| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jennifer en Marland
Shiny Violent Killing Toys
36
   |
Posted - 2015.04.29 19:33:15 -
[1] - Quote
This is a minor issue, but hopefully provides another reason to motivate CCP to overhaul Crimewatch, improve documentation about game mechanics, or both.
About 3 weeks ago I killed a Mobile Scan Inhibitor and a Mobile Micro Jump Unit in highsec; this only made me go suspect, just like when one shoots an MTU or depot. However, unlike those cases, I also lost sec status, and the owner of the scan inhib and jump unit got killrights on me. So I petitioned it; the sec loss was a bug, but apparently the killright is intentional.
The first problem with this is, this seems like a needless exception to a relatively simple rule - the rule being 'in hisec, going criminal is accompanied by killrights; going suspect is an isolated consequence'. I don't believe there's anything sufficiently special about jump units and scan inhibs, compared to other deployables, that makes it worth complicating the game mechanics by adding extra consequences for shooting them.
The second problem is...this isn't documented anywhere. Neither the Crimewatch devblog, nor the relevant deployables devblog, nor the deployables page on Evelopedia, mention the fact that certain deployables result in killrights if you attack them. So I had no way of knowing that the deployable owners would get killrights against me, and it wasn't possible to make a properly informed decision about my actions.
I feel this provides another argument in favour of overhauling/improving the current Crimewatch system, which already has issues. If such a change isn't forthcoming, I'd hope that CCP would be willing to remove the killright mechanic from shooting deployables in highsec; failing that, I'd request that the relevant devblogs be edited to include a clear indication of the consequences of shooting deployables. Meanwhile I'll see about editing Evelopedia to include this information; but I feel that making proper, up to date game documentation should be CCP's job, not ours.
Army of dolls stole all your perfect imperfections.
|
Madd Adda
77
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 20:06:50 -
[2] - Quote
Perhaps you shouldn't be shooting things up in High Sec in the first place. Sounds like you dug your own grave here.
Carebear extraordinaire
|
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
269
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 20:09:23 -
[3] - Quote
I would support this.
perhaps overhauling the whole system is more than what's needed right now, but the consequences of attacking mobile deployables should be consistent across the same size of deployable (personal in this case); either MTU's and depots need to generate killrights, or scan inhibitors and microjump units don't
also if these do generate kill-rights, it needs to be in the show-info section, I think, and at the very least, on a dev-blog.
tl;dr
OP has possibly reacted a bit strongly, but presents a valid point that needs adressing
EDIT: to avoid a double post:
Madd Adda wrote:Perhaps you shouldn't be shooting things up in High Sec in the first place. Sounds like you dug your own grave here.
hisec is safe for no-one, carebears included. just a bit safer than losec/null/WH
also, the complaint is not about the consequences as I read it, it's about the lack of pre-warning about the consequences
For posting an idea into F&I:
come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it.....
If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
|
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
176
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 20:48:12 -
[4] - Quote
So you're fine with going suspect, but scared shitless about killrights, which make you go suspect.
While I do not think crimewatch needs an overhaul, it is inevitable that it will get a pass with new structures rolling in, and that'll be sorted out. Raising the point isn't wrong, and making sure the said pass isn't forgotten is not wrong either.
I'm never against clarity, so how about Consequences tab in Show info which describes the consequences of attacking anything in space? Could really be a good thing, would explain newbies about lots of rules, if it is at least somewhat dynamic - that is, updates when looking up war targets or war target assets saying that it's ok to shoot them, shows that it's ok to shoot suspects if you are ready for them shooting back, and explains what consequences shooting different structures has.
And yes, afraid of consequences - don't shoot stuff in hisec.
Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.
If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.
|
Madd Adda
77
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 21:07:05 -
[5] - Quote
Quote: it's about the lack of pre-warning about the consequences
you shoot things owned by other players in high sec, , it's inherent you get a penalty. I always thought these structures gave out killrights, though mainly on its destruction rather than simply attacking. I say keep attacking a MTU and such a suspect act, but make the Mobile Scan Inhibitor and a Mobile Micro Jump Unit ( and such) destruction mentioned in OP a criminal act.
Carebear extraordinaire
|
Iain Cariaba
1323
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 21:38:42 -
[6] - Quote
Xe'Cara'eos wrote:hisec is safe for no-one, carebears included. just a bit safer than losec/null/WH
also, the complaint is not about the consequences as I read it, it's about the lack of pre-warning about the consequences
You have plenty of warning. You had to take your safety off green in order to shoot the structure, so you knew there wouldbe consequences.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
|
Icebears
ThinkTank Phoenix
Imperium Galactic Empire
16
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 22:07:57 -
[7] - Quote
Sometimes it feels like you are not reading the posts..
Being well aware of the suspect timer, shooting a Scan Inhibitor or MMJD gives the same Suspect timer as MTU/MD, but apparently also a killright which is otherwise only given through Criminal actions (again, he got a Suspect timer, not a criminal). Sounds more like a bug to me tbh. |
Humang
Awakened Ones
93
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 22:09:34 -
[8] - Quote
I can support this.
Consequence is enough that once you attack a deployable that is not your own, you are free game to anyone in system.
Kill-rights should be restricted to aggression of the individual only in my opinion.
