Current plan is that the bonus you get for killing someone is halved for every time you've previously killed that person in the last 28 days, with the "halved" subject to further balancing. That should prevent at least the most obvious exploit cases.

I don't think time is a big factor. We've proven we have time.

Rant

But the cynic in me insists otherwise, and it's being very insistent atm, if you get my drift. Not least of all because of all the carebear crying we've been seeing 'round these parts for...oooh, let's say the last 8-10 months. It would seem--again, I pray that I am wrong--that they've built up momentum.

Where's the consequences for killing faction aligned NPCs? If EVE really took consequences for actions seriously players wouldn't need to play the system to shoot at others in Empire space, the system would support such actions.

The felony/misdemeanor idea is dumb. The sec status change is dumb. The buying sec status with tags idea is dumb.

1. The inability to fight back, which basically makes the whole GÇ£suspectGÇ¥ flag completely redundant in highsec. This could be fixed by using the duelling contract system that was discussed during the panel, which would allow for some kind of escalation of the conflict without necessarily having everything be a complete dichotomous situation where you either have no semi-legal attacks ever; and everyone fighting everyone do to how quickly it would escalate of suspect flags were handed out as liberally as suggested.

This means that if you steal from a can, you get flagged GÇ£suspsectGÇ¥ andGǪ nothing more. End of story. You are now a suspect and a free-for-all target. You cannot do anything you couldn't do before, including shooting people. Since you are now a legal target, attacking you does not create any flags for the attacker GÇö they do not become suspects or felons; they are not legal targets for anyone, including you. You cannot fight back, because you would be attacking GÇ£innocentGÇ£ targets and upgrade yourself to GÇ£felonGÇ£ status and get death-rayed (or however the new CONCORD implementation will work). Essentially, being a suspect is the same as a GCC, without the CONCORD intervention GÇö you are, quite simply, dead without any recourse (aside from staying the hell away from other players). So: people will never ever get themselves flagged suspect unless they know with 100% certainty that they will dock up instantly afterwards, or that they can instawarp away to safety.

The alternative, strictly using this system, would be that anyone who attacks a suspect becomes a suspect. This creates a massive escalation problem: I steal your can (everyone can shoot me); you shoot me for my isolence (now everyone can shoot you); my backstabbing bastard buddies warp in because we successfully baited you and they shoot you, now everyone can shoot them. Suddenly, we have 20 free-for-all targets in the system just because I took your loot. No-one will come out of this alive and salvage prices will be reaching an all-time low from the massive increase in availability from all those wrecks.

One idea that was floated was to combine the two in order to provide some kind of middle-ground for the suspect and let him defend himself: I steal your can, and become a suspect. Anyone (including you) who attacks me, implicitly signs one of these duel contracts. If either one of us tries to bring in remote support, they'll flag themselves as suspects (so they won't come help youGǪ), and as longs as I can whittle down people who come to GǣsupportGǥ you by shooting me, I can stay alive. This will create a whole slew of new problems that we haven't fully thought out, but it at least gets rid of the whole Gǣsuspect = deadGǥ issue.

This kind of change makes it sounds like the wardec options will now have a "I DON"' WANT" button to opt out as well.

The new proposed agression mechanic is pretty un-eve as well.

How will it promote PVP in highsec? People will refuse to do it if it means going to a negative sec status. Only those that like flying around from gate to gate in shuttles or ceptor might like it since it changes nothing for them.

The only part of the new agression machanic that bugs me is the sec status hit for defending yourself. that alone will deter people from doing it.

On a plus side, Ship prices will decrease since less people will be willing to take the sec hit.

I feel like im repeating myself here...

There should be no hit....

Your already getting shot at by potensially 100 people depending where you are or how many see you. Mob justice should be enough on it's own.

S[/i]. Significant numerical superiority will be the most efficient counter for these changes.

It doesn't matter where you're going to pick your fights, because MeanGriefer has three dozens Guardians, and you don't. Good luck convincing your miner buddies to throw themselves into the fray, because much more often than not, the people with actual guns on their ships will be on my side, and not yours.

