 21:31:00 -
[1209] - Quote
I am not certain if this issue has been addressed yet. Assume I am running a mission, and have engaged NPC's. This will give me an NPC flag with its own timer. Now, in the middle of the mission, I get the dreaded "socket closed" message and the game goes down. Because of the flag, my ship stays in space till the timer expires.. and as the game crashed, I can do nothing to prevent the rest of the NPC's from blowing up my shiny mission ship. Will we be able to successfully petition a return of our ships when this frequent event (the "socket closed" ) occurs? |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
722
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 22:32:00 -
[1210] - Quote
Natalya Bondarenko wrote:I am not certain if this issue has been addressed yet. Assume I am running a mission, and have engaged NPC's. This will give me an NPC flag with its own timer. Now, in the middle of the mission, I get the dreaded "socket closed" message and the game goes down. Because of the flag, my ship stays in space till the timer expires.. and as the game crashed, I can do nothing to prevent the rest of the NPC's from blowing up my shiny mission ship. Will we be able to successfully petition a return of our ships when this frequent event (the "socket closed" ) occurs?
I'm sorry to inform you, but under the above scenario, you will NOT be reimbursed for your ship loss.
Please note, however, that unless an NPC is currently scrambling it, your ship will emergency warp out of the mission when the server recognizes you DC'd. As such, you have many options:
A.) Kill the scramblers first so you can ewarp if you dc. B.) Fly a passive tanked ship that can sustain several minutes worth of NPC dps. C.) Fly with friends. The new NPC AI will switch targets to your friends when you quit shooting and you do.
Even now, you have a two minute NPC timer, and how often does your ship get destroyed when you dc? The increased timer won't really change much... |
|

OldWolf69
GRIM MARCH SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.14 11:26:00 -
[1211] - 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? *** lol. there will be some fun with the usual CCP loopholes. and this game will become even more shittyer.
|

Aedh Erastos
Flame of the stars
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.17 04:03:00 -
[1212] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:CCP Masterplan: 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?
Please do this. Honestly. This is the easiest way I've ever heard to kill an entire incursion fleet, entirely without them having any say in it. They either have a guaranteed loss of at least one ship (or up to 8, just gcc 8 ships with a destroyer), or they have to risk my talos backup coming in and cleaning up the logis. It works for other things too. If you can force a flag onto someone that prevents them from getting assisted without penalty, you've created an entirely new piracy career. This would even make up for the rest of this crimewatch stuff. |

Che Biko
Humanitarian Communists
115
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 15:34:00 -
[1213] - Quote
Berluth Luthian wrote:Any public effect for carrying illegal cargo in empire space? Why? Got anything to say about that? (Hint: click link in my signature if you do.) Contraband Smuggling: Player Assisted Customs |

Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
649
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 02:37:00 -
[1214] - Quote
The Zerg Overmind wrote:What was the rationale behind the 15 min logout timer for NPC aggression?
Went several pages (although not all 60) and I didn't see the answer to this one. So a gate rat shoots you and dc then you can be scanned down and killed for 15 minutes? IMO seems like the devs are making this game more reliant on a good connection that skill/knowledge.
Also what is the point of the following change:
"GÇó After losing a ship and entering a capsule, players will still be restricted from docking/jumping for up to a minute (if they have an active Weapons flag)."
Whats the point of making us warp around longer in a pod?
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
745
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 17:42:00 -
[1215] - Quote
Cearain wrote:A few questions: The Zerg Overmind wrote:What was the rationale behind the 15 min logout timer for NPC aggression? Went several pages (although not all 60) and I didn't see the answer to this one. So a gate rat shoots you and dc then you can be scanned down and killed for 15 minutes? IMO seems like the devs are making this game more reliant on a good connection that skill/knowledge. eidt: they are lowering it to 5 minutes but there is no explanation why npcs would cause you to remain in space and scannable. Also what is the point of the following change: "GÇó After losing a ship and entering a capsule, players will still be restricted from docking/jumping for up to a minute (if they have an active Weapons flag)." What is the point of making us warp around longer in a pod?
1.) In regards to the NPC Timer: The biggest reason for the NPC timer change is to prevent people from logging out to avoid a fight. A very common tactic used by ratters and miners is to ctrl-q anytime a hostile enter's system. Since sixty seconds is NOT enough time for an enemy to hunt you down and gank you, it's a surefire way to save your ratting carrier if it happens to be scrammed by an NPC when that hostile enters system. To be frank, logging out should NOT be a tool to "get safe" from hostiles.... When they lowered it to 5 minutes, they also made another major change: You can gain an indefinitely extendable PvP timer if someone shoots your ship before it despawns. This is a wonderful change, although the despawn timer could use some tweaking. Here's a long explanation of it.
2.) The session change timer (which controlled your ability to dock, jump, change ship) is currently 10 seconds... It used to be 30 seconds. A 60 second timer won't be a big deal... The reason for the change probably has something to do with maintaining PvP timers through a session change. Otherwise, you could clear your PvP timer anytime you traverse a WH. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
745
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 17:43:00 -
[1216] - Quote
OldWolf69 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? *** lol. there will be some fun with the usual CCP loopholes. and this game will become even more shittyer.
Yeah... I foresee massive tears if the following loopholes are not addressed prior to release... |

Kristopher Rocancourt
Quality Assurance
7
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 20:30:00 -
[1217] - Quote
Crimewatch is the douchiest , carebear coddling bunch of ass banditry i ever heard of.
Way to nuke the legit Ninja profession into nothingness.
|

Lore Varan
Caltech Shipyards
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 13:21:00 -
[1218] - Quote
Some of the rules for ECM burst are a little harsh.
Breaking the locks of a ship which has no offensive/defence capabilities such as POD can not affect combat or even navigation.
ECM burst on POD / SHUTTLE / FREIGHTER should have no legal consequence.
In fact I would go as far as to make the aggresive act the act of breaking locks rather than hitting ships if not too lag inducing. Also give shuttles/pods/freighters 0 max targets :P
|

Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
653
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 16:07:00 -
[1219] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Cearain wrote:A few questions: The Zerg Overmind wrote:What was the rationale behind the 15 min logout timer for NPC aggression? Went several pages (although not all 60) and I didn't see the answer to this one. So a gate rat shoots you and dc then you can be scanned down and killed for 15 minutes? IMO seems like the devs are making this game more reliant on a good connection that skill/knowledge. eidt: they are lowering it to 5 minutes but there is no explanation why npcs would cause you to remain in space and scannable. Also what is the point of the following change: "GÇó After losing a ship and entering a capsule, players will still be restricted from docking/jumping for up to a minute (if they have an active Weapons flag)." What is the point of making us warp around longer in a pod? 1.) In regards to the NPC Timer: The biggest reason for the NPC timer change is to prevent people from logging out to avoid a fight. A very common tactic used by ratters and miners is to ctrl-q anytime a hostile enter's system. Since sixty seconds is NOT enough time for an enemy to hunt you down and gank you, it's a surefire way to save your ratting carrier if it happens to be scrammed by an NPC when that hostile enters system. To be frank, logging out should NOT be a tool to "get safe" from hostiles.... When they lowered it to 5 minutes, they also made another major change: You can gain an indefinitely extendable PvP timer if someone shoots your ship before it despawns. This is a wonderful change, although the despawn timer could use some tweaking. Here's a long explanation of it. [/quote]
The concern is if you are scrammed by an npc and you see someone come into local that you will log off. I am sorry but this is pretty weak. Rarely do rats scram anyone and rarely do pvers allow rats to keep them scrammed when they do. 99.9% of the time the rat aggro comes from something other than a scram.
On the flip side if I disconnect due to a bad internet connection then my ship and pod will be a sitting in space for five minutes. Does CCP believe that internet providers are now so wonderfull that no one ever loses their connection anymore? This is imbalanced toward making eve depend more on your internet connection than your knowledge or skill at the game.
Plus 15 minutes from the time of a pvp fight? Wouldn't five minutes do? I mean how bad with a scanner does the enemy need to be that they can't find you in 5 minutes?
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
2.) The session change timer (which controlled your ability to dock, jump, change ship) is currently 10 seconds... It used to be 30 seconds. A 60 second timer won't be a big deal... The reason for the change probably has something to do with maintaining PvP timers through a session change. Otherwise, you could clear your PvP timer anytime you traverse a WH.
I need to go to a wormhole to get my pod out of system or docked? This doesn't make any sense.
I don't understand what you mean with maintaining pvp timers through a sessions change. If you are in a pod you won't be attacking anyone.
I would like to know why ccp is making this change. It seems like they just want to arbitrarilly change the rules so people will lose a bunch of pods at gates and stations.
Most of the changes are nice. But why do they need to sprinkle in these bad changes? Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|

None ofthe Above
366
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 17:54:00 -
[1220] - Quote
Cearain wrote: Most of the changes are nice. But why do they need to sprinkle in these bad changes?
That's the CCP way. When have they not done that?
EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
|
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
745
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 18:21:00 -
[1221] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Cearain wrote:What was the rationale behind the 15 min logout timer for NPC aggression? 1.) In regards to the NPC Timer: The biggest reason for the NPC timer change is to prevent people from logging out to avoid a fight. A very common tactic used by ratters and miners is to ctrl-q anytime a hostile enter's system. Since sixty seconds is NOT enough time for an enemy to hunt you down and gank you, it's a surefire way to save your ratting carrier if it happens to be scrammed by an NPC when that hostile enters system. To be frank, logging out should NOT be a tool to "get safe" from hostiles.... When they lowered it to 5 minutes, they also made another major change: You can gain an indefinitely extendable PvP timer if someone shoots your ship before it despawns. This is a wonderful change, although the despawn timer could use some tweaking. The concern is if you are scrammed by an npc and you see someone come into local that you will log off. I am sorry but this is pretty weak. Rarely do rats scram anyone and rarely do pvers allow rats to keep them scrammed when they do. 99.9% of the time the rat aggro comes from something other than a scram. On the flip side if I disconnect due to a bad internet connection then my ship and pod will be a sitting in space for five minutes. Does CCP believe that internet providers are now so wonderfull that no one ever loses their connection anymore? This is imbalanced toward making eve depend more on your internet connection than your knowledge or skill at the game. Plus 15 minutes from the time of a pvp fight? Wouldn't five minutes do? I mean how bad with a scanner does the enemy need to be that they can't find you in 5 minutes?
The scramming rat is unimportant. The important part: People are currently using the log-off mechanics to "get their ship safe". A carrier and Orca takes 30 seconds to align, and are at serious risk of being tackled when a hostile enters system... so many just log off to insure even if they do get tackled, they will despawn long before they die. Nullsec mining ops, where people are using many clients, often just dc all exhumers rather than attempting to warp them to safety. This is broken, wrong, and needs to be changed. The incoming changes do just that, making it so you have to fly your ship to safety for it to be safe! The new game mechanics discourage dc'ing as a means to "get safe".
As for the I dc'd and now my ship is in space for 5 minutes: --- If you have the 5 minute NPC timer, yup... My internet dc's moderately often, and I usually have a 15 minute PvP timer. I just log back in when I can (about 60-90 s normally) and continue doing what I was doing. Here's the biggest issue: While there are legit cases of people dc'ing, the EvE playerbase, as a whole, has overwhelmingly abused dc/logoff mechancis to "save" their ships. CCP is nyxing this in the butt, and that's a GOOD thing!
As for the 15 minute PvP timer: --- The PvP timer is currently 15 minutes, and has been for a long time. One reasons it was 15 minutes: you originally couldn't extend the PvP timer once your target logged out, and CCP wanted it long enough for a medium gang to kill a capital ship (Freighter, Orca, Carrier) before it despawned. Since you can now indefinitely extend the PvP timer, reducing the despawn timer to 5 minutes sounds acceptable; however, it has implications elsewhere. The PvP timer also controls how long you can be legally shot at when you commit a criminal/suspect action. Reducing this timer to 5 minutes would significantly reduce the "penalties" for criminal/suspect actions. Additonally, we easily manage 15 minute timers now, so I don't particularly see a need to reduce it.
Cearain wrote:What is the point of making us warp around longer in a pod? Gizznitt Malikite wrote: 2.) The session change timer (which controlled your ability to dock, jump, change ship) is currently 10 seconds... It used to be 30 seconds. A 60 second timer won't be a big deal... The reason for the change probably has something to do with maintaining PvP flags through a session change. Otherwise, you could clear your PvP timer anytime you traverse a WH.
I don't understand what you mean with maintaining pvp timers through a sessions change. If you are in a pod you won't be attacking anyone.
Let me elaborate on what I said:
The Weapons timer is what prevents you from docking, ejecting, jumping, or boarding a new ship. The purpose of the weapons timer is to give you a penalty when you commit a hostile action, so you can't shoot someone and dock up or jump through a gate.
The session change timer happens anytime you change sessions, which includes: dock/undock, ejecting/boarding/changing a ship, change system, change fleet position, and perhaps a few others... The purpose of the session change timer: to allow your client and the server to synchronize with each other before you perform another session change. The session change timer used to be 30 seconds, then they reduced it, and reduced it, and currently it is 10 seconds.
In the old days, a session change often cleared your flags. Pilots often cleared their PvP flag by jumping through a gate, and then logging off while under gate cloak. Without the PvP timer, your ship despawns within 60 seconds, often saving it from otherwise destruction. Now, PvP flags (usually) follow you through a session change timer, so now you can only shed a PvP Flag by waiting 15 minutes.
With the new system your PvP, Criminal, and Suspect flags should follow you through all session changes. There are many session changes you can perform while you have a Weapons flag, which include cynoing, jumping through a WH, changing fleet positions, etc. While I support not transferring the Weapons flag through a session change, they need to transfer the rest. |

Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
653
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 21:17:00 -
[1222] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Cearain wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Cearain wrote:What was the rationale behind the 15 min logout timer for NPC aggression? 1.) In regards to the NPC Timer: The biggest reason for the NPC timer change is to prevent people from logging out to avoid a fight. A very common tactic used by ratters and miners is to ctrl-q anytime a hostile enter's system. Since sixty seconds is NOT enough time for an enemy to hunt you down and gank you, it's a surefire way to save your ratting carrier if it happens to be scrammed by an NPC when that hostile enters system. To be frank, logging out should NOT be a tool to "get safe" from hostiles.... When they lowered it to 5 minutes, they also made another major change: You can gain an indefinitely extendable PvP timer if someone shoots your ship before it despawns. This is a wonderful change, although the despawn timer could use some tweaking. The concern is if you are scrammed by an npc and you see someone come into local that you will log off. I am sorry but this is pretty weak. Rarely do rats scram anyone and rarely do pvers allow rats to keep them scrammed when they do. 99.9% of the time the rat aggro comes from something other than a scram. On the flip side if I disconnect due to a bad internet connection then my ship and pod will be a sitting in space for five minutes. Does CCP believe that internet providers are now so wonderfull that no one ever loses their connection anymore? This is imbalanced toward making eve depend more on your internet connection than your knowledge or skill at the game. Plus 15 minutes from the time of a pvp fight? Wouldn't five minutes do? I mean how bad with a scanner does the enemy need to be that they can't find you in 5 minutes? The scramming rat is unimportant. The important part: People are currently using the log-off mechanics to "get their ship safe". A carrier and Orca takes 30 seconds to align, and are at serious risk of being tackled when a hostile enters system... so many just log off to insure even if they do get tackled, they will despawn long before they die. Nullsec mining ops, where people are using many clients, often just dc all exhumers rather than attempting to warp them to safety. This is broken, wrong, and needs to be changed. The incoming changes do just that, making it so you have to fly your ship to safety for it to be safe! The new game mechanics discourage dc'ing as a means to "get safe".
They are worried people won't be able to gank null sec carebears. Ok.
30 seconds if they are not aligned. But even then its going to be hard to scan someone down and point them if they are at the keyboard. (which they presumably are if they can log off.) It may be that the nullbears currently avoid getting ganked by dcing now but its not like they will be getting ganked much more if they are at keyboard even with this change.
In the mean time many ships of people who dc due to internet connection will be just sitting there with nothing they can do about it.
In any event this change clearly tips the scales toward puting more importance on internet connections instead of skill or knowledge. I hope we can agree on that. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|

Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
653
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 21:59:00 -
[1223] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: As for the I dc'd and now my ship is in space for 5 minutes: --- If you have the 5 minute NPC timer, yup... My internet dc's moderately often, and I usually have a 15 minute PvP timer. I just log back in when I can (about 60-90 s normally) and continue doing what I was doing.
Your lucky. When my internet cuts out I call and I am told it might be 24 hours to get it back. This has been happening about 1 per week or 2.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Here's the biggest issue: While there are legit cases of people dc'ing, the EvE playerbase, as a whole, has overwhelmingly abused dc/logoff mechancis to "save" their ships. CCP is nyxing this in the butt, and that's a GOOD thing!
After, playing this game for about 3 years I never had an issue with someone getting away due to the log off trick. I realize that was an issue with capital ships but they fixed that. These changes are draconian and make connections very important while addressing very slight problems.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: As for the 15 minute PvP timer: --- The PvP timer is currently 15 minutes, and has been for a long time. One reasons it was 15 minutes: you originally couldn't extend the PvP timer once your target logged out, and CCP wanted it long enough for a medium gang to kill a capital ship (Freighter, Orca, Carrier) before it despawned. Since you can now indefinitely extend the PvP timer, reducing the despawn timer to 5 minutes sounds acceptable; however, it has implications elsewhere. The PvP timer also controls how long you can be legally shot at when you commit a criminal/suspect action. Reducing this timer to 5 minutes would significantly reduce the "penalties" for criminal/suspect actions. Additonally, we easily manage 15 minute timers now, so I don't particularly see a need to reduce it.!
Thats because when you dc you can log in again in 60-90 seconds so you ship is not sitting there for 15 minutes.
I didn't think shooting someone in self defense was criminal. Will my timer still be 15 minutes if I didn't shoot first?
There is no need for the ship to be sitting there that long if the timer keeps refreshing. They can leave this at 1 minute or so, unless they really want to punish people with bad connections.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Let me elaborate on what I said:
The Weapons timer is what prevents you from docking, ejecting, jumping, or boarding a new ship. The purpose of the weapons timer is to give you a penalty when you commit a hostile action, so you can't shoot someone and dock up or jump through a gate.
The session change timer happens anytime you change sessions, which includes: dock/undock, ejecting/boarding/changing a ship, change system, change fleet position, and perhaps a few others... The purpose of the session change timer: to allow your client and the server to synchronize with each other before you perform another session change. The session change timer used to be 30 seconds, then they reduced it, and reduced it, and currently it is 10 seconds.
In the old days, a session change often cleared your flags. Pilots often cleared their PvP flag by jumping through a gate, and then logging off while under gate cloak. Without the PvP timer, your ship despawns within 60 seconds, often saving it from otherwise destruction. Now, PvP flags (usually) follow you through a session change timer, so now you can only shed a PvP Flag by waiting 15 minutes.
With the new system your PvP, Criminal, and Suspect flags should follow you through all session changes. There are many session changes you can perform while you have a Weapons flag, which include cynoing, jumping through a WH, changing fleet positions, etc. While I support not transferring the Weapons flag through a session change, they need to transfer the rest.
I knew most of this history. But this history doesn't explain why they are changing how pods work now.
They are purposely changing the way pods work. Currently you have to wait out a 10 second timer to jump or dock. (which basically means you can dock or jump after you warp your pod out) They are changing it to a a sixty second timer. I am just wondering why they are changing it. It seems arbitrary. What advantage to the game is there, in forcing people to keep warping their pods around?
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|

Zyella Stormborn
Alpha Strategy In Umbra Mortis
207
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 18:48:00 -
[1224] - Quote
I believe part of it is so that you don't have people almost instantly back with a 2nd ship after you worked hard to remove him from the battle field (this is most noticeable with logi and ecm). By doing this it a) gives you a little breathing room to try and go after another target, and b) makes that pod a little more vulnerable for people to try and get a lock on / pod kill.
At least that's the way I see it by their change.
~Z |

Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
784
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 20:17:00 -
[1225] - 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? Pretty sure 1 is intentional
2 points out some interesting edge cases.
3 You didnt read the line where they inherit all the flags of the ship they're repping. If you're attacking something and it gets repped, whatever allowed you to attack the first dude will allow you to attack his repairers. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
747
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 20:38:00 -
[1226] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde 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? Pretty sure 1 is intentional 2 points out some interesting edge cases. 3 You didnt read the line where they inherit all the flags of the ship they're repping. If you're attacking something and it gets repped, whatever allowed you to attack the first dude will allow you to attack his repairers.
1.) These are my suggestion, in response to CCP's posted cahnge to the PvP flag: The amazing, wonderful change states: You can give a person an indefinitely extendable PvP flag by aggressing their ships before they despawn, even if they did NOT have a PvP flag prior to logging off.
The problem this creates: The current 60 second despawn window is long enough that anytime you notice someone log off in system, you can can easily deploy probes, locate their ship, and aggress it before it can despawn. This NEEDS to be addressed, and I suggested reducing the unaggressed despawn timer to do so. It might also be addressed by a "safe" logoff feature...
2.) The impacts on highsec incursion fleets are a pretty significant "edge" case. With the changes as they currently are stated, ripping apart highsec incursion fleets becomes trivial... and will essentially destroy that community.
3.) You don't understand the scenario here. If you shoot a Suspect (which you can legally do because they have a Suspect Flag), you create a Limited Engagement between you and that suspect. Limited Engagements are NEVER transferred. Additionally, you won't have any Suspect or Criminal Flags, because shooting a Suspect/Criminal is LEGAL. As such, when an in-corp / alliance / militia buddy of yours repairs you, they will gain a PvP and Weapons Flag (because you have those flags), but they will NOT gain a Suspect or Criminal Flag, and the LE will NOT be transferred to them. As such, the Suspect CANNOT legally shoot that logi. Hence, an untouchable logistics ship. |

Miccet
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 09:11:00 -
[1227] - Quote
Sorry if this was already covered but I browsed through about 40 pages without finding my specific question. There should be a FAQ in the first post with the most popular questions.
Anyway. If I'm in a carrier, repping someone who is aggressing (having a PVP flag), I will get that flag too, correct? Will that prevent me to refit using another carrier next to me in a reasonable time frame (a few seconds)? If so, I guess subcap pilots will be unable to grab stuff from my hangar / reship as well mid-fight?
|
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
892

|
Posted - 2012.11.22 13:32:00 -
[1228] - 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 |
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
748
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 18:37:00 -
[1229] - 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.
Perfect... Thank you for the update! I look forward to the new crimewatch system!!!! |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
748
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 18:50:00 -
[1230] - Quote
Miccet wrote:Sorry if this was already covered but I browsed through about 40 pages without finding my specific question. There should be a FAQ in the first post with the most popular questions.
Anyway. If I'm in a carrier, repping someone who is aggressing (having a PVP flag), I will get that flag too, correct? Will that prevent me to refit using another carrier next to me in a reasonable time frame (a few seconds)? If so, I guess subcap pilots will be unable to grab stuff from my hangar / reship as well mid-fight?
To elaborate: If you are in a Carrier and you rep someone, you inherit their flags. Assuming they are attacking someone, they will have the PvP flag and the Weapons flag, which your carrier will inherit.
A PvP Flag prevents your ship from despawning. A Weapons Flag prevents a ship from stargate jumping, docking, or leaving their ship (except by explosion).
At the moment, Flags do NOT prevent refitting.
As such, so you and your buddies should be able to refit all mods using the carriers fitting services, including accessing / storing mods in the Corp Hangars (soon to be renamed fleet hangars). Aggressed Pilots (i.e. those with a Weapons Flag) will not be able to reship to ships in the Ship Hangar until they wait out their 60s weapons timer.
|
|