AFK cloaking thread Summary - Provided by Paikis
Good Post Etiquette - Provided by CCP Grayscale
|
Celthric Kanerian
Ascendance Of New Eden
Workers Trade Federation
279
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 22:17:15 -
[9] - Quote
I fail to understand why you want this to look so fancy when you could have just written: Destroying a deployable in hisec should be more punishable" Cause it's pretty much the same thing if you simply boil it down a little. |
Madd Adda
77
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 22:26:03 -
[10] - Quote
Humang wrote:I can support this.
Consequence is enough that once you attack a deployable that is not your own, you are free game to anyone in system.
Kill-rights should be restricted to aggression of the individual only in my opinion.
"you are free game to anyone in system"
and how many go out of their way to hunt down suspect players? The consequences of going suspect are negligible when no one cares about a suspect enough to get into a combat ship and find them/fight them.
Carebear extraordinaire
|
|
|
Madd Adda
77
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 22:27:08 -
[11] - Quote
mistakenly quoted instead of edited
Carebear extraordinaire
|
Humang
Awakened Ones
94
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 08:10:49 -
[12] - Quote
Sorry, I meant to say I agree that there is an issue of inconsistency.
Jennifer en Marland wrote:The first problem with this is, this seems like a needless exception to a relatively simple rule - the rule being 'in hisec, going criminal is accompanied by killrights; going suspect is an isolated consequence'. I don't believe there's anything sufficiently special about jump units and scan inhibs, compared to other deployables, that makes it worth complicating the game mechanics by adding extra consequences for shooting them.
Or more specifically
Quote: 'in hisec, going criminal is accompanied by killrights; going suspect is an isolated consequence'
AFK cloaking thread Summary - Provided by Paikis
Good Post Etiquette - Provided by CCP Grayscale
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
937
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 09:10:59 -
[13] - Quote
Yes, this is silly. Make structures all generate killright or none of them. The latter is better for them to be conflict drivers so that would be my suggestion.
This is also a low priority problem. But I hope CCP takes note of this thread and puts it on the list of things to sort out when they release the new player-owned structure system.
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous
The Marmite Collective
537
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 09:31:03 -
[14] - Quote
Madd Adda wrote:Humang wrote:I can support this.
Consequence is enough that once you attack a deployable that is not your own, you are free game to anyone in system.
Kill-rights should be restricted to aggression of the individual only in my opinion. "you are free game to anyone in system" and how many go out of their way to hunt down suspect players? The consequences of going suspect are negligible when no one cares about a suspect enough to get into a combat ship and find them/fight them. At least with Killrights you can't run/hide/dock for 15 minutes to remove the tag
I go out of my way to kill suspects 
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Forum BFFL of Mo
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
9555
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 11:00:28 -
[15] - Quote
Madd Adda wrote:Quote: it's about the lack of pre-warning about the consequences you shoot things owned by other players in high sec, , it's inherent you get a penalty. yeah , a suspect timer, everyone and their dog can freely engage you for 15 minutes Madd Adda wrote:I always thought these structures gave out killrights, though mainly on its destruction rather than simply attacking. I say keep attacking a MTU and such a suspect act, but make the Mobile Scan Inhibitor and a Mobile Micro Jump Unit ( and such) destruction mentioned in OP a criminal act.
Why , what is different about these devices that warrants additional penalties?
Lords.Of.Midnight now recruiting
Steamy hot small gang action is waiting for you.
|
Solecist Project
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
22733
|
Posted - 2015.05.02 00:50:00 -
[16] - Quote
I fully support this.
KillRights for structures make no sense.
First of all isn't it a criminal offense ...
... and second are there so many structures out there already ...
... it discourages from removal of space junk.
DOES YELLING ANNOY YOU ?
LIKE MY IDEA BELOW AND I WILL REMOVE IT !!
Corpses4Drifters
CLICK THE LINK !! YOU LIKE THE IDEA !!
FOR EVEN MORE PLAYER DRIVEN CONTENT !!
|
Eadwig ofHelmsby
The Clown Shoe Crew
1
|
Posted - 2015.05.07 21:04:39 -
[17] - Quote
From the EVE Wiki:
Quote:This means that if a pilot has performed an illegal act of aggression by activating an offensive module against you, causing him to receive a Criminal flag, you will be provided with a Kill Right. (https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Kill_rights)
I tried it, shot a jump unit, received a suspect timer and a kill right. According to the wiki I should not have received a kill right on me.
o7 |
Madd Adda
84
|
Posted - 2015.05.07 21:59:36 -
[18] - Quote
Eadwig ofHelmsby wrote:From the EVE Wiki: Quote:This means that if a pilot has performed an illegal act of aggression by activating an offensive module against you, causing him to receive a Criminal flag, you will be provided with a Kill Right. (https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Kill_rights) I tried it, shot a jump unit, received a suspect timer and a kill right. According to the wiki I should not have received a kill right on me. o7
then the wiki is wrong and should be updated to reflect the true consequence
Carebear extraordinaire
|
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S
395
|
Posted - 2015.05.07 23:47:17 -
[19] - Quote
Agreeing with the general feel of the thread, that the actual consequences aren't the issue, the inconsistency is. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |