EVE Search - CCP: Major Can Flagging Oversight

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

CCP: Major Can Flagging Oversight

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Lysithea	Posted - 2006.03.02 05:23:00 - [1] CCP, adding a criminal flagging element to cargo can thievery is a great idea. I applaud you for that. But, you should have changed the flagging that goes with destroying a can in a similar way. Right now, if I steal from a can that is not mine, the owner can come after me. That is great. If I shoot someone else's can, Concord comes and blows me up. The crimes are similar and the punishment should be similar. If I shoot someone else's can, let them shoot me. If Concord is going to leave it up to the players to police themselves with regard to can thievery, the same should apply for can destruction.
Jared Flame	Posted - 2006.03.02 05:28:00 - [2] Edited by: Jared Flame on 02/03/2006 05:28:24 But then it would have to work the other way to "If i can shoot that persons can without concord killing me i should be able to shoot their ship" It doesnt work
Hakiem	Posted - 2006.03.02 05:31:00 - [3] Or if someone else's can shoots you and concord blows it up the owner sure is not going to be happy.
Lysithea	Posted - 2006.03.02 05:35:00 - [4] Originally by: Jared Flame Edited by: Jared Flame on 02/03/2006 05:28:24 But then it would have to work the other way to "If i can shoot that persons can without concord killing me i should be able to shoot their ship" It doesnt work Sure it does. You are not your can. CCP could easily change the logic. If you steal or destroy anyone's can but your own, the owner can come after you. What's so hard?
voogru	Posted - 2006.03.02 05:38:00 - [5] I agree, killing the cans should just flag you. You can already kill the can without concord by stealing the contents. This would be a blow to the ISK Farmers as we'd be able to kill their cans instead of dropping our own can and stealing their can, which flags us anyways. Problem with using our own cans is we have to wait 3 minutes for each can.
Defenzer	Posted - 2006.03.02 05:40:00 - [6] Makes sense. Why should shooting someone's can be punishable by death if stealing from it isn't? The punishment does not fit the crime. Blowing up someone's can should have the same flag as stealing from it, absolutely. Signed.
Rendill	Posted - 2006.03.02 05:55:00 - [7] Stupid idea. Cos then can killing could be done in inties etc, and people could fly around griefing miners all day long without fear of reprisals. In fact, only a grief causer would want this system.
Culmen	Posted - 2006.03.02 06:13:00 - [8] Originally by: Rendill Stupid idea. Cos then can killing could be done in inties etc, and people could fly around griefing miners all day long without fear of reprisals. In fact, only a grief causer would want this system. well currently a greifer in an inty can just swoop in dump it in his own can not much of a difference i say implement it --------------------- The ASCN Titan Screenshot Right Here
Kudikai	Posted - 2006.03.02 06:44:00 - [9] Originally by: Culmen Originally by: Rendill Stupid idea. Cos then can killing could be done in inties etc, and people could fly around griefing miners all day long without fear of reprisals. In fact, only a grief causer would want this system. well currently a greifer in an inty can just swoop in dump it in his own can not much of a difference i say implement it Exactly. The inty pilot can currently create his own can, steal the miner's ore, and blow up his own can. This suggestion doesn't necessarily create a new grifing strategy, it just makes similar crimes similarly punishable. I'd back that Lys.
HippoKing	Posted - 2006.03.02 07:29:00 - [10] 150km camping WCSing cansnipers! sigs of the 23/24/25 hijack just as well -eris yarrrr, i shall retake my sig -HippoKing Not a chance, our 1337 sig haXx0r sk1llz are too powerful! - Wrangler Ho-Ho-Hooooooo, Merry Saturday!11 - Immy Yo ho ho and a bottle of BReeEEEEeee.... - Jacques ARRRRRRchambault Stop spamming with "QFT" >:\|. - Teblin

Gorgonzola	Posted - 2006.03.02 07:36:00 - [11] What about the fact that you need to get right next to a can to steal from it but can blow it up from a long way away? Or the fact that to steal from a can you need a hauler to cause any real damage were as destroying a can with your uber pvp ship is an easy way to do the same damage? Give miners some chance pls.