Dultas
Angels Of Death EVE
3
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 18:18:00 -
[1231] - Quote
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. |

Statutory Ape
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 21:27:00 -
[1232] - Quote
Reticle wrote:If the sec status hit is "front loaded" so that the penalty applies whether or not the target is killed, that implies that the sec status hit is going to be changed. Right now you get a lesser penalty for aggression and a heavier penalty for the kill. If you get a front loaded hit, then crimewatch will not be distinguishing between aggression and kills. Since kill rights are being given for criminal actions whether or not a kill results, a single shot at a target in high sec that resulted in you getting Concorded will get you a significant sec status hit, kill rights for the player you aggressed, and 3 flags (maybe more). Please note that this is for a single shot... like say a noob with hot weapons who hasn't turned off the Auto Target Back function.
It's good to have consequences, but there should be a valid path for becoming a high sec villain. Full penalties for a failed gank is a bit much. Kill rights for every criminal flag is a step too far. It should be kill rights for kills only.
He does not get a free kill on you.. you tried to kill him so now he gets to try to kill you.. seems legit imo. |

Nerpimus
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
51
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 11:12:00 -
[1233] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
The scramming rat is unimportant. The important part: People are currently using the log-off mechanics to "get their ship safe". A carrier and Orca takes 30 seconds to align, and are at serious risk of being tackled when a hostile enters system... so many just log off to insure even if they do get tackled, they will despawn long before they die. Nullsec mining ops, where people are using many clients, often just dc all exhumers rather than attempting to warp them to safety. This is broken, wrong, and needs to be changed. The incoming changes do just that, making it so you have to fly your ship to safety for it to be safe! The new game mechanics discourage dc'ing as a means to "get safe".
As for the I dc'd and now my ship is in space for 5 minutes: --- If you have the 5 minute NPC timer, yup... My internet dc's moderately often, and I usually have a 15 minute PvP timer. I just log back in when I can (about 60-90 s normally) and continue doing what I was doing. Here's the biggest issue: While there are legit cases of people dc'ing, the EvE playerbase, as a whole, has overwhelmingly abused dc/logoff mechancis to "save" their ships. CCP is nyxing this in the butt, and that's a GOOD thing!
A good thing, sure, but if that's the intent behind the 5 minute rat timer, it's a pretty **** poor bandaid fix. If a ship's already scrammed when the DC happens, yeah, sure, whatever, it should remain in space for a time. Logging off in space should also require your ship to align to the emergency warpout location before leaving the grid.
IMO, with the possible exception of Incursions, the PvE in EVE is absolute crap. To help make things interesting for myself while grinding rats for ISK, I usually run around in something with a paper mache tank that requires me to be pretty careful about how I fly (the tier 3 BC's have been my favorite for this recently). However, I'm on a ****** rural DSL connection that tends to drop fairly regularly for hours at a time. This new timer crap is going to ensure that I'll be returning to the bad ol' days of ratting semi-AFK in something reasonably tanky while watching movies rather than, y'know, actually playing the game. |

Ibeau Renoir
Hoplite Brigade
34
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 15:53:00 -
[1234] - Quote
Auto-targetting (FOF) missiles seem to have been left out of the first table. Ceci n'est pas un sig. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
751
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 18:39:00 -
[1235] - Quote
Nerpimus wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
The scramming rat is unimportant. The important part: People are currently using the log-off mechanics to "get their ship safe". A carrier and Orca takes 30 seconds to align, and are at serious risk of being tackled when a hostile enters system... so many just log off to insure even if they do get tackled, they will despawn long before they die. Nullsec mining ops, where people are using many clients, often just dc all exhumers rather than attempting to warp them to safety. This is broken, wrong, and needs to be changed. The incoming changes do just that, making it so you have to fly your ship to safety for it to be safe! The new game mechanics discourage dc'ing as a means to "get safe".
As for the I dc'd and now my ship is in space for 5 minutes: --- If you have the 5 minute NPC timer, yup... My internet dc's moderately often, and I usually have a 15 minute PvP timer. I just log back in when I can (about 60-90 s normally) and continue doing what I was doing. Here's the biggest issue: While there are legit cases of people dc'ing, the EvE playerbase, as a whole, has overwhelmingly abused dc/logoff mechancis to "save" their ships. CCP is nyxing this in the butt, and that's a GOOD thing!
A good thing, sure, but if that's the intent behind the 5 minute rat timer, it's a pretty **** poor bandaid fix. If a ship's already scrammed when the DC happens, yeah, sure, whatever, it should remain in space for a time. Logging off in space should also require your ship to align to the emergency warpout location before leaving the grid (I always thought this was how it worked, but I guess I'm mistaken?). IMO, with the possible exception of Incursions, the PvE in EVE is absolute crap. To help make things interesting for myself while grinding rats for ISK, I usually run around in something with a paper mache tank that requires me to be pretty careful about how I fly (the tier 3 BC's have been my favorite for this recently). However, I'm on a ****** rural DSL connection that tends to drop fairly regularly for hours at a time. This new timer crap is going to ensure that I'll be returning to the bad ol' days of ratting semi-AFK in something reasonably tanky while watching movies rather than, y'know, actually playing the game.
I might have confused you: When you disconnect: 1rst.) Your ship attempts a 1m km emergency warp. This is just like a standard warp, where your ship aligns, and any warp scrambling effect can prevent the warp. 2nd.) Your ship waits out your timers and then despawns. The current timers are: a 1m base timer you have when you don't have aggression, a 2 minute NPC aggresssion, and a 15 minute PvP aggression timer that can be renewed by further acts of aggression to your ship.
The new changes only alter the timers: Your ship will still try to ewarp, and then it will wait out it's timers and despawn. The differences are: 1.) The NPC timer is increased from 2 minutes to 5 minutes. 2.) You can gain a PvP timer even if you didn't have a PvP timer prior to logging off.
In short, the only thing that changes for you is how long your ship takes to despawn. If you already run missions in paper thin tanks on a shifty connection, then dramatic is changing for you. Currently, if you are scrammed with lots of enemies on the field when you dc, you die.... If you are not, your ship ewarps out. This is just like it currently is....
This change makes it so if there is a hostile in system, and you dc with rat aggro, then you face a serious risk of them scanning your ship down and killing you.
|

Nerpimus
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
52
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 23:53:00 -
[1236] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
I might have confused you: When you disconnect: 1rst.) Your ship attempts a 1m km emergency warp. This is just like a standard warp, where your ship aligns, and any warp scrambling effect can prevent the warp. 2nd.) Your ship waits out your timers and then despawns. The current timers are: a 1m base timer you have when you don't have aggression, a 2 minute NPC aggresssion, and a 15 minute PvP aggression timer that can be renewed by further acts of aggression to your ship.
The new changes only alter the timers: Your ship will still try to ewarp, and then it will wait out it's timers and despawn. The differences are: 1.) The NPC timer is increased from 2 minutes to 5 minutes. 2.) You can gain a PvP timer even if you didn't have a PvP timer prior to logging off.
In short, the only thing that changes for you is how long your ship takes to despawn. If you already run missions in paper thin tanks on a shifty connection, then dramatic is changing for you. Currently, if you are scrammed with lots of enemies on the field when you dc, you die.... If you are not, your ship ewarps out. This is just like it currently is....
This change makes it so if there is a hostile in system, and you dc with rat aggro, then you face a serious risk of them scanning your ship down and killing you.
Yeah, I totally just skimmed the bits of the Crimewatch blog that detailed the new timers and interpreted '"will prevent a ship from being removed from spac" as "it'll stay where it was when you logged for x minutes". Then I tested it out on Buckingham.
The expression on my face in RL was very similar to my avatar's shortly thereafter.
|
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
897

|
Posted - 2012.11.26 13:12:00 -
[1237] - 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 |
|

TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
89
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 19:05:00 -
[1238] - Quote
I'm in reblier atm sitting on the 6-C gate unable to jump. Why is it so broken?
I aggressed a drone at a gate, and now about 5 minutes later I'm still unable to dock at any stations or jump. I also have 15 minutes 'suspect' timer, which obviously doesn't affect me since I'm outlaw master race, but surely it should've been ticking down? My weapons timer and my capsuleer log-off timer have both been at full this whole time as well. That other log-off timer was the only one ticking down.
Somewhat related: I bugreported drones auto-aggressing sentry guns, and your goons told me it's an intended feature, which is totally ********. FOFs do it as well. The badness of ECM-proof weapons is one of the reasons I dislike ECM so much. It's not even possible to lock a sentry gun, so I don't see why it should be a valid target for drones or missiles. They don't do this on TQ right now, I'm pretty sure.
(I'm still unable to jump after writing all this.)
edit: it all started ticking down as it should once I got movemed to 6-c. |

Plaude Pollard
Crimson Cartel
90
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 17:34:00 -
[1239] - Quote
One question regarding the mechanics... Some of the flags prohibit you from switching ship and docking while having the flag. Does that only apply to players who're still in a ship, or does it also apply to those whose ships have been destroyed and are going to re-ship? Currently, I know you can get a new ship if your ship is destroyed and you're a criminal, but the new flags do bring up some questions. New to EVE? Want to learn? The Crimson Cartel will train you in the fields of your choice. Mainly active in EU afternoons and evenings. Contact me for more info. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
756
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 17:42:00 -
[1240] - Quote
Plaude Pollard wrote:One question regarding the mechanics... Some of the flags prohibit you from switching ship and docking while having the flag. Does that only apply to players who're still in a ship, or does it also apply to those whose ships have been destroyed and are going to re-ship? Currently, I know you can get a new ship if your ship is destroyed and you're a criminal, but the new flags do bring up some questions.
The Weapons flag prevents you from Docking, Jumping, or switching ships in space. It also follows you through session changes (like when your ship explodes and you enter a POD).
In short, if you lose your ship, you have to wait out your weapons flag (60 seconds from the last time you shot someone) before you can dock, board a new ship in space, use a gate, etc...
Strangely, if you get podded, and end up in station, it sounds like you can immediately board a new ship and undock to rejoin the fray even though your 60s weapons timer might not be up. |
|

TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
90
|
Posted - 2012.11.29 03:00:00 -
[1241] - Quote
Why do outlaws get suspect timers? It's somewhat redundant.
(also the drone/FOF targeting sentry guns thing is still broken) |
|

CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
903

|
Posted - 2012.11.29 10:52:00 -
[1242] - 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 |
|