"Promote pvp." What a joke.

Here's the kicker - going into this preso, CCP Greyscale said that once Player A gets aggressed by Players C-Z, Player A will not be allowed to shoot his aggressors back. Yes, this is basically making anyone with a mere Suspect flag the equivalent of GCC, just without the sec drop and CONCORD spawn. Many people in the audience, including myself, collectively WTF'd and suggested that he's off his rocker... and he seemed a bit surprised at this reaction.
/T

I fail to see why performing a non-hostile action against a pod-pilot should be treated with more hostility than a hostile action against a non-pod-pilot NPC entity.

High-sec is not supposed to be a PvE-only zone or "consensual-only PvP" zone. Suicide ganking is effectively the only non-consensual PvP that one can engage in hisec - wardecs are easily evaded. There is no incentive to join a corp, and the way corp hangar mechanics work allows an entire mining fleet to be in starter/NPC corps, immune to wardecs, with all the mining ships hugging an Orca and dumping ore into its CHA. Nothing in this game, not even mining veldspar in a Bantam, should be free of risk. But please, tell me more about how HIGH-SEC IS SUPPOSED TO BE SAFE HURR

So you are using your editorial on the words of one player and not CCPs to formulate this conclusion and without any corroboration. Nice reporting technique.

War decs are going to have to be consensual? Where did that rumor come from? I saw one thread started with that premise. The devs themselves trolled the hell out of it.

Petty theft being met with deadly force from everyone, people who aren't even involved in the least otherwise, and the right to fight back being removed is about as ******* dumb as it gets.

It's an interesting system on paper, but when you think about it, it doesn't make any sense. First of all, if we take this whole white-knight thing into account, then the vigilante who comes to the miner's aid shouldn't be flagged to anyone when he interferes on behalf of the miner. It's like he's punishing a criminal, but in doing so becomes a criminal himself, and the friends of the original criminals are now white knights punishing the criminal who is also a vigilante, but in doing so they also become criminals, etc etc.

And now you have 40 dead people just because some guy in a Rifter stole 120 units of Veldspar from a bot. They might as well call this game Halmet Online if this is how it's going to be.

What we're actually considering right now, based on player suggestions, is to formalize the concept of a "limited engagement", which is effectively needed for both wardecs and some kind of duelling system, and carry that across to here too. To whit, anyone who engages a suspect becomes part of a "limited engagement" with the suspect on one side and all their aggressors on the other side, and any further interference by anyone else in that engagement gets a suspect flag.

If you want to go in this direction, I'll oblige.

Launching cans is abandonment, no different from throwing an empty cup out into the highway. High-sec is empire space; it doesn't belong to the pod-pilot launching the can. Therefore, all cans should be considered garbage. Unless of course the pilot jettisoning a can buys licenses from the empires that specifically allow him to secure his jettisoned property. CCP can decide what the fee should be, but I propose a simple X ISK per Y cubic meters system.

Oh, and in line with these rules, all NPC cans belong strictly to the NPC faction they originated from. Anyone taking from NPC cans should be subject to the same "suspicion" flag. Property rules are property rules, after all.

And how exactly are my semi-RP responses that concern player interaction with NPC entities irrelevant to a mechanics discussion in the context of an MMORPG?

I adjust my debate strategy to not go too far above the heads of the people I'm arguing with. What's the point of using high-end logic when most of the responses you get are "htfu gankbear"? Might as well hit closer to home and stick to things they understand. Luckily, mission NPCs are one of these things.

This proposal excludes criminal behaviour because it reduces aggression to two types: suicide and wardecs. Neither is a good platform for proper criminality. While it opens up for bounty hunting, it will not enable it because it immediately becomes pointless.

Well that's kind of their fault, isn't it? They have the tools, but don't utilize them. You can hardly blame the people taking advantage of that fact. Also, the MMO player and the "relax for an hour with some friends" demographics never really had any significant overlap.

Why should CCP make changes that cater to this specific player subset, instead of making changes that will bring in more pvper/griefer/sociopath subscriptions?