Foobie	Posted - 2006.03.02 07:39:00 - [12] Originally by: Rendill Stupid idea. Cos then can killing could be done in inties etc, and people could fly around griefing miners all day long without fear of reprisals. In fact, only a grief causer would want this system. I totally agree. Allowing players to shoot each others cans will just increase griefing. ______________________________________ I am the governor of Rens. And yes, I inhaled.
Kel Shek	Posted - 2006.03.02 08:32:00 - [13] please give a reason why you'd legitimately want to destroy it, other than greifing. stealing it, fine, even though I jet can mine I can accept that as a possible risk, just as people trying to blow me up and steal my stuff as a possible risk, under the principle of piracy. wanting to blow it up outright has no legitimate reason that I can think of, other than ruining the other PLAYER's day. .. just remember that there are real people on the other side of these characters. (exception being a quicker way to deal with enemys at war, I can see that as being a reasonable and legitimate context to do so, if you can't already) ~~~~~ To see a World in a Grain of Sand And Heaven in a Wild Flower Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour ~~William Blake
bumcheekcity	Posted - 2006.03.02 08:45:00 - [14] The only legit reason, other than griefing would be that you'd destroyed someones ship in a war and you didn't want his buddies grabbing his can full of phat loot. Or perhaps for macrominers/isk farmers. That would rule so much. -- bumcheekcity
Grimwalius d'Antan	Posted - 2006.03.02 09:00:00 - [15] I find the whole idea of Concord blowing ships up and not podding the captain to be incredibly hilarious. They are ready to MURDER hundreds, even thousands of crew members, but not the one person that is responsible for the crime: The ship captain. "Whoa, he is shooting someone's cheap property! Kill his crew and destroy his equipment, but don't pod him, it's against protocol to murder elite pilots!" Griefing is to ruin a friendly game, which Eve is not.
nickycakes	Posted - 2006.03.02 09:05:00 - [16] its ideas like this that make ccp ignore issues that actually matter.
Malthros Zenobia	Posted - 2006.03.02 09:06:00 - [17] Originally by: Lysithea CCP, adding a criminal flagging element to cargo can thievery is a great idea. I applaud you for that. But, you should have changed the flagging that goes with destroying a can in a similar way. Right now, if I steal from a can that is not mine, the owner can come after me. That is great. If I shoot someone else's can, Concord comes and blows me up. The crimes are similar and the punishment should be similar. If I shoot someone else's can, let them shoot me. If Concord is going to leave it up to the players to police themselves with regard to can thievery, the same should apply for can destruction. No. Never going to happen, ever. Even half-asleep I can think up lots of ways to ruin the lives of people if i dont get concorded for popping their cans. Originally by: Istvaan Shogaatsu I'm probably one of the biggest Bush fanboys in Eve... This is like, Darth Vader, can't-reach-climax-without-killing-a-puppy evil. RAWR!11 Sig Hijack!11 - Imaran
Durvaul	Posted - 2006.03.02 09:42:00 - [18] Originally by: Lysithea CCP, adding a criminal flagging element to cargo can thievery is a great idea. I applaud you for that. But, you should have changed the flagging that goes with destroying a can in a similar way. Right now, if I steal from a can that is not mine, the owner can come after me. That is great. If I shoot someone else's can, Concord comes and blows me up. The crimes are similar and the punishment should be similar. If I shoot someone else's can, let them shoot me. If Concord is going to leave it up to the players to police themselves with regard to can thievery, the same should apply for can destruction. Here is sumadvice Don't shoot cans, Dont steal cans, Dont be an ass and u wont get owned mmkay? This Sig May Contain Voilent Messages that Only A Trained Spy Of Assassin Can See, mmkay?
Rendill	Posted - 2006.03.02 10:16:00 - [19] I'll reiterate, all this request serves is those wanting easier ways to grief empire miners. Even thought I don't empire mine (well very rarely) I'd be disgusted to see a change like this go through. I'm also embarassed to be playing the same game as those who suggested it.
Brastagi	Posted - 2006.03.02 10:26:00 - [20] For those agreed on shooting cans will flag you. This might be a great idea to "clean up" secure can that has been goddamn clogging up asteroid belts Isanamo belts for example. It looked like some tourists dumped their trash there without bothering to clean their litter up --------- OranjeKonijn. Obey the rabbit. OranjeKonijn. Obey the rabbit. OranjeKonijn.

Tony Fats	Posted - 2006.03.02 10:50:00 - [21] I think it's a great idea. Gives players the option of cleaning up the millions of abandoned secure cans in empire around belts and stations, and advertising long dead corps. My understanding is that cans take a long time to destroy. Its not like you hit it once and it blows up, right? So whats the difference between shooting it and stealing it. Nothing.
Malken	Posted - 2006.03.02 10:52:00 - [22] Originally by: Lysithea CCP, adding a criminal flagging element to cargo can thievery is a great idea. I applaud you for that. But, you should have changed the flagging that goes with destroying a can in a similar way. Right now, if I steal from a can that is not mine, the owner can come after me. That is great. If I shoot someone else's can, Concord comes and blows me up. The crimes are similar and the punishment should be similar. If I shoot someone else's can, let them shoot me. If Concord is going to leave it up to the players to police themselves with regard to can thievery, the same should apply for can destruction. remember how you ppl cried for criminal flagging of cans to be implemented and remember the cries when you got it. now think how much you will cry if this gets in.
bumcheekcity	Posted - 2006.03.02 10:56:00 - [23] I'd actually quite like the idea. It would mean solo miners would be almost forced to gang up, or go into corps, and you'd have to fly some basic protection around 1.0 systems, it would mean less mining in really high-sec hubs, and would lead to, hopefully, a slightly increase in mineral prices as slightly less is mined. Plus, of course, it'd be the ultimate tool against ISK farmers. Warp in, blow up ALL their cans, laugh Admittedly, it would also be a great griefing tool, but hey, you'd learn to adapt. -- bumcheekcity
BoinKlasik	Posted - 2006.03.02 18:56:00 - [24] Originally by: bumcheekcity I'd actually quite like the idea. It would mean solo miners would be almost forced to gang up, or go into corps, and you'd have to fly some basic protection around 1.0 systems, it would mean less mining in really high-sec hubs, and would lead to, hopefully, a slightly increase in mineral prices as slightly less is mined. Plus, of course, it'd be the ultimate tool against ISK farmers. Warp in, blow up ALL their cans, laugh Admittedly, it would also be a great griefing tool, but hey, you'd learn to adapt. have to give cans some real hp then...otherwise you would get hippokings omgwcs150kmcansnipers...and honestly thats just griefing. otherwise there is, just like the current system, too much of an option to go up jack the can and then swap the contents without having the cargo space (mayb force people to swap things to their hold before swapping cans you cant stack things in your own hold without having room for double the smaller stack anyway :/ it COULD be a interesting idea but way to griefable like people are saying. doh, I broke my edited sig :/ cries this signature was lacking pink, I'll provide it for you. There. Looks better doesn't it? -Eris Fixed it for you. Oh, btw, yarr! ~kieron Didn't I tell you? The damsel moved in with me, we're having a great time. - Wrangler The damsel may not be distressed any more, but how many times does the informant have to be silenced before he gets the message? - Cortes
Spartan III	Posted - 2006.03.02 19:07:00 - [25] Edited by: Spartan III on 02/03/2006 19:06:58 Please, don't waist CCPs time on things like this. Just be a little creative and you can realize that there is a way to pop someones can and concord won't come. Step one: Drop your own can next to theirs. Step two: Open their can and your can at the same time. Step three: Drag all the contents of their can directly into your can. Step four: target your can that has their stuff in it and destroy it. Step Five: Run like a .5. boy thats outnumbered ******************** Wolven Elite Guard is recruiting - join and get ready for some serious PvP and pirate smashing OMFWTFYarrBQPwn3d!!!11eleventy-one ~kieron
Vulcanlord	Posted - 2006.03.02 19:16:00 - [26] I'd like to see people of the same gang recieve no flag for blowing up cans, purely because when doing missions or complex's, you often blow up cans to keep track of the crap ones vs the ones you haven't been to yet.