Naes Mlahrend
KINGS OF EDEN Sev3rance
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.29 15:55:00 -
[1243] - Quote
Don't have the time to read 64 pages and sorry if I missed this but can someone explain how this will affect nullsec? Do we get stopped from using gates when engaged in PVP? Do the flags pertain to nullsec? Maybe I didn't read the devblog well enough. Thanks! |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
763
|
Posted - 2012.11.29 16:08:00 -
[1244] - Quote
Naes Mlahrend wrote:Don't have the time to read 64 pages and sorry if I missed this but can someone explain how this will affect nullsec? Do we get stopped from using gates when engaged in PVP? Do the flags pertain to nullsec? Maybe I didn't read the devblog well enough. Thanks!
These are the important parts for fellow nullsec pilots:
1.) Weapons timers (earned by shooting people, etc) prevent you from docking, jumping through a gate, or switching ships until the timer runs out. They are 60 seconds, and when your ship dies your POD will start off with whatever weapons timer your ship had.
2.) Logi's inherit aggression. If logi's rep a target that is currently shooting someone, they will gain their Weapons timer, which will prevent them from docking or jumping through the gate.
3.) The PvP timer prevents your ship from despawning until it runs out (it's a 15 minute timer). The most important change, is you can be given a PvP timer after you log out, even if you didn't have a PvP timer prior to logging out. This is huge.... Don't scram your buddy to prevent his ewarp... cause if he doesn't log back in, you just stuck him on a gate for 15 minutes.....
4.) The NPC timer is 5 minutes long, and you get it anytime you shoot an NPC or an NPC shoots you. The NPC timer prevents your ship from despawning until it runs out, and since ships can now be given a PvP timer after they log off, logging off is a very bad idea when trying to avoid a timer.
5.) There is now a safe log off feature. It requires you to have NO timers, and then you must decloak and turn off all your mods to start it. Once started, your ship will despawn in 30 seconds, unless someone attacks you or you cancel it.... |

Naes Mlahrend
KINGS OF EDEN Sev3rance
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.29 16:40:00 -
[1245] - Quote
Ok. That's kind of what I was afraid of. I've always liked the gun and run/ no rules portion of nullsec. 60 seconds isn't a real long time but long enough to make a pod escape more difficult. I can see this being beneficial for defense fleets but not when being the aggressors. Guess you pick your battles and I better get proficient with d-scan. |

Chris Starfire
Innovative Engineering Inc TERRA FIRMA.
14
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 23:05:00 -
[1246] - Quote
Can anyone tell me if the ability to buy your sec status back is coming into effect in this expansion? I have looked everywhere and have not found anything on it. |

Che Biko
Humanitarian Communists
119
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 16:26:00 -
[1247] - Quote
Starfire: I'd say that's your answer right there. I've never heard about it at all. Contraband Smuggling: Player Assisted Customs |

Angelica Scatterbrain
WH United
1
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 16:59:00 -
[1248] - Quote
In efffect, Tuesdays patch will eliminate most high sec pvp except factional warfare and war decs. Is this CCPs intention? |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
774
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 18:37:00 -
[1249] - Quote
Angelica Scatterbrain wrote:In efffect, Tuesdays patch will eliminate most high sec pvp except factional warfare and war decs. Is this CCPs intention?
1.) Suicide ganking and Suspect *** Baiting will also be major forms of highsec PvP....
2.) I certain CCP's intention is to NOT eliminate alternative forms of highsec PvP.... |

Angelica Scatterbrain
WH United
1
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 19:04:00 -
[1250] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Angelica Scatterbrain wrote:In efffect, Tuesdays patch will eliminate most high sec pvp except factional warfare and war decs. Is this CCPs intention? 1.) Suicide ganking and Suspect *** Baiting will also be major forms of highsec PvP.... 2.) I certain CCP's intention is to NOT eliminate alternative forms of highsec PvP....
1.Suicide ganking will not be worth it as your loot scooper is instantly a target to everybody. There will be no suspect baiting as no one wants to instantly be a target for everybody.
2. Alternative forms of highsec PvP eliminated. |
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
774
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 20:46:00 -
[1251] - Quote
Angelica Scatterbrain wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Angelica Scatterbrain wrote:In efffect, Tuesdays patch will eliminate most high sec pvp except factional warfare and war decs. Is this CCPs intention? 1.) Suicide ganking and Suspect *** Baiting will also be major forms of highsec PvP.... 2.) I certain CCP's intention is to NOT eliminate alternative forms of highsec PvP.... 1.Suicide ganking will not be worth it as your loot scooper is instantly a target to everybody. There will be no suspect baiting as no one wants to instantly be a target for everybody. 2. Alternative forms of highsec PvP eliminated.
lol..... You can't possibly be serious.... So what if the loot scooper is a target.... you really think that can't be handled? Not only can you tank / stab your loot scoopers, but you can bypass the whole aggression issue with an alt in a noobship....
And "oh no, more people can shoot me" does not mean everyone under the sun will... and you can further use the universal flag to bait and gank even more targets....
I'm VERY confident that highsec PvP will be just as healthy and viable as it is now, if not more so.... to be frank, it's a simple case of adapt or die... and it's very easy to adapt to these changes...
|

Angelica Scatterbrain
WH United
1
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 20:53:00 -
[1252] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Not only can you tank / stab your loot scoopers,
How many stabs can you fit on your freighter, I don't seem to have that skill. |

Despicable Rogue
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 16:14:00 -
[1253] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:
(snip)
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.
____ So, if Pilot A attacks Pilot B in high security space, thereby becoming a "Criminal" (and "LE" with respect to Pilot B) and a legal target for previously neutral Pilot C, and Pilot C repairs Pilot B, suddenly Pilot C would be "Suspect" and a legal target for attack by any and all players in the Eve Universe (not just Pilot A). However, if Pilot C were instead to attack Pilot A directly, then repair Pilot B, he would only acquire an LE flag on behalf of Pilot A (and a weapons flag) and neither "Criminal" nor "Suspect" flags in any respect? CCP, please confirm that this is not the intention and is not what will be implemented. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
777
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 18:52:00 -
[1254] - Quote
Despicable Rogue wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote:
(snip)
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.
____ So, if Pilot A attacks Pilot B in high security space, thereby becoming a "Criminal" (and "LE" with respect to Pilot B) and a legal target for previously neutral Pilot C, and Pilot C repairs Pilot B, suddenly Pilot C would be "Suspect" and a legal target for attack by any and all players in the Eve Universe (not just Pilot A). However, if Pilot C were instead to attack Pilot A directly, then repair Pilot B, he would only acquire an LE flag on behalf of Pilot A (and a PVP flag) and neither "Criminal" nor "Suspect" flags in any respect? CCP, please confirm that this is not the intention and is not what will be implemented.
I don't believe you have that down right.... Using the comments given by CCP MasterPlan. The most relevant:
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.
If Pilot A attacks Pilot B in highsec... they become criminal flagged and legal for everyone to shoot. A Limited engagement is created only if Pilot B shoots back. Lets pretend Pilot B shoots back....
Now, if you are neutral pilot C, and wish to rep Pilot B.... There are two ways you can do it...
Option 1: Just rep pilot B. Since Pilot B has a PvP Flag AND assuming Pilot A cannot legally shoot you, you would gain a suspect flag, making you a free target for everyone....
Option 2: If you shoot/aggress Pilot A first (who is a legal target because they are criminally flagged), then Pilot A can legally shoot you. Because Pilot A can legally shoot you, you can now rep Pilot B without gaining a Suspect Flag....
|

Despicable Rogue
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 19:56:00 -
[1255] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Despicable Rogue wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote:
(snip)
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.
____ So, if Pilot A attacks Pilot B in high security space, thereby becoming a "Criminal" (and "LE" with respect to Pilot B) and a legal target for previously neutral Pilot C, and Pilot C repairs Pilot B, suddenly Pilot C would be "Suspect" and a legal target for attack by any and all players in the Eve Universe (not just Pilot A). However, if Pilot C were instead to attack Pilot A directly, then repair Pilot B, he would only acquire an LE flag on behalf of Pilot A (and a PVP flag) and neither "Criminal" nor "Suspect" flags in any respect? CCP, please confirm that this is not the intention and is not what will be implemented. I don't believe you have that down right.... Using the comments given by CCP MasterPlan. The most relevant: 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.If Pilot A attacks Pilot B in highsec... they become criminal flagged and legal for everyone to shoot. A Limited engagement is created only if Pilot B shoots back. Lets pretend Pilot B shoots back.... Now, if you are neutral pilot C, and wish to rep Pilot B.... There are two ways you can do it... Option 1: Just rep pilot B. Since Pilot B has a PvP Flag AND assuming Pilot A cannot legally shoot you, you would gain a suspect flag, making you a free target for everyone.... Option 2: If you shoot/aggress Pilot A first (who is a legal target because they are criminally flagged), then Pilot A can legally shoot you. Because Pilot A can legally shoot you, you can now rep Pilot B without gaining a Suspect Flag....
Thanks for confirming my understanding of CCP Masterplan's post.
Instead, I suggest that if Pilot A attacks B, after which neutral C reps B, then C should just acquire the flags that B had. Thus, if B had attacked A in return then PVP, Weapons, and LE flags would pass on to C who could then be attacked by A.
It seems quite unreasonable that C should be treated like a global target ("Suspect") for defending a victim ("B") by repping the victim whereas he would not be a global target if he shot weapons at "A" who is already a global target for attacking "B."
|

Aron Fox
Tranquillian Imperial Navy Tranquillian Empire
12
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 06:31:00 -
[1256] - Quote
Quote:We're still tweaking the contents of these charts, so not all decisions are finalized. If there's a case that you think isn't covered, then please let us know about in the comments section. Hopefully the fact that we can actually explain much of the new system in this way shows how improved things are compared to the old system with all of its special-cases and exceptions.
I think the charts are missing what happend if you assist a person in war, what flags do you get and the same for faction warfare. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
777
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 07:03:00 -
[1257] - Quote
Aron Fox wrote:Quote:We're still tweaking the contents of these charts, so not all decisions are finalized. If there's a case that you think isn't covered, then please let us know about in the comments section. Hopefully the fact that we can actually explain much of the new system in this way shows how improved things are compared to the old system with all of its special-cases and exceptions. I think the charts are missing what happend if you assist a person in war, what flags do you get and the same for faction warfare.
This has been covered in the comments....
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.
Essentially, if you are a neutral party and assist in a Player vs Player fight, you become a suspect.... |

Aron Fox
Tranquillian Imperial Navy Tranquillian Empire
12
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 07:11:00 -
[1258] - Quote
Despicable Rogue wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Despicable Rogue wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote:
(snip)
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.
____ So, if Pilot A attacks Pilot B in high security space, thereby becoming a "Criminal" (and "LE" with respect to Pilot B) and a legal target for previously neutral Pilot C, and Pilot C repairs Pilot B, suddenly Pilot C would be "Suspect" and a legal target for attack by any and all players in the Eve Universe (not just Pilot A). However, if Pilot C were instead to attack Pilot A directly, then repair Pilot B, he would only acquire an LE flag on behalf of Pilot A (and a PVP flag) and neither "Criminal" nor "Suspect" flags in any respect? CCP, please confirm that this is not the intention and is not what will be implemented. I don't believe you have that down right.... Using the comments given by CCP MasterPlan. The most relevant: 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.If Pilot A attacks Pilot B in highsec... they become criminal flagged and legal for everyone to shoot. A Limited engagement is created only if Pilot B shoots back. Lets pretend Pilot B shoots back.... Now, if you are neutral pilot C, and wish to rep Pilot B.... There are two ways you can do it... Option 1: Just rep pilot B. Since Pilot B has a PvP Flag AND assuming Pilot A cannot legally shoot you, you would gain a suspect flag, making you a free target for everyone.... Option 2: If you shoot/aggress Pilot A first (who is a legal target because they are criminally flagged), then Pilot A can legally shoot you. Because Pilot A can legally shoot you, you can now rep Pilot B without gaining a Suspect Flag.... Thanks for confirming my understanding of CCP Masterplan's post. Instead, I suggest that if Pilot A attacks B, after which neutral C reps B, then C should just acquire the flags that B had. Thus, if B had attacked A in return then PVP, Weapons, and LE flags would pass on to C who could then be attacked by A. It seems quite unreasonable that C should be treated like a global target ("Suspect") for defending a victim ("B") by repping the victim whereas he would not be a global target if he shot weapons at "A" who is already a global target for attacking "B."
I agree with Despicable Rogue. speaking storylinewise, why would CONCORD wanna make a logistic pilot (C) that is helping a pilot (A) attacking a criminal/suspect/outlaw (B) a suspect? What realistic reason would there be for CONCORD to not sanction such a action?
I understand that if a neutral is repping a pilot in war that is interfering and that could deserve a suspect flag or a neutral repariing a faction target that that deserves a suspect tag as they are interfering. but why would the New Edens mighty law-enforcement declear a logistic pilot repping a law-abiding capsuleer assisting in a act legal by the CONCORD directives be considerd illegal?
They allow us pod pilots to excercise law to the extend of killing criminals of the empires but to help these heroes of law is a crime? why dont CONCORD make it illegal to even attack the criminals and make themself get the rights exclucivly?
|

