That's what we said about FW too. How did that turn out? What makes you think this time will be different?

My 5 cents, sorry about Engrish:

- Technically, create a templated item called Kill Right. This item will have GÇ£targetPlayerIdGÇ¥, GÇ£iskAmountGÇ¥ and GÇ£expirationDateGÇ¥ fields;

- When a ship is destroyed that would give a kill right, the system takes the ISK amount lost and divide proportionally with every player involved with the kill, by damage caused to the target. Number of players should have a hard max limit to avoid 1000 players doing 10 damage each to a ship and a creation of 1000 kill rights;

- Of course CCP will have to use some kind of less exploitable ISK value calculator, to avoid market manipulation. I think they are working on it;

- The system creates one Kill Right item for each attacker and delivers somehow to the killed player. Maybe drop it at your home station, claimable, I donGÇÖt know how;

- This kill right item would be a consumable that can be used several times. When you use this item, you gain one of the following, to be decided which implementation is better:

1- Every time that the kill right target is at the same space pocket that you are, they automagically get a suspect flag. Everyone can attack (reusing flag system, without 1x1 flags);

2- You gain a 1x1 flag against the target. Only you or corp can attack;

- When the ship of the target of kill right is destroyed, the system check everyone involved in the kill and discount the ISK amount from every Kill Right item. The item vanishes after X days or ISK amount <= 0. This is problematic, I still donGÇÖt think of an easy way to GÇ£findGÇ¥ every Kill Right item owned by the players involved with the kill. Maybe the suspect flag could store the original Kill Right item id;

- As other templated items, only tradable by Contracts. Implement new search fields to search by target name and ISK amount.

Hint part:

Total fail of fail boat highlights part 2:
People are not supposed to get any global criminal flags (or suspect flags as you put it) randomly and without warning just for the kicks. If bounty hunters have accepted contract and have the derived kill right that is well enough for bounty hunting feature. Leave the flagging to crime watch and actual in game events what take place when the fight is on.

First of all, how is getting blown up by CONCORD not a consequence?

Now, let's make some comparisons:

The gank victim has situational awareness (local, d-scan, standings for known ganking characters/corporations) as a warning mechanism. The ganker doesn't, because instead of select people (usually outlaws flying destroyers), he is susceptible to engagement from anyone.

The gank victim receives an insurance payout. The ganker does not, and also loses security status.

The gank victim has a chance of losing his ship, because not all ganks are successful. The ganker is guaranteed to lose his ship to CONCORD.

The gank victim is engaged by a limited amount of people. The ganker can be engaged by everyone in the system.

The gank victim is able to deter ganks by fitting a tank, or not carrying too much stuff in a single load. The ganker can't deter assault through kill rights because all factors, such as the kill right cost, are out of his control.

The gank victim only takes a loss if the gank is successful. The ganker receives all of his losses and penalties up front, the instant he fires his first shot.

After looking at these comparisons, are you still willing to claim that the ganker is not getting equal treatment, or in fact worse treatment, than his victim?

Your attitude is literally poison for this game.

Smartbombs are an exception for ganking barges, so I wasn't entirely accurate in my reply. I was really thinking of smartbombs in relation to gates and stations, where you can find profitable haulers.

Good news: it already has that many. It already supports all play styles, and CCP does indeed fully support all of them GÇö ganking and scamming included. It is also a PvP game, so if non-pvp players are looking for a safe environment, they should probably look at the X series instead.

No body that logs on is an innocent and everybody catches a beat from time to time. It will never change, and it shouldn't. This game would be entirely different if it did.

If there are no consequences, it's because the victims choose to make it so. They have the power to enforce or void the consequences built into the system, and if they choose the latter, it's hardly the system's fault.

No, we really don't. What we need is for the carebears in question to stop assuming things that are not true and learn how the game works so they can start making intelligent and informed decisions. This game doesn't need to get rid of GÇ£nasty scamming stuffGÇ¥ any more than Counter Strike needs to get rid of GÇ£nasty face-shooting stuffGÇ¥: just because there are fresh produce around on CS_Italy and just because farmville has a massive audience doesn't mean that CS needs to protect people from being shot in the face while they sort melons.

Source?

What you don't seem to appreciate and where we diverge is, I believe a game cannot be both. It cannot be a systematically cyclical, open world, economically sustainable player interaction-centric (thus pvp) game, and also have nice little neat corners were people can feel warm and safe and not participate with the other in forever. You are asking lions to lay down with sheep.

The people that quit after their first big loss, cannot be successful EVE players, they know it, and we know it. Its not that big of a deal, they'll find other games that suit them.

GǪif by escalated you mean remained the same as ever, yes: EVE, like all games, is something you need to learn how it works. If you choose not to and then gets confused about it not working like you assumed for no reason whatsoever that it would work, then the problem lies with your assumption, not with the game. Your operating on incorrect guesswork is not a reason to change the game to make your guesses correct GÇö it's a reason for you to stop guessing.

No. I'm asking you for a source.

GǪand that is relevant, how, exactly? Aside from showing that you're fond of making assumptions that don't quite pan out, I meanGǪ

So that's even more assumptions then, and pretty silly and uninformative ones at that. Goodie.

Let's pretend I'm Joe ******* who shot a guy to death in his mackinaw. Let's pretend Joe Space Popsicle put up his killright for public sale. Let's pretend I go to Jita. I undock, some lone guy activates the killright.

Are you going to tell me that everyone else who's now suddenly shooting me are "in a fleet" with "the bountyhunter"?

I take it you've never seen this, then.

For instance, removing the sandbox from EVE would have the servers shut down in very short order. Reducing gameplay and supporting fewer play styles is not a good way to go for this kind of game.

I don't terribly mind the front-loading of consequences in high sec, but I don't think that should extend to lowsec.

Top tip: GÇ£assumptionGÇ¥ is something that is accepted as true without anything to suggest or prove that it might.

A game with its sandbox as its main selling point losing its customers if it cuts down on the sandbox is not an assumption GÇö it's just the market. Reductions in gameplay and available play styles are exactly that: cutting down on the sandbox:yness of the game.

Do us all a favor and link this "market research."

No, it's neither. It's made up nonsense.

It's not a reason to remove or even reduce the main draw of the game.

if you want to keep the sandbox, why do you want to remove gameplay and take away play styles?

There's no reason to travel AFK, so why on earth would you? Why would I? Why would anyone?

Well Villani, if you are stating this:



You need to back it up. What is your research material. How did you come to your conclusion? That sort of thing. Blindly stating something without proper evidence is kind of what Tippia said: nonsense. A lot of politicians are good at that.

Anyway, in regards to the topic at hand. I'm still against a bounty on everyone. I mean. Suppose some yokel puts it on newbies. The newbies won't get shot as they can't fly anything valuable. But the problem is that the bounty remains. So in order to remove it, we are going to ask new players to "oh sorry, some idiot put a bounty on you, fly to low-sec and have your ship destroyed X amount of times to remove it again"

It's just weird. Wouldn't it be acceptable for everyone to put a timer on the bounty just like on a kill right?

Nope.
And again, trying to change your customer base has been tried (and failed) before.

Clicking jump 20 times is a minute investment that reaps massive benefits

No. I'm using statistics collected from the current players to show what the biggest draw of the game is, since you tried to claim that it was based on assumptions.

Yes.
GåôGåôGåôD GÇö a number of keystrokes that can usually be counted on the fingers on one hand. It takes less than a second to execute. Depending on the ship, an F1 (or even an F1 F1) might be appended as well bringing the investment up to, oh, 1.2 seconds instead. That's about as minute as they come.

No. I take EVE. Do you have anything to bring to the table that isn't some insane troll logic strawman argument?

GǪwhich tells you nothing about what to do with EVE to make it live on and thrive. In fact, doing exactly what they've been doing has made it live on and thrive longer than most so far. What that survey would tell you is WoW, and WoW already has the WoW market saturated GÇö trying to replicate it means you lose, as every WoW clone in existence has shown. EVE has shown how to not do that and still be very successful. Moving away from a winning strategy and towards a strategy that has so far only ever ended in a loss doesn't seem particularly clever, now does it?

The fact remains: the GÇ£darkGÇ¥ side of EVE has consistently shown to be one of its main draws, as has its freestyle sandbox gameplay. So why would you want to remove and reduce those for something that has been shown on multiple occasions not to work well?

Stop having so many bulls in your house then and the problem will go away. Whether or not other players can't sit in front of the game for 20 minutes is pretty irrelevant. The fact is that the categorical claim is false (as categorical statements pretty much always are). If they want to waste time (and assets) on the auto pilot, then that's their problem.

I still don't travel AFK because there's no reason to.

No. I used the statistics to show what the draw of EVE is, since that's the point of contention. Inventing new games and inventing statistics for them because the reality doesn't agree with your wishes, and then trying to pin strawman after strawman on me is your game. It's not working all that well for youGǪ

Nope. There's no reason for me to do it, categorically or otherwise.

The simple fact remains: there's no reason to travel AFK, so why on earth would you? Why would I? Why would anyone?

It's not working all that well for youGǪ

Tippia why do you keep feeding trolls on a subject that has nothing to do with the threads topic?

Whether or not someone afk travels (I've only done it maybe 3 times in 4 years and died once) the killrights as being developed are fundamentally broken, with the dev response being what it usually is in situations like this: 'nuh uh'

Not trying to bust your chops my friend, but frankly 20 jumps is literally nothing in EVE. I've traveled further than that through hostile territory just to meet up with a group to START a roam...