Tourquemada	Posted - 2006.03.02 19:31:00 - [27] Stealing from a can is an act of theft, which Concord has allowed the owner to extract justice. Destroying a can is an act of violence(involving weapons fire), which Concord is chartered to prohibit. It's fine the way it is, quit griping so much!
Lysithea	Posted - 2006.03.03 01:51:00 - [28] This is what hap'd that made me bring this issue up in the first place: I was in a complex with 2 other players. In the hours we were there, we killed hundreds of rats and created hundreds of cans. As we started sifting through them, we realized most were junk and decided it best if we just destroyed the cans we didn't need. One of the guys shot one of my cans and CONCORD rushed in to blow him up. I didn't have a problem with him shooting my can... I wanted him to destroy it. Why should CONCORD rush in to protect the can I wanted him to pop? He should have been treated like a can thief and I should have the option to shoot at him if I wanted to. It wasn't CONCORD's business.
Tommy TenKreds	Posted - 2006.03.03 02:06:00 - [29] Originally by: Defenzer Why should shooting someone's can be punishable by death if stealing from it isn't? Let me explain the difference by way of two example, real life scenarios; Scenario One: A security guard observes a shoplifter in a department store. He calls for assistance and the store security team detain the shoplifter until he can be handed over to the authorities. Scenario Two: A gunman enters a department store and begins firing rounds into various store displays. The police are called and, for the sake of immediate public safety, they shoot the gunman dead. Hope you followed this.
Brede Cleary	Posted - 2006.03.03 02:35:00 - [30] Originally by: Lysithea CCP, adding a criminal flagging element to cargo can thievery is a great idea. I applaud you for that. But, you should have changed the flagging that goes with destroying a can in a similar way. Right now, if I steal from a can that is not mine, the owner can come after me. That is great. If I shoot someone else's can, Concord comes and blows me up. The crimes are similar and the punishment should be similar. If I shoot someone else's can, let them shoot me. If Concord is going to leave it up to the players to police themselves with regard to can thievery, the same should apply for can destruction. Ok, I agree. The punishment should be similar. So if you steal from my can then let's have Concord come in and blow you up.

Seradhin	Posted - 2006.03.03 03:29:00 - [31] So far from what I have read in this thread I see only 2 legitmate reasons for implementing this change, both of these could be resolved by other changes which would avoid the widespread possibilities of griefing etc the suggested change would introduce. Firstly people wanting to clear up the huge mass of abandoned secure cans in belts, wouldn't a more sensible solution be to change it so that secure cans auto unanchor after an extended period of being unused, ie not opened, had items added or remove. If this time was say 1-3 months or that sort of figure it would allow truly abandoned cans to be tidied but shouldn't have any major impact on legitimate users play time. Secondly people who want to be able to destroy cans when ratting with others, a simple solution to this would be to change it so that concord doesn't intervene when the can belongs to an active gang member, since I'm guessing the majority of people in this situation are ganged with the other players they are ratting with. These measures would address the concerns of people raised here but leave far less scope for abuse than blanket removing of the concord response when destroying a can.