Aron Fox
Tranquillian Imperial Navy Tranquillian Empire
12
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 07:13:00 -
[1259] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Essentially, if you are a neutral party and assist in a Player vs Player fight, you become a suspect....
thanks for the info! |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
778
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 07:48:00 -
[1260] - Quote
Aron Fox wrote:Despicable Rogue wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Despicable Rogue wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote:
(snip)
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.
____ So, if Pilot A attacks Pilot B in high security space, thereby becoming a "Criminal" (and "LE" with respect to Pilot B) and a legal target for previously neutral Pilot C, and Pilot C repairs Pilot B, suddenly Pilot C would be "Suspect" and a legal target for attack by any and all players in the Eve Universe (not just Pilot A). However, if Pilot C were instead to attack Pilot A directly, then repair Pilot B, he would only acquire an LE flag on behalf of Pilot A (and a PVP flag) and neither "Criminal" nor "Suspect" flags in any respect? CCP, please confirm that this is not the intention and is not what will be implemented. I don't believe you have that down right.... Using the comments given by CCP MasterPlan. The most relevant: 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.If Pilot A attacks Pilot B in highsec... they become criminal flagged and legal for everyone to shoot. A Limited engagement is created only if Pilot B shoots back. Lets pretend Pilot B shoots back.... Now, if you are neutral pilot C, and wish to rep Pilot B.... There are two ways you can do it... Option 1: Just rep pilot B. Since Pilot B has a PvP Flag AND assuming Pilot A cannot legally shoot you, you would gain a suspect flag, making you a free target for everyone.... Option 2: If you shoot/aggress Pilot A first (who is a legal target because they are criminally flagged), then Pilot A can legally shoot you. Because Pilot A can legally shoot you, you can now rep Pilot B without gaining a Suspect Flag.... Thanks for confirming my understanding of CCP Masterplan's post. Instead, I suggest that if Pilot A attacks B, after which neutral C reps B, then C should just acquire the flags that B had. Thus, if B had attacked A in return then PVP, Weapons, and LE flags would pass on to C who could then be attacked by A. It seems quite unreasonable that C should be treated like a global target ("Suspect") for defending a victim ("B") by repping the victim whereas he would not be a global target if he shot weapons at "A" who is already a global target for attacking "B." I agree with Despicable Rogue. speaking storylinewise, why would CONCORD wanna make a logistic pilot (C) that is helping a pilot (A) attacking a criminal/suspect/outlaw (B) a suspect? What realistic reason would there be for CONCORD to not sanction such a action? I understand that if a neutral is repping a pilot in war that is interfering and that could deserve a suspect flag or a neutral repariing a faction target that that deserves a suspect tag as they are interfering. but why would the New Edens mighty law-enforcement declear a logistic pilot repping a law-abiding capsuleer assisting in a act legal by the CONCORD directives be considerd illegal? They allow us pod pilots to excercise law to the extend of killing criminals of the empires but to help these heroes of law is a crime? why dont CONCORD make it illegal to even attack the criminals and make themself get the rights exclucivly?
Two things to keep in mind....
If LE's were transferred, we would end up with the chaining of aggression flags we have now... and CCP is changing crime watch SPECIFICALLY to eliminate said chains. This simplifies the system immensely.
While storyline wise it makes some sense for concord to want you to assist Pilot A who is attacking Suspect / Criminal / Outlaw... mechanic wise this would create a major issue. Essentially, the criminal / outlaw / suspect would NOT have rights to shoot your logistics ship, which is a very game-breaking situation. As such, it makes complete sense that you get flagged a suspect (making you a fee target for everyone) unless you declare to the ciminal / outlaw / suspect that you're joining the fight against him. To declare such a thing, it simply requires you to aggress the criminal before you repair the vigilante. This is fair and balanced...
To give a real world example, this is sort of like a plain-clothed police officer pulling out his badge before drawing a gun and joining in apprehending criminals. If they don't, the other officers on the scene could easily mistake them for a criminal. And while I realize there is a difference between repping an ally and shooting an opponent, from a gameplay perspective both actions significantly alter the outcome of the fight against the "opponent", and both scenarios NEED to make you a legal target for the Criminal / Suspect / etc.. |
|

Anders Brulner
Quantum Anomaly Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 14:05:00 -
[1261] - Quote
"NPC GÇô This pilot has used offensive modules against an NPC. If a pilot logs off while this flag is active, their ship will remain in space until the timer expires."
So, if my ******** internet service provider decides it's time for a disconnection while I'm running a mission/plex I'm screwed. This has to be the most useless feature of crimewatch.
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
778
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 14:27:00 -
[1262] - Quote
Anders Brulner wrote:"NPC GÇô This pilot has used offensive modules against an NPC. If a pilot logs off while this flag is active, their ship will remain in space until the timer expires."
So, if my ******** internet service provider decides it's time for a disconnection while I'm running a mission/plex I'm screwed. This has to be the most useless feature of crimewatch.
No.....
If you dc while scrambled in a mission, then you're possibly screwed. If you dc while PvE'ing, and someone is actually looking for you.... you're probably screwed...
But the two above cases aren't going to be the norm.... |

Kaleai
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 17:02:00 -
[1263] - Quote
This may have been covered but I am wondering lets say I'm wanting to fight in hi sec (unlikely) and I want to fight a miner. If I take from their can and then put a new can out with their stuff they can take it back with out being flagged, however if I were to put a piece of ore in that can that wasn't theirs when they take "their" stuff back with mine I can legally shoot them? |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
778
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 17:07:00 -
[1264] - Quote
Kaleai wrote:This may have been covered but I am wondering lets say I'm wanting to fight in hi sec (unlikely) and I want to fight a miner. If I take from their can and then put a new can out with their stuff they can take it back with out being flagged, however if i were to put a piece of ore in that can that wasn't theirs when they take "their" stuff back with mine I can legally shoot them?
No....
I might be wrong on this, but this is my current understanding (need to test it):
If you take their stuff, you become a suspect. At that point in time, your wreck and all your jet cans should turn blue, meaning they are salvageable and takeable by everyone. This is because Everyone can legally shoot you, and you are free to loot from anyone you can legally shoot!
Don't flip the miner... just steal his goods, go suspect, and hope he shoots you....
or alternatively...
Steal his stuff, jettison it, then with an alt, move it from your blue container to a fresh new container.... Then, if the miner tries to take his stuff back, he'll go suspect and can be shot by EVERYONE.... It would take a very ignorant miner to do this, and they would need to have their safety off to boot.
|

Aron Fox
Tranquillian Imperial Navy Tranquillian Empire
12
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 17:42:00 -
[1265] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Two things to keep in mind....
If LE's were transferred, we would end up with the chaining of aggression flags we have now... and CCP is changing crime watch SPECIFICALLY to eliminate said chains. This simplifies the system immensely.
While storyline wise it makes some sense for concord to want you to assist Pilot A who is attacking Suspect / Criminal / Outlaw... mechanic wise this would create a major issue. Essentially, the criminal / outlaw / suspect would NOT have rights to shoot your logistics ship, which is a very game-breaking situation. As such, it makes complete sense that you get flagged a suspect (making you a fee target for everyone) unless you declare to the ciminal / outlaw / suspect that you're joining the fight against him. To declare such a thing, it simply requires you to aggress the criminal before you repair the vigilante. This is fair and balanced...
To give a real world example, this is sort of like a plain-clothed police officer pulling out his badge before drawing a gun and joining in apprehending criminals. If they don't, the other officers on the scene could easily mistake them for a criminal. And while I realize there is a difference between repping an ally and shooting an opponent, from a gameplay perspective both actions significantly alter the outcome of the fight against the "opponent", and both scenarios NEED to make you a legal target for the Criminal / Suspect / etc..
I do think its fair for the target to be able to shoot back at the logistic but it could simply work that a LE is not a "A to B" type of a deal it could be that anyone who involves themself in any form in any way just simply enters the LE. so a LE will be defined as a a "engegement between players that have engaged a outlaw/criminal/suspect or provided assistance to the battle. Basicly repairing ect will invite you to the LE. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
779
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 18:39:00 -
[1266] - Quote
Aron Fox wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Two things to keep in mind....
If LE's were transferred, we would end up with the chaining of aggression flags we have now... and CCP is changing crime watch SPECIFICALLY to eliminate said chains. This simplifies the system immensely.
While storyline wise it makes some sense for concord to want you to assist Pilot A who is attacking Suspect / Criminal / Outlaw... mechanic wise this would create a major issue. Essentially, the criminal / outlaw / suspect would NOT have rights to shoot your logistics ship, which is a very game-breaking situation. As such, it makes complete sense that you get flagged a suspect (making you a fee target for everyone) unless you declare to the ciminal / outlaw / suspect that you're joining the fight against him. To declare such a thing, it simply requires you to aggress the criminal before you repair the vigilante. This is fair and balanced...
To give a real world example, this is sort of like a plain-clothed police officer pulling out his badge before drawing a gun and joining in apprehending criminals. If they don't, the other officers on the scene could easily mistake them for a criminal. And while I realize there is a difference between repping an ally and shooting an opponent, from a gameplay perspective both actions significantly alter the outcome of the fight against the "opponent", and both scenarios NEED to make you a legal target for the Criminal / Suspect / etc..
I do think its fair for the target to be able to shoot back at the logistic but it could simply work that a LE is not a "A to B" type of a deal it could be that anyone who involves themself in any form in any way just simply enters the LE. so a LE will be defined as a a "engegement between players that have engaged a outlaw/criminal/suspect or provided assistance to the battle. Basicly repairing ect will invite you to the LE.
And when I repair both sides of the LE?
Earlier (30 pages back), I proposed adding a Samaritan Flag.... where anytime you shoot a Suspect or Criminal, you gain a Samaritan Flag, which enabled ALL Suspects and Criminals to Legally attack you. Then logi's could inherit the Samaritan Flag by repping a Samaritan, or could inherit the Suspect Flag by repping a Suspect... and by setting the order of precedence, as Criminal > Suspect > Samaritan, we have a system that makes a lot of sense, is completely based on global flags, and is evenly balanced between Suspects and Samaritans... However, the biggest downside of the above system, is that a well organized gang of Suspects will often gain the advantage and crush a smattering of Samaritans, even when outnumbered. This is because Samaritans typically consist of passer-by, unorganized pilots, and since people can go Suspect on a second's notice, it's not very clear to the Samaritans what they are taking on prior to the engagement. In the end, there would be lots of surprise new party to most engagements, and generally the most organized groups with friends would come out on top. CCP doesn't want this....
CCP wants Suspects to be at a disadvantage in highsec.... and the current mechanics BLATANTLY flaunt that. In the current mechanics, there are basically no viable Gangs of Suspects.... only viable Individuals (with logi backup). This is because a gang of Suspects can only fire back at ships that shoot them ALL first.... and since a competent gang of Samaritans will generally focus fire on one target at a time, generally speaking only one member in the Suspect gang can retaliate at a time. Essentially, this allows the Samaritans to form cohesive fighting gangs, while suspects are restricted to "individuals" (perhaps with logi backup). |

