Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 20 post(s) |
Lexmana
Imperial Stout
260
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 07:55:00 -
[301] - Quote
Tippia wrote: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.
Nice write up!
But why is this escalation a problem? There would definitively be times where this might escalate further than you thought and result in lots of wrecks. But that is just fun right? That is what we want.
If the timer is short (say 5 min) this would resolve itself rather quickly too.
It just makes a lot of sense and no-one would be caught in this mess without actually committing an agressive act in highsec anyway. You have to actually opt-in. And everyone should know that shooting at someone is dangerous and may lead to an unexpected situation and a loss of a ship.
I like it. |
Liam Mirren
340
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 08:04:00 -
[302] - Quote
Lexmana wrote:Nice write up!
But why is this escalation a problem? There would definitively be times where this might escalate further than you thought and result in lots of wrecks. But that is just fun right? That is what we want.
If the timer is short (say 5 min) this would resolve itself rather quickly too.
It just makes a lot of sense and no-one would be caught in this mess without actually committing an agressive act in highsec anyway. You have to actually opt-in. And everyone should know that shooting at someone is dangerous and may lead to an unexpected situation and a loss of a ship.
I like it.
While it would be hilarious from the aggressor POV, it's too easily exploitable, have several friends in system, flip someone, wait till you get shot at, send in 1 person to deal with him hoping for it to escalate even more. I honestly don't think that just because you stole some corp's loot you should be flagged to everyone. That's like saying if you're wardecced anyone can attack you. Game mechanic wise it's just as silly. The can aggression mechanic doesn't NEED changing, there's nothing wrong with it.
Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
222
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 08:04:00 -
[303] - Quote
Lexmana wrote:Tippia wrote: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. Nice write up! But why is this escalation a problem? There would definitively be times where this might escalate further than you thought and result in lots of wrecks. But that is just fun right? That is what we want. If the timer is short (say 5 min) this would resolve itself rather quickly too. It just makes a lot of sense and no-one would be caught in this mess without actually committing an agressive act in highsec anyway. You have to actually opt-in. And everyone should know that shooting at someone is dangerous and may lead to an unexpected situation and a loss of a ship. I like it. 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. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
181
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 08:14:00 -
[304] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Xorv wrote:This 1000 times!!
Not only is Sandbox PvP being shat on, so too is Roleplaying and game immersion. Basically everything that makes EVE or any Sandbox MMORPG interesting, dynamic, and immersive is piece by piece being sucked out to provide safe predictable Themepark rides. Instead they should be doing exactly as you suggest and making ALL player actions and choices have meaningful consequences and give us a real game world to immerse ourselves in
Sandbox PvP, Roleplaying and Game Immersion. Big words for flipping a newb can [...] So, in EvE if you want to be a burger flipper you get to take a grenade in your eye in Nigeria and call it meaningful, immersion and consequences
I really don't give a **** about flipping a newbie can, I don't think it should be necessary to play the system like that in the first place to shoot another player without a CCP deathray annihilating you. WTF does a burger flipper have to do with what our characters are in EVE? Sorry your analogy is full on fail. What are EVE characters? They're powerful independent military based corporations built around an immortal, not one of the marines or a servant stacked in your hanger. Mission runners, Ratters, and Incursion runners etc murder millions of non immortals from Empire and Pirate factions yet that has almost no consequences, shoot another pod pilot who in all likelihood has little affiliation or loyalty to any Faction or CONCORD and somehow that elicits immediate and deadly response from Faction Navies and CONCORD.
Doesn't matter how you cut it, people like you have no real interest in making an immersive game world or having a real Sandbox game, you're just out to turn EVE into a full on Themepark game and another WoW clone. |
Vila eNorvic
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 08:17:00 -
[305] - Quote
Liam Mirren wrote:It's like this, if I steal form you you're allowed to shoot me but if you do so I am NOT allowed to shoot back. THAT is the implication of what they're "considering". Yep, that's the general principle on present-day planet Earth. Why should it be unreasonable in a far-distant far-future galaxy?
|
Rico Minali
Sons Of 0din Fatal Ascension
375
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 08:19:00 -
[306] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Velicia Tuoro wrote:New "suspect" flag - Minor crimes. Anyone can shoot you without penalty. - Flipping a can for example - Shooting someone makes you a suspect (I think) - Anyone assisting a suspect becomes a suspect - Not sure if gate guns will attack a suspect. Undecided yet. So you're basically saying that they're deviating from their course of gradually removing pvp from high-sec by removing it entirely in one fell swoop? Even a can flip duel will no longer be viable?
No, I think what they are saying is that if you commit a crime in hisec you get treated like a criminal and can be shot at. I reckon itll increase teh pvp fun of can flippers since thats what they are looking for right? Some pvp? Or are they just looking to shoot some low sp noobies who havnt yet learned to play properly? Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
405
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 08:23:00 -
[307] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: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.
From what I gather, that's not quite what will happen. I am assuming the round table reports and suggested course of action is what will be done, so I could be wrong too.