Filan	Posted - 2006.03.03 03:50:00 - [32] how about include cans as war targets? so quiet miners in NPC corps still have their cans protected by concord but someone in a player corp that is at war has to protect their cans as disrupting of resources is a valid war tactic. Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bps, ty - Cortes
Yaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr	Posted - 2006.03.03 03:58:00 - [33] Quote: Sure it does. You are not your can. CCP could easily change the logic. If you steal or destroy anyone's can but your own, the owner can come after you. What's so hard? Oooo I can make Broad Sweeping statements about topics that i have barely any understanding of too! See! Genetistists can EASILY design a human with wings and a cats tail, all they have to do is move a couple of ammino acids around. What's so hard? Do some legit research into AI design and programming some Game Development stuff too. Then come back. Till then, someone buy this guy a clue.
Cade Morrigan	Posted - 2006.03.03 04:02:00 - [34] Yeah, that sounded sooo tough to code there Yaaarrrrrrrrwtf
Daddy's Belt	Posted - 2006.03.03 04:20:00 - [35] Originally by: Grimwalius d'Antan I find the whole idea of Concord blowing ships up and not podding the captain to be incredibly hilarious. They are ready to MURDER hundreds, even thousands of crew members, but not the one person that is responsible for the crime: The ship captain. "Whoa, he is shooting someone's cheap property! Kill his crew and destroy his equipment, but don't pod him, it's against protocol to murder elite pilots!" Ships having crews was a dumb story idea anyway. No one REALLY believes that there are crews on our ships.
Tevrai	Posted - 2006.03.03 05:39:00 - [36] Here's my view. I don't like the idea: A. When a person steals your ore, you have a chance to get the ore back. The "product" has not been destroyed, it can be retrieved. B. When someone destroys your can, it is impossible to get your "product" back. It's gone, period. So, I do not think the response should be the same because they really are two different scenarios. Asteroid death dealer, they never saw it coming!
Lysithea	Posted - 2006.03.03 06:56:00 - [37] Edited by: Lysithea on 03/03/2006 06:56:34 Originally by: Yaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Quote: Sure it does. You are not your can. CCP could easily change the logic. If you steal or destroy anyone's can but your own, the owner can come after you. What's so hard? Oooo I can make Broad Sweeping statements about topics that i have barely any understanding of too! See! Genetistists can EASILY design a human with wings and a cats tail, all they have to do is move a couple of ammino acids around. What's so hard? Do some legit research into AI design and programming some Game Development stuff too. Then come back. Till then, someone buy this guy a clue. Ummm... I'm a Project Manager for a software development company. I got there after years of writing code for a living. Maybe you should shut YOUR mouth before making any general assumptions. Nice flaming alt btw.
Captain Deathbringer	Posted - 2006.03.03 07:07:00 - [38] With regard to the loot cans that contain rubbish after doing a complex or mission, why not after checking them just rename them "junk" then use the overview to go to the unchecked cans. Works for me.
Semblence	Posted - 2006.03.03 11:57:00 - [39] (1) I don't remember can-destruction as being a particularly prevalent form of griefing before can-flagging was introduced. Perhaps someone could take up the challenge and post a link to a pre-RMR whinge? (2) You get CONCORDOKEN for activating any aggressive module on a can, even if it would not result in the can being destroyed, e.g. (my personal favourite), warp-scrambling a can. (it's not like the can is going to warp anywhere is it..?)
Lord WarATron	Posted - 2006.03.03 12:15:00 - [40] Edited by: Lord WarATron on 03/03/2006 12:15:51 Ok so what happens if Apoc With all mods to give it 150km range with tach, and 7 WCS. Aligns with safespot, doing driveby sniper greifing on miners by blowing up their jetcan? A new form of high sec piracy. "If your can is not Blue (with standing) I will shoot it" To stop this happening, CCP made can destruction a Concord offence. --- Slot 10 Akemons Modified 'Noble'Zet 5000 implant +8% Armour FREE

Semblence	Posted - 2006.03.03 12:37:00 - [41] Yes but my point is that drive-by can destruction rarely happened as a form of griefing. Hence the challenge to find a pre-RMR whinge on these forums along the lines of: "I'm fed up with apocs killing my cans when I'm mining", because I don't remember it happening. I agree it could happen but it probably won't. After all, it's a particularly dull form of griefing compared to can switching. The point of can switching is to make the unaware miner take from the griefer's can so the griefer can shoot the miner's ship. Shooting the miner's cans is dull dull dull, from a griefer's point of view. And easily defeated by the miners (even farmers are smart enough to only transfer their ore when the hauler is ready to come and get it.)