Harkin Tanith
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 23:36:00 -
[1267] - Quote
well idk what to say i think its a bad move ppl play eve to be free an this is takn a hugh bite outta every1s fun im not a pvp or a rat im as care bear as they come but these changes r over the top high sec needed to be somewhat open to pc ratters an gankers it was great the way it wuz but i guess the cry babyGÇÖs got more rules put in to protect them from there laziness an incompetence. this is going to make high sec a cluster F&ck off epic scale
CCP u wanna FIX somthing thats ruining or game?? stop the botters they r a hugh problem and there controling the market but in stead the "fix" stuff that is fine to the xtrem
flagged 4 killn npc pirates??? wtf I always thought rats were bad now they got there own protection plan lol every1 n highsec will b flagged can u say flag chained? k 1 last question i fly by a person who is flaged he explodes and the flag gets stuck n my knee who gets flaged ?
|

Harkin Tanith
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 01:37:00 -
[1268] - Quote
Anders Brulner wrote:"NPC GÇô This pilot has used offensive modules against an NPC. If a pilot logs off while this flag is active, their ship will remain in space until the timer expires."
So, if my ******** internet service provider decides it's time for a disconnection while I'm running a mission/plex I'm screwed. This has to be the most useless feature of crimewatch.
|

Aron Fox
Tranquillian Imperial Navy Tranquillian Empire
12
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 06:10:00 -
[1269] - Quote
Harkin Tanith wrote:Anders Brulner wrote:"NPC GÇô This pilot has used offensive modules against an NPC. If a pilot logs off while this flag is active, their ship will remain in space until the timer expires."
So, if my ******** internet service provider decides it's time for a disconnection while I'm running a mission/plex I'm screwed. This has to be the most useless feature of crimewatch.
that is to avoid people exploiting. when people realizing they are about to die and log-off to save their ship. it does not protect the NPC its a mechanism to prevent log-off exploits. |

Aron Fox
Tranquillian Imperial Navy Tranquillian Empire
12
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 06:24:00 -
[1270] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Aron Fox wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Two things to keep in mind....
If LE's were transferred, we would end up with the chaining of aggression flags we have now... and CCP is changing crime watch SPECIFICALLY to eliminate said chains. This simplifies the system immensely.
While storyline wise it makes some sense for concord to want you to assist Pilot A who is attacking Suspect / Criminal / Outlaw... mechanic wise this would create a major issue. Essentially, the criminal / outlaw / suspect would NOT have rights to shoot your logistics ship, which is a very game-breaking situation. As such, it makes complete sense that you get flagged a suspect (making you a fee target for everyone) unless you declare to the ciminal / outlaw / suspect that you're joining the fight against him. To declare such a thing, it simply requires you to aggress the criminal before you repair the vigilante. This is fair and balanced...
To give a real world example, this is sort of like a plain-clothed police officer pulling out his badge before drawing a gun and joining in apprehending criminals. If they don't, the other officers on the scene could easily mistake them for a criminal. And while I realize there is a difference between repping an ally and shooting an opponent, from a gameplay perspective both actions significantly alter the outcome of the fight against the "opponent", and both scenarios NEED to make you a legal target for the Criminal / Suspect / etc..
I do think its fair for the target to be able to shoot back at the logistic but it could simply work that a LE is not a "A to B" type of a deal it could be that anyone who involves themself in any form in any way just simply enters the LE. so a LE will be defined as a a "engegement between players that have engaged a outlaw/criminal/suspect or provided assistance to the battle. Basicly repairing ect will invite you to the LE. And when I repair both sides of the LE? In truth, I find the use of logistics in highsec typically "dirty", as it's a very "risk adverse" method of fighting. Especially give the fact that you should only have ONE Suspect shooting you at a time. I think, given the majorly disadvantaged position Suspects enter the fight in, that making it harder on highsec logistics is very fair.... Earlier (30 pages back), I proposed adding a Samaritan Flag.... where anytime you shoot a Suspect or Criminal, you gain a Samaritan Flag, which enabled ALL Suspects and Criminals to Legally attack you. Then logi's could inherit the Samaritan Flag by repping a Samaritan, or could inherit the Suspect Flag by repping a Suspect... and by setting the order of precedence, as Criminal > Suspect > Samaritan, we have a system that makes a lot of sense, is completely based on global flags, and is evenly balanced between Suspects and Samaritans... However, the biggest downside of the above system, is that a well organized gang of Suspects will often gain the advantage and crush a smattering of Samaritans, even when outnumbered. This is because Samaritans typically consist of passer-by, unorganized pilots, and since people can go Suspect on a second's notice, it's not very clear to the Samaritans what they are taking on prior to the engagement. In the end, there would be lots of surprise, a new party, to most engagements, and generally the most organized groups with friends would come out on top. CCP doesn't want this.... CCP wants Suspects to be at a disadvantage in highsec.... and the current mechanics BLATANTLY flaunt that. In the current mechanics, there are basically no viable Gangs of Suspects.... only viable Individuals (with logi backup). This is because a gang of Suspects can only fire back at ships that shoot them ALL first.... and since a competent gang of Samaritans will generally focus fire on one target at a time, generally speaking only one member in the Suspect gang can retaliate at a time. Essentially, this allows the Samaritans to form cohesive fighting gangs, while suspects are restricted to "individuals" (perhaps with logi backup).
I think that CCP dont intend to "balance" it beteen criminals. If you look at many MMORPGs they have multiple servers or instances where some of them allowing different level of PVP and such. many MMORPGs also offers the ability to download the server files to hos their own private servers. This can not be done with EVE Online. the only reason why EVE is such a vast game is because of that they run the New Eden gameworld on tranquility, a cluster of servers. and if im not wrong they posess the largest cluster of computer hosting a virtual world on. If they were to allow PVP with the same criterias then they may loose a large part of their subscribers because some games dont like PVP and some do. CONCORD, Empire space, Crimewatch, Security status it all works to serve that purpous to facilitate the need for the absense of PVP aswell as the existence from PVP all in one world without loosing half of their player base.
It is not supose to be easy for people to PVP anyone they want in high-sec its designed that way. we player can ofcourse nudge CCP with CSM and the forum but in the end this is a component of EVE that if they didnt balance PVP vs No-PVP instead of balancing the PVP in areas PVP should be low, EVE would be as vast as it is. People seeking PVP can find in RvB or in Null, wormholes and lowsec or just war-dec people. |
|

Despicable Rogue
1
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 11:06:00 -
[1271] - Quote
There are three general arguments that have made in favor of a neutral repper (Pilot C) becoming a global target after repping the non-Legality-flagged (neither Suspect nor Criminal) victim (Pilot B) of a gank attempt (by Pilot A) in high security space.
First, CCP Masterplan suggests in http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=73443 that:
"Assisting someone who is engaged in an LE will cause the assistor to receive a Suspect flag. This is to prevent neutral logistics interfering in ongoing combat without risk to themselves."
Thus, previously neutral repper (Pilot C) should assume risk for becoming involved.
Agreed, but the risk should be commensurate with the risk that would be assumed if he had used guns against the ganker (Pilot A). That is to say that the repper should acquire the PvP, Weapons, and Limited Engagement (LE) flags of the recipient of his repairs.
Second, Gizznitt Malikite suggests that:
"If LE's were transferred, we would end up with the chaining of aggression flags we have now... and CCP is changing crime watch SPECIFICALLY to eliminate said chains. This simplifies the system immensely."
It is not more difficult to code or execute a program (Eve Online) to any meaningful degree to check existing flag status for a party to a Limited Engagement (LE) (Pilot B) and create flags based on that for the 3rd party repper (Pilot C) than it is for that same program to check existing flag status for a Criminal ganker (Pilot B) and create flags based on that for the 3rd party (Pilot C) if he were to have attacked Pilot A instead of repping B. There is absolutely no extra chaining of aggression flags by implementing my suggestion.
Third, Gizznitt Malikite suggests that:
"Essentially, the criminal / outlaw / suspect would NOT have rights to shoot your logistics ship, which is a very game-breaking situation."
If, as I propose, the neutral repper (Pilot C) becomes part of a Limited Engagement (LE) with respect to the ganker (Pilot A), Pilot A's rights to defend against Pilot C are exactly the same as if Pilot C had directly attacked Pilot A.
The difference between what I propose and what CCP as implemented is whether or not Pilot C should become a global target and attackable by anyone without intervention instead of just the parties aggrieved by his actions. Somehow in the current state, repairing a victim is Suspect (really "criminal" in the application of making one attackable at will by all) is treated worse that shooting guns at assailant.
Imagine being at a neighborhood park and someone pulls a gun and shoots a child napping under the shade of a tree. You can shoot the shooter without any lawful interference from bystanders, but if instead you tend to the wounded, all the other folks standing there can legally shoot you. Oh wait, if you shoot the shooter first, then you can tend to the wounded child in relative safety from the other people.
One more point: Under Crimewatch 2, if Pilot B should send capacitor to Pilot C who's only "crime" is to repair B who was attacked unprovoked, then Pilot B suddenly becomes "Suspect" too. Is this really what we want?
Let's allow players to become involved in conflict with Criminals through logistics with only the same penalties and privleges that directly shooting such Criminals would bear. |

Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
2338
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 17:21:00 -
[1272] - Quote
Harkin Tanith wrote:well idk what to say i think its a bad move ppl play eve to be free an this is takn a hugh bite outta every1s fun im not a pvp or a rat im as care bear as they come but these changes r over the top high sec needed to be somewhat open to pc ratters an gankers it was great the way it wuz but i guess the cry babyGÇÖs got more rules put in to protect them from there laziness an incompetence. this is going to make high sec a cluster F&ck off epic scale
CCP u wanna FIX somthing thats ruining or game?? stop the botters they r a hugh problem and there controling the market but in stead the "fix" stuff that is fine to the xtrem
flagged 4 killn npc pirates??? wtf I always thought rats were bad now they got there own protection plan lol every1 n highsec will b flagged can u say flag chained? k 1 last question i fly by a person who is flaged he explodes and the flag gets stuck n my knee who gets flaged ?
Your keyboard seems to be missing some keys. Maybe you should fix that before posting? CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
779
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 17:56:00 -
[1273] - Quote
Despicable Rogue wrote:.... allow LE's to transfer via RR....
I think you are missing something here.... You view logistics as the doctor coming to aid the hurt child. And while there are a lot of parallels, this is war, not some playground shooting.
Assisting someone with logistics is not playing the 'good old boy' doctor that just wants to save lives.
Germany and the U.K. are at war, how do you think Germany would review the U.S. if they ship military hardware to the U.K.? How do you think they would view the U.S. if they prevented the destruction of a U.K. weapon system that is causing major damage to Berlin? Germany has every right, and should, view the U.S.'s actions here as an act of war...
Moreover, since the U.S. is doing it in an underhanded fashion, where they don't legally proclaim themselves to be hostile to Germany prior to assisting the U.K., Concord SHOULD, and does, declare the U.S. as violating the law, and flags them as Suspect.
This seems completely fair and legit!
Furthermore, let's provide an example of the complexity that is created with transferable LE's.
Imagine Five Pilots, A, B, C, D, E.
Pilot A is has a Suspect Flag. Pilot B is a Vigilante that shoots Pilot A which creates a LE between the two of them. Pilot A escapes the Vigilante B.... but Vigilante B gives chase...
3 Minutes later, Pilot A's Suspect Flag expires... so he'll hence be known as Bad Guy A. Soon thereafter, Vigilante B catches up to Bad Guy A, who is still a LEGAL target because their LE hasn't expired. Vigilante B, knowing he has logi backup, engages Bad Guy A. Bad Guy A, knowing his Suspect Flag has expired, doesn't fear bystander interference attacks back.
Pilot C is you in a logistics ship, and you repair Vigilante B. My questions to you: If repairing Vigilante B just extends the LE to you (rather than flagging you as suspect), how is this ANY different then the neutral logistics pilots interfering in Highsec activities that have plagued highsec combat for years? Why would you think this is a good idea?
Now, lets add Pilot D, your confused corp mate in a Logistics Ship. He first reps Vigilante B and extends the LE to him. Then, in an attempt to km ***** with the gun on his logistics ship, he accidentally reps Bad Guy A rather than shoots him. Suddenly, Pilot D is on BOTH sides of the LE. Then, he starts taking damage so you rep him, and suddenly you are a legal target for both sides of the LE.... Here are the dilemmas:
How does the LE timer run down for each player? Essentially, the only fair way to implement it, is LE needs to become it's own entity, not attached to any key player.... Then, each individual player's actions would assign them to the LE for 5 minute intervals... This may not be as simple as you imagine...
How will this be used to AWOX? Since you are a part of both sides of the LE... how about I have you join an incursion fleet. As soon as a logi pilot reps you, they become a target for all parties in the LE.... They don't get any warnings and their interface doesn't inhibit them when they rep you, because such action won't impart a "Suspect Flag". So, without warning, they become flagged LE, and suddenly your buddies warp in and gank them. |

Despicable Rogue
1
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 02:31:00 -
[1274] - Quote
Grizznitt Malikite,
It seems that you continue to miss one key element of the proposed mechanism. That is, when Pilot C provides logistics support to Pilot B, he would acquire flags for Weapons, PVP, and LE, just like he would if he had instead fired upon Pilot A. Thus, Pilot C has made exactly the same "declaration" as you put it in either case. In no event is "C" providing such logistics support to "B" any more or less sneaky or underhanded than "C" shooting "A."
With respect to your Five Pilot example, just replace any repairing of Pilot B (Vigilante) by Pilot C with Pilot C instead attacking Pilot A (Bad Guy) directly. Thus, if "A" is no longer a "Suspect" or "Criminal" and Pilot C has no current LE with respect to Pilot A at that moment, then Pilot C could neither attack "A" nor repair "B" without becoming "Suspect" himself. Each logistics pilot could be given a warning (if the safety is not off) that he is about to enter into a new LE with a party when repairing the counterparty to an LE. Thus repairing the other side of an engagement would provide a new warning. If the second logi pilot ("D") ignores it, and acquires a second LE, the first logi pilot ("C") would then also get a warning when he started repairing the second logi pilot.
All LE timers would run down for logistics the same as they run down for shooters. I expect each pairing of cross-shooters in a small gang vs. small gang consisting of only shooters would have to track timers for each exchange. It should be no more burdensome to track this for logistics PVPers.
When I fly Logistics for public incursion fleets, before entering the combat zone, I like to test rep each logi ship as a minimum and, for smaller fleets each member as well. Prior to entering combat is a good time to sort out how the fleet wants to deal with unannounced war targets and criminals. The same would apply for LEs under the proposed scheme. Many incursion fleets will not rep unannounced war targets, to protect against AWOXing similar to what you mention. The same could apply for LEs. If at the very least Logis have test repaired each other and key pilots such as an anchor, then the risks are mitigated. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
782
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 03:00:00 -
[1275] - Quote
Despicable Rogue wrote:Grizznitt Malikite,
It seems that you continue to miss one key element of the proposed mechanism. That is, when Pilot C provides logistics support to Pilot B, he would acquire flags for Weapons, PVP, and LE, just like he would if he had instead fired upon Pilot A. Thus, Pilot C has made exactly the same "declaration" as you put it in either case. In no event is "C" providing such logistics support to "B" any more or less sneaky or underhanded than "C" shooting "A."
Here's an idea... .how about instead of these crazy transferable LE schemes, we allow you to click on a Pilot and select "Enter Limited Engagement" with them. If they are a Suspect or Criminal, you enter it automatically. If they are NOT a Suspect or Criminal, they get a popup asking them if they wish to accept the LE. This would: A.) Allow you to declare to a Suspect that you are entering a fight against them, thereby enabling you to rep his opponents without fear of going suspect. B.) Allows you to create 1v1 engagements in highsec without fear of 3rd party interference.
You no longer need a aggression tool on your logi, and we have highsec 1v1s.... It's win, win!
Despicable Rogue wrote: With respect to your Five Pilot example, just replace any repairing of Pilot B (Vigilante) by Pilot C with Pilot C instead attacking Pilot A (Bad Guy) directly. Thus, if "A" is no longer a "Suspect" or "Criminal" and Pilot C has no current LE with respect to Pilot A at that moment, then Pilot C could neither attack "A" nor repair "B" without becoming "Suspect" himself. Each logistics pilot could be given a warning (if the safety is not off) that he is about to enter into a new LE with a party when repairing the counterparty to an LE. Thus repairing the other side of an engagement would provide a new warning. If the second logi pilot ("D") ignores it, and acquires a second LE, the first logi pilot ("C") would then also get a warning when he started repairing the second logi pilot.
So, then we are back to the "are you sure" popups, and crazy aggression graphs where limited engagements that take on a life of their own because players can join them, leave them, rejoin them, and even exist as targets for both sides of them. Isn't this EXACTLY what CCP is trying to avoid....
Despicable Rogue wrote: All LE timers would run down for logistics the same as they run down for shooters. I expect each pairing of cross-shooters in a small gang vs. small gang consisting of only shooters would have to track timers for each exchange. It should be no more burdensome to track this for logistics PVPers.
I'm not sure you understand the complexity of an LE.... The last act of aggression, by anyone, starts the 5 minute LE expiration countdown. However, an LE can easily be extended for long periods of time by continued aggression by ANY party... You certainly don't want all parties trapped in the LE until it expires (exploitable), so each party must have the ability to leave the LE individually, 5 minutes after the last player aggressed them. Then, they can also then come back into the LE by assisting someone within the LE, and further complicate the situation by repping the opposite side. This is a very awkward and complex system.
Despicable Rogue wrote: When I fly Logistics for public incursion fleets, before entering the combat zone, I like to test rep each logi ship as a minimum and, for smaller fleets each member as well. Prior to entering combat is a good time to sort out how the fleet wants to deal with unannounced war targets and criminals. The same would apply for LEs under the proposed scheme. Many incursion fleets will not rep unannounced war targets, to protect against AWOXing similar to what you mention. The same could apply for LEs. If at the very least Logis have test repaired each other and key pilots such as an anchor, then the risks are mitigated.
In the current system, the "safe" setting and Non-transferable LE's mean your logistics ship CANNOT be coerced into an LE, or coerced to become a suspect. But your changes open up potentially exploitable loopholes or annoying popups in an effort to allow you to rep up a neutral that's being attacked by a NEUTRAL third party...
I don't see the point in changing it.
|

Dimitryy
Ever Flow Northern Coalition.
59
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 13:57:00 -
[1276] - Quote
Jarin Arenos wrote:So far I've seen no commentary on the effect this will have on mission runners. I know that this playstyle is low on your list of priorities (especially highsec missions), but this is a huge functional nerf. As it stands currently, if you're in a mission, and the network between you and CCP craps its pants, you warp out within 60 seconds, saving your ship from the whims of fate.
Post-change, your ship sits there like a lump and - if you're not heavy-tanked cap-stable - dies. So the new rule is "Cap Stable Overtank or GTFO"? No more blitzing missions in my AF unless I live next-door to CCP? This can't be the intention of this change...
You still ewarp with new changes, you just don't vanish. |

Dimitryy
Ever Flow Northern Coalition.
59
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 14:00:00 -
[1277] - Quote
Harkin Tanith wrote:well idk what to say i think its a bad move ppl play eve to be free an this is takn a hugh bite outta every1s fun im not a pvp or a rat im as care bear as they come but these changes r over the top high sec needed to be somewhat open to pc ratters an gankers it was great the way it wuz but i guess the cry babyGÇÖs got more rules put in to protect them from there laziness an incompetence. this is going to make high sec a cluster F&ck off epic scale
CCP u wanna FIX somthing thats ruining or game?? stop the botters they r a hugh problem and there controling the market but in stead the "fix" stuff that is fine to the xtrem
flagged 4 killn npc pirates??? wtf I always thought rats were bad now they got there own protection plan lol every1 n highsec will b flagged can u say flag chained? k 1 last question i fly by a person who is flaged he explodes and the flag gets stuck n my knee who gets flaged ?
Harkin Tanith for CSM
|

C11de
Corpus Mono
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 16:37:00 -
[1278] - Quote
Can't wait to fry some uncooked bacon. 
edit: and oh, I think this change is gonna be epic CCP |