The mild negative consequence is that ANYONE can shoot you (at the risk of becoming PVP flagged themselves). Do that on the Jita undock and get volleyed by 200 people. The escalation over the old mechanics would be both good and bad, and there should be no problem with high sec belts turning into mass graves over a flipped can.

I also find it amusing that you're willing to justify that being unable to defend yourself when PVP flagged is a "mild negative consequence".

-Liang

What we're actually considering right now, based on player suggestions, is to formalize the concept of a "limited engagement", which is effectively needed for both wardecs and some kind of duelling system, and carry that across to here too. To whit, anyone who engages a suspect becomes part of a "limited engagement" with the suspect on one side and all their aggressors on the other side, and any further interference by anyone else in that engagement gets a suspect flag.

That kind of consequences was what I mentioned above. There should always be means for younger players to learn there is consequences, and that EVE is dangerous. Taking that away, will take away from the learning experience, and in fact in the long run those players might end up being very frustrated after X time that "all this time I played this game, and it turned out it's dangerous! How would I know?" etc.

They already get a warning message if they do something that gets you flagged, so what you're advocating is already in place.

What not to understand about the current message that pops up?

"WARNING, IF YOU CLICK YES THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE YOU'LL BE ****** SIDEWAYS. DO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE? YES/NO"

How fcking difficult is it?

Because Greyscale's initial position was people shoot the can flipper, he can't shoot back or he'll be concorded. :)

-Liang

Well, actually it is. The game laws apply to in-game conditions. The fact that two characters happen to be controlled by the same player doesn't alter their in-game legal situation. If you want to use those tactics put the characters in the same corp - no problem.

Doesn't need to be consensual, just needs to be limited

So can flip = flagged to everyone?

How the hell am I supposed to web my freighter alt into warp without being shot at by every Tom,****,and Harry?

+ it's a game mechanic exploit.

"Probably"

- We need to do something about Orcas but not 100% sure what yet

The change turns the concept of GÇ£I have wronged you, therefore you may take revengeGÇ¥ into GÇ£I have wronged you, therefore I have wronged everyoneGÇ¥ and everyone may take revenge - even if the original action did not affect them in any way at all. This implies that stealing is now a crime against the whole EVE universe, not just the theft victim - and therefore a GÇ£badGÇ¥ action.

And the general idea of security status loss for defending oneself when under "Suspect" flag is completely asinine. Once the shots are fired, the attacker has knowingly committed to a fight. Penalizing either of the parties involved just plain does not make sense.

Fair enough, I think you've won this deba...

...Wait, hang on. Will everyone be able to shoot scammers as well?

The issue is where you allow completely disinterested third party to get involved into something that should be an "internal affair", so to speak, between the thief and their victim. I find your saying rather appropriate - you can't code morality. This is exactly what the CrimeWatch changes are attempting to do by classifying an act of theft as "immoral" or "illegitimate" by allowing intervention by parties originally not affected by the theft.

We really like morality and all those real-life parallels, huh?

Well, okay, tell me this then: what would you do if you if you saw an armed robber pillaging your neighbor's house?

So, we're obviously lacking a vital component; a player-driven police force. This force would need to be highly-selective, and clearly visible to all. I'm not going to theorize on the selection process, and rights given, because this isn't really a features/ideas post. However, having a small, selective, clearly visible player-driven police force would be a better game mechanic than simply flagging a thief to the whole universe.

Stuff

CAN FLIPING GETING NERFED? i knew blizzard would buy out CCP and start ruining this game as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!! so if my friend drops a can of ammo for me and im not in his corp, i am red to everyone , thats just fing stupid!

*hovers finger on the uninstall Eve online button*

If person didn't know that +10 standing removes steal alarm then that person is not playing the game, just trolling.

I'm really starting to wonder if this is still planned for the next release at all? Has anyone seen anything from anyone at CCP on when this is going down?

Inferno is full of wardec and FW goodness. The bulk of the new crimewatch feature will probably come a bit later.