Sable Schroedinger	Posted - 2006.03.03 12:39:00 - [42] yawn there people go again, describing things as "griefing" just because they don't like it. yeah, I know, lets have all can thieves concorded, cos they're griefers too!!! -------------------------------------------- Nothing is as cruel as the righteousness of innocents
Grash Freedom	Posted - 2006.03.03 12:43:00 - [43] Not a good idea imo maybe if you shoot the can the owner gets kill rights on you, thats good but shooting the can and just get red to him no no no
Snake Jankins	Posted - 2006.03.03 13:03:00 - [44] Like others said, not a good idea. Would be abused just to annoy people or make them leave. e.g. with a sniping BS. Catching a sniper needs some effort and I don't think that you want to do deal with them in 1.0. E.g. one could use a cruise raven, fit 5 wcs, fire 6 cruise missiles from 200km, shout 'Heya, watch out for the cruise !', have a laugh, when 6 cans explode and dock. Do you want that ? ___________ 'Only ships can be assembled, this is a Frigate.'
Tommy TenKreds	Posted - 2006.03.03 13:29:00 - [45] Personally, I think anyone who so much as farts in Empire should get Concordokkened. That would sure keep gameplay interesting.
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2006.03.03 13:37:00 - [46] Edited by: Maya Rkell on 03/03/2006 13:37:45 Originally by: Foobie Originally by: Rendill Stupid idea. Cos then can killing could be done in inties etc, and people could fly around griefing miners all day long without fear of reprisals. In fact, only a grief causer would want this system. I totally agree. Allowing players to shoot each others cans will just increase griefing. Shrug. Comparative crime, comparative punishment. Why do people have such a fear of consistant behavior... And... hands Tommy a plate of beans Digital Communist> The Jin-Mei are probably more profficient in training for Tofu and Noodles than Spaceship Command
Yarek Balear	Posted - 2006.03.03 13:38:00 - [47] WTB: Tech2 PLUG !!! On topic - don't agree with the OP - shooting cans is an aggressive act and should be responded to accordingly, depending on the system. Don't create means for people to grief miners... We have the war system for that :P
Tommy TenKreds	Posted - 2006.03.03 13:47:00 - [48] Originally by: Filan how about include cans as war targets? so quiet miners in NPC corps still have their cans protected by concord but someone in a player corp that is at war has to protect their cans as disrupting of resources is a valid war tactic. That's really sensible IMO. In fact, it's one of those gameplay points that you would expect to already be implemented. /signed
Luther Kincaid	Posted - 2006.03.03 13:51:00 - [49] Would you apply this to secure cans aswell? hmmm blowing up peoples secure cans would prolly improve server performance.. ------------------------------------------- sig space for hire,the fee is merely your soul and a buttload of pain warning, this sigspace is fitted with T2 antihijack technology Too bad we have Jove technology then, cause this was no match for us - Wrangler I have already won the thread, end of forum boss respawns when Kieron says so - Cortes - - Imaran
Grisham	Posted - 2006.03.03 14:10:00 - [50] I agree with the number of secure cans littered around systems these days. It never used to be anything like it is now. Though at the same time I remember having three secure cans deployed before I took a break in August ... can't remember where I left them :p Some way to locate old cans and auto-destruct them if you can't be bothered to retrieve them might be an idea. Losing ancoured status after 3 months of being deployed might be another way of doing it ... can't think through all the drawbacks of that one though.



Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.