Despicable Rogue
2
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 13:19:00 -
[1279] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Here's an idea... .how about instead of these crazy transferable LE schemes, we allow you to click on a Pilot and select "Enter Limited Engagement" with them. If they are a Suspect or Criminal, you enter it automatically. If they are NOT a Suspect or Criminal, they get a popup asking them if they wish to accept the LE. This would: A.) Allow you to declare to a Suspect that you are entering a fight against them, thereby enabling you to rep his opponents without fear of going suspect. B.) Allows you to create 1v1 engagements in highsec without fear of 3rd party interference. You no longer need a aggression tool on your logi, and we have highsec 1v1s.... It's win, win!
Let's suppose that a dozen ships attempt to suicide gank an orca in high security space. A pair of logis from a currently neutral corporation(s) see this and decided to transfer sheilds to the Orca pilot. It is unyieldy for those pilots to attack each of the 12 "Criminals" first (perhaps with their drones) then get to transfer shields to the Orca without becoming "Suspect". Instead, it would be better if the logis (assuming all safeties are on) get asked do you want to enter LEs with 12 pilots vs. being asked do you want to be Suspect and become a valid target for every pilot in Eve. Of course the Logis could just have the safety regarding LEs off.
I am not opposed to having another way to enter an LE such as you suggest.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: So, then we are back to the "are you sure" popups, and crazy aggression graphs where limited engagements that take on a life of their own because players can join them, leave them, rejoin them, and even exist as targets for both sides of them. Isn't this EXACTLY what CCP is trying to avoid....
I'm not sure you understand the complexity of an LE.... The last act of aggression, by anyone, starts the 5 minute LE expiration countdown. However, an LE can easily be extended for long periods of time by continued aggression by ANY party... You certainly don't want all parties trapped in the LE until it expires (exploitable), so each party must have the ability to leave the LE individually, 5 minutes after the last player aggressed them. Then, they can also then come back into the LE by assisting someone within the LE, and further complicate the situation by repping the opposite side. This is a very awkward and complex system.
The only burden of any popups (if safety is on) is on the Logi pilot. If LE safety is off, there is no additional burden. Again, it would be better if the logis (assuming all safeties are on) get asked do you want to enter LEs with 12 pilots vs. being asked do you want to be Suspect and become a valid target for every pilot in Eve.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: In the current system, the "safe" setting and Non-transferable LE's mean your logistics ship CANNOT be coerced into an LE, or coerced to become a suspect. But your changes open up potentially exploitable loopholes or annoying popups in an effort to allow you to rep up a neutral that's being attacked by a NEUTRAL third party...
The proposed system would provide the same protections to the logi pilots and the extra popups can be turned off if desired and the logi is no worse off. You mention coersion or exploitable loopholes, but all the examples you mentioned were logically refuted at some length. If you feel I missed one, let's chat about it. I'm covering thwarting "Criminals" by using logistics instead of guns. "Criminals" are not neutral. They are the public enemies.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I don't see the point in changing it.
I would expect a lot of suicide gankers would agree with you. But think of the sweet tears. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
789
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 14:20:00 -
[1280] - Quote
Despicable Rogue wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Here's an idea... .how about instead of these crazy transferable LE schemes, we allow you to click on a Pilot and select "Enter Limited Engagement" with them. If they are a Suspect or Criminal, you enter it automatically. If they are NOT a Suspect or Criminal, they get a popup asking them if they wish to accept the LE. This would: A.) Allow you to declare to a Suspect that you are entering a fight against them, thereby enabling you to rep his opponents without fear of going suspect. B.) Allows you to create 1v1 engagements in highsec without fear of 3rd party interference. You no longer need a aggression tool on your logi, and we have highsec 1v1s.... It's win, win!
Let's suppose that a dozen ships attempt to suicide gank an orca in high security space. A pair of logis from a currently neutral corporation(s) see this and decided to transfer sheilds to the Orca pilot. It is unyieldy for those pilots to attack each of the 12 "Criminals" first (perhaps with their drones) then get to transfer shields to the Orca without becoming "Suspect". Instead, it would be better if the logis (assuming all safeties are on) get asked do you want to enter LEs with 12 pilots vs. being asked do you want to be Suspect and become a valid target for every pilot in Eve. Of course the Logis could just have the safety regarding LEs off. I am not opposed to having another way to enter an LE such as you suggest.
In the situation you described above: A neutral corp of logi pilots attempt to save an Orca or Freighter from a suicide gank by repping the targeted ship.... Those logi pilots will NOT go suspect unless either that Orca/Freighter is a Legal Target for the gankers, or unless that Ocra/Freighter enter's a Limited Engagement with the suicide gankers. Since a Freighter doesn't have weapons, nor the ability to lock, a Freighter can NEVER enter an LE. The Orca, unless it attacks back, will also NOT be a member of an LE. As such, your logistics are completely safe while repairing that Orca/Freighter until the Orca stupidly shoots back. Then, if those logi's have their safeties set to green, when the inevitably dumb Orca Pilot does shoot back, those reps end and your logies are still safe.
Really, you want it easier for logies to Rep a COMBAT ship without going suspect, not industrials. A combat ship will return fire on the suspect, creating the LE, and thereby causing your logies to "go Suspect" if they repair that combat ship while it fights the Suspect.
Despicable Rogue wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: In the current system, the "safe" setting and Non-transferable LE's mean your logistics ship CANNOT be coerced into an LE, or coerced to become a suspect. But your changes open up potentially exploitable loopholes or annoying popups in an effort to allow you to rep up a neutral that's being attacked by a NEUTRAL third party...
The proposed system would provide the same protections to the logi pilots and the extra popups can be turned off if desired and the logi is no worse off. You mention coersion or exploitable loopholes, but all the examples you mentioned were logically refuted at some length. If you feel I missed one, let's chat about it. I'm covering thwarting "Criminals" by using logistics instead of guns. "Criminals" are not neutral. They are the public enemies.
I can abuse your system of Transferable LE's. Imagine you are a corp of Neutral Logi's that like to help out Industrials traveling through Niarja. I have an Itty V come through the gate, and attempt to warp off. Suddenly a Suspect lands on Grid, and opens fire on the Itteron, and gets "criminally" flagged. You attempt to apply reps to the Itteron, and a popup asks if you are willing to have the LE extended to you.
A.) You Accept... Suddenly, you gain a Weapons and LE timer from repping the Itteron. Additionally, a Bhaalgorn and 2x Vindicators that were on the other side of the gate enter system, lock up your logistics ships, and destroy them. You can't escape through the gate because you have a Weapons timer from repping the Orca. Why did this happen? --- Because the Iteron Pilot Twisted your transferable LE's to end up on BOTH sides of the LE, while carefully avoiding the Suspect Flag (as outlined in earlier posts). Once you repaired the Itteron, you gained the LE from BOTH sides, so when the two BS's enter system, they activate Remote Sensor boosting modules on the Itteron, inheriting both sides of the LE, and gaining the ability to Legally shoot your logistics. This is a loophole in your system... and I'm sure there are other creative ways to exploit it.
B.) You decline... If you're going to decline anyway, why are we having this discussion? The current discussion is on allowing LE to transfer to logis.
In short... enough of the lets repair Industrial Ships like a good old boy... That's not relevant because Industrial Ships shouldn't be in an LE in the first place... and if they are, something fishy is going on!!!
What I really think you are asking for, is a method to allow your logistics ships in to repair your buddy that's engaging a Suspect. A.) This already exists. Just shoot the suspect first. B.) What is the point in you bringing in logistics rather than +1 DPS? -- To give the Suspect an embarrassing loss mail? Noobship destroys Tornado (even though it had logi reps). -- To prevent all your losses? A single ship has a VERY hard time destroying an opponent through logi reps... and it's not like the bait ship will be a target for a bunch of suspects... they will be the target of ONE suspect. Furthermore, since EVERYONE can shoot them, I see no NEED to further imbalance the stakes against the suspect. C.) Bring a Falcon Instead.... |
|

Che Biko
Humanitarian Communists
125
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 21:55:00 -
[1281] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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. Based on this I get the idea that the EVE checks if the OP ("other parties in the LE") can legally shoot the 'assistent'. Why can't EVE then do the same in reverse, check if the assistant can legally shoot the OP, and then create a separate LE's between the OP and the assistant if OP are legal targets for the assistant Contraband Smuggling: Player Assisted Customs |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
794
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 22:03:00 -
[1282] - Quote
Che Biko wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: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. Based on this I get the idea that the EVE checks if the OP ("other parties in the LE") can legally shoot the 'assistent'. Why can't EVE then do the same in reverse, check if the assistant can legally shoot the OP, and then create a separate LE's between the OP and the assistant if OP are legal targets for the assistant 
They probably could... but why bother....
I mean, you can already jam out and gang up on a suspect... do you really need to bring logi's too? |

Che Biko
Humanitarian Communists
125
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 22:25:00 -
[1283] - Quote
Wether one needs to bring logi's depends on the fleet composition and the adversaries, I suppose.
I just would prefer a situation where any hostile action towards the OP has the same consequence, wether it is shooting them, jamming them, or assisting their opponents. I see no reason why assisting pilots should be singled out and get suspect flag, if the ones directly engaging the OP don't get one. If it is possible to create separate LE's, then I think the suspect flag is uncalled for. Contraband Smuggling: Player Assisted Customs |

Despicable Rogue
3
|
Posted - 2012.12.08 01:18:00 -
[1284] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite
In every case, the Logi pilot would be better off having the choice to join one or more LEs rather than simply becoming a globally attackable "Suspect" by defending the victim of an attack by "Criminals." In every case, the Logi pilot who is part of the LE(s) would be subject to attack by the counterparties of the ships he is repping. In every case, any additional LE "Safety" switching is the responsibility of the Logi pilot and only puts him in a better situation that becoming a "Suspect." Being a legal target for one or a few is far better than being a legal target for everyone in Eve.
|

Zetura Omo
The Association High Tech Hill Billie
3
|
Posted - 2012.12.08 12:11:00 -
[1285] - Quote
Would like to interject this aspect to Crimewatch and would like a Dev response!
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=179095&find=unread
|

Tomasu Saisima
Aurora Industrial Dynamics
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.15 00:13:00 -
[1286] - Quote
There was talk about the option to improve security status with officer tags. But i haven't read anything else about it since.... Any word on this? |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
811
|
Posted - 2012.12.15 00:20:00 -
[1287] - Quote
Tomasu Saisima wrote:There was talk about the option to improve security status with officer tags. But i haven't read anything else about it since.... Any word on this?
No new information yet... |

Rutger Gist
Lords of Larceny
1
|
Posted - 2012.12.17 03:26:00 -
[1288] - Quote
I'm pretty unhappy with this Crimewatch system.
I no longer receive a negative security status for looting wrecks. I also thought that salvaging another's wreck was also going to give a negative security status.
The other issue I don't like is that I must proactively change my status to "Suspect" before I can loot, instead of my looting triggering that status automatically.
The we still have the issue of Concord and now the Free to Attack from the "Suspect" or 'Criminal" status. If I can be attacked by anyone, than why is Concord still patrolling High Security space? Now there are two layers of protection, where before there was only one.
Concord should be severely limited in .5 - .6 space. Perhaps no more than gate guns and frigate response. Concord should be beatable as well.
I did not realize that Crime Watch would essentially end all crime in High Sec and push everyone out into low sec. EVE is supposed to be a harsh and dangerous place, it is not feeling like the place that I grew to love since 2004!! |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
822
|
Posted - 2012.12.17 03:54:00 -
[1289] - Quote
Rutger Gist wrote:I'm pretty unhappy with this Crimewatch system.
I no longer receive a negative security status for looting wrecks. I also thought that salvaging another's wreck was also going to give a negative security status.
The other issue I don't like is that I must proactively change my status to "Suspect" before I can loot, instead of my looting triggering that status automatically.
The we still have the issue of Concord and now the Free to Attack from the "Suspect" or 'Criminal" status. If I can be attacked by anyone, than why is Concord still patrolling High Security space? Now there are two layers of protection, where before there was only one.
Concord should be severely limited in .5 - .6 space. Perhaps no more than gate guns and frigate response. Concord should be beatable as well.
I did not realize that Crime Watch would essentially end all crime in High Sec and push everyone out into low sec. EVE is supposed to be a harsh and dangerous place, it is not feeling like the place that I grew to love since 2004!!
First off, when you set your safety setting to allow suspect or ciminal activity, it doesn't immediately flag you... It enables you to perform activities that would flag you....
After you switch your safety setting... you don't get flagged until you steal, or until you do something ot earn it... So I don't understand your issue with looting triggering automatically, because it does trigger automatically (once you turn the safety off).
And salvage was Never considered personal... and always open to anyone with a salvager...
As for the lack of sec status penalties... why is that a big deal? As for the Concord response time.... In 0.5-0.6, the response is 16-20s if you know what you are doing... why is that not enough time? |

Roman Grigoriev
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.21 06:09:00 -
[1290] - Quote
good system, but a crime must be crime always. not on concord territory only, but in lowsec systems too. for example, i know much ppl, that killing solo researches in warp holes, but they havnt a status "pirate" for that crime. after exitting from holes they are clean like sheeps. imo its must be fixed too - any terminate of capsule of "clean" pilots in any places must set a tag "pirate", not on 15 min only, but 15 days as minimum. yeh, its may be flagged a half of server, but its can take much money for newbee pirate hunters;) |
|

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] |