No, it shows the point being made: that the things you don't like are the draw of the game.

Nope. I said I don't travel AFK because there's no reason to.

Nope. I'll cut you off to correct you in text as well as in speech.

You should probably look up the word categorical if you have to ask. And yes, I do: this thread and your numerous failed attempts at trying to get away from the reality of the situation by spewing out a a random assortment of red herrings and strawman arguments in your wake.

As far a greifing someone with an expensive kill right... interesting but extremely easy to avoid. Once someone starts their campaign of "terror" simply let them activate the kill right and then get yourself killed (with your own alt if necessary). That means that your stalker just paid a billion ISK to himself to give you the option of shirking the kill mail.

A valuable kill right is one that the target has no idea when it will be activated and will have a more difficult time setting up his escape from it.

Here. Why do you ask?

No. 25% joined the game specifically for the PvP. The vast majority joined for the interconnected sandbox GÇö something you're arguing should be reduced for reasons you haven't really managed to explain.

You mean like the ones saying that I don't AFK because there's no reason to?

Thank you. In return, you can keep posting strawman arguments red herrings, or any other fallacies you can think of to try to distract from the simple fact that the things you dislike are the draw of the game and that this has kept the game alive and growing for a decade, as opposed to the games that have tried to WoW-emulation route (and failed horribly as a result). I won't stop pointing out these fallacies, though, usually by interrupting you mid-sentence when you're about to embark on a new one.

I actually joined because I hoped it would be an online version of Frontier: Elite II. Turned out it was nothing of the sort, but it wasn't until I started joining player corps that I managed to stay for more than a few weeks, and it wasn't until I joined goons that I ended up getting hardcore hooked because of PVP.

Ok. Then don't try to introduce a new argument that isn't mine, or I'll introduce new statistics.

So, again: here. Why do you ask?

History doesn't bear you out. So far, safer highsec has led to people staying in highsec and demanding that it be made safer because it's so scary outside and because the increased safety has given them the incorrect impression that highsec should be completely safe.

I support them as well.

Something you should consider honestly though.

Do people stay with EVE long term because it has a basic mining simulation and industrial economy?

Or do they stay with EVE long term because they (perhaps secretly) enjoy the occasional danger involved with being part of that same mining sim/industrial economy?

Be honest now... would you keep playing if mining asteroids in peace was all there was to EVE?

For that matter, if your goal is to be far more than a humble miner, can you really become a hero if there are no villians?

No, you're confusing me with you again. My argument has been the exact same all along. Your attempts at trying to muddy the water with strawman arguments and red herrings is your problem and if you had stopped doing that, you would have noticed that the change in argument was of your making, not mine. That's why I'm asking you why you're asking about about taking risks in highsec. Since you can't answer, I can only conclude that you've managed to confuse yourself to the point where you no longer know why (or even that) you posed that question.

Such is the problem with straw men: you end up dizzy and short of breath since your sinuses are clogged from the acute hay fever, and you can no longer keep track of what you're doing.

You are right, it is kind of a shame... But you have to appreciate something....

The rest of the game, isn't made for the type of player that gets turned away by that kind of thing. Everything else in EVE down the road is going to stimulate a "i should just quit" response.

The player that will stay attracted to eve, gets destroyed after looting a can, and learns a valuable lesson from it. He puts together a plan to earn some money in belts, gets destroyed and learns a valuable lesson from it. The game is for people who are compelled to STAY and overcome new challenges when they experience adversity. The people that are compelled to leave when faced with it, are only going to find more of that down the road.

Why pretend/fabricate game features that promotes a notion that this game is something it is clearly not? Even if it is just to protect a noob for a little while, the subterfuge won't last.

One question which I feel is pretty pertinent to this whole ordeal of a **** thread: has hisec ganking/griefing increased lately since CCP feels the urge to tighten the screw more and more? And if so, why has it increased?

Why is that not a good thing?

Theirs nothing wrong with it honestly, not every video game has to be for everybody. This game is very much is aware of who its target user is, so naturally, it sheds more than it takes on in the new user department. But in my gut, i believe it has better retention in the long run as a result. Theirs not a lot of games on the market that can scratch the "EVE" itch.

AFAIK there isn't any 1v1 flagging in the system at this point either, it's 1vcorp, which works perfectly fine, CCP just needed to make a nice chart like they did for the new system.

Then why not make a small change to one aspect of the system that will turn it from utter crap, into one of CCP's crown achievements?

All they have to do is make kill rights result in a Limited Engagement between the owner of the kill rights (can be player OR corporation) and the target. That's it. If they were to do that, then every single ******* person would get on board with these changes. It would be the best thing ever. Literally.

No no no, you're getting it wrong. The LE concept is something they're actually introducing in the expansion to cover some other aspects of the aggro reworkings. I'm at a loss of words why they can't apply it to kill rights.

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.