This is the walk through as best I can tell, and perhaps some wishful thinking ...
Jim finds a miner, Jim flips the miner's can. Everyone can shoot Jim BoobyNoob Boots tries to shoot Jim. Booby gets a message "you're a noob, turn off the safety" Meanwhile Galahad on his white horse comes along and takes a shot at Jim. Jim can shoot at Galahad, but now takes a sec penalty. (Good that Jim can shoot, but bad idea Jim has to take a sec hit IMO) Jim is still "Suspect" to everyone, but Jim and Galahad are now in "duel", meaning, anyone who reps either of them will also pick up the "suspect" flag.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
222
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 08:29:00 -
[308] - Quote
Rico Minali wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Velicia Tuoro wrote:New "suspect" flag - Minor crimes. Anyone can shoot you without penalty. - Flipping a can for example - Shooting someone makes you a suspect (I think) - Anyone assisting a suspect becomes a suspect - Not sure if gate guns will attack a suspect. Undecided yet. So you're basically saying that they're deviating from their course of gradually removing pvp from high-sec by removing it entirely in one fell swoop? Even a can flip duel will no longer be viable? No, I think what they are saying is that if you commit a crime in hisec you get treated like a criminal and can be shot at. I reckon itll increase teh pvp fun of can flippers since thats what they are looking for right? Some pvp? Or are they just looking to shoot some low sp noobies who havnt yet learned to play properly? Except as it stands right now, CCP isn't "entirely sure" whether they're going to let the can flipper fight back against anyone who aggresses them without CONCORD intervention/sec status penalty.
Also, as long as we're making real-life parallels, please list some civilized countries that allow you to shoot and kill a robber who is in the process of hauling a TV set from someone else's house (read: not your house and not your TV set). |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
222
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 08:35:00 -
[309] - Quote
Vila eNorvic wrote:Liam Mirren wrote:It's like this, if I steal form you you're allowed to shoot me but if you do so I am NOT allowed to shoot back. THAT is the implication of what they're "considering". Yep, that's the general principle on present-day planet Earth. Why should it be unreasonable in a far-distant far-future galaxy? Because even today's moral codes would be entirely esoteric to people who lived just five decades ago in the same country. To claim that morality doesn't change much tens of thousands of years into the future and millions of light years away quite possibly makes you dumber than our Glorious CCP Overlords (all hail Glorious CCP Overlords, I beg forgiveness for my insolence, all hail Glorious CCP Overlords). |
Diva Ex Machina
Son's of The Hammer The Methodical Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 08:42:00 -
[310] - Quote
Vila eNorvic wrote:Liam Mirren wrote:It's like this, if I steal form you you're allowed to shoot me but if you do so I am NOT allowed to shoot back. THAT is the implication of what they're "considering". Yep, that's the general principle on present-day planet Earth. Why should it be unreasonable in a far-distant far-future galaxy?
On present day earth the police aren't an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent force that kill you as soon as you do something wrong.
Aside from which, this is a game not reality, and what matters is what makes the game more interesting.
CCP I am pretty much a carebear and I have to say that making high sec even safer and dumber is NOT the way to go. There are already plenty of ways for players in high sec to look after themselves if they care to learn the game mechanics and take proper precautions. Catering to those who don't care to learn the game they're playing isn't going to keep them from rage quitting it's just making things duller for the rest of us. |
|
lilol' me
Comply Or Die Drunk 'n' Disorderly
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 08:46:00 -
[311] - Quote
Be interesting to see the full details. But you have to remember guys CCP are trying to bring in new players as well as fulfill the needs of the older players. Being constantlyu ganked and griefed by vets that cant pvp proper is going to lose them valuable players for the future, hence severely effecting retention.
There is low sec and nullsec (yes 2 massivee areas of eve) for you to pvp in. Get some balls and go there, instead of being lame and getting easy kills in empire on poor noobies.
Oh for the record i am bitter vet... so before you start crying poor noob player, |
Liam Mirren
340
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 08:48:00 -
[312] - Quote
Vila eNorvic wrote:Liam Mirren wrote:It's like this, if I steal form you you're allowed to shoot me but if you do so I am NOT allowed to shoot back. THAT is the implication of what they're "considering". Yep, that's the general principle on present-day planet Earth. Why should it be unreasonable in a far-distant far-future galaxy?
Because this is a game.
Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
Grumpy Owly
367
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 08:57:00 -
[313] - Quote
I really don't see the logical problem to the issue.
People want to see in the logic either an inability to defend, without Concord taking over, which seems an unfair overkill for the task.
Or they want to see a domino effect of "suspect" status being transfered. Which could be interesting.
What about the other logical argument, that only the person who actually commits the crime/missdemenor and gets flagged as a suspect is the only one who actually attains this status, unless someone helps the "suspect" of course.
As a result if anyone attacks a suspect to enact white knighting, then why not simply allow the "suspect" to have clear defence to aggress that person without Concord intervention.
i.e.:
Can flipper flips can > Suspect1
WK1 aggresses Suspect1.
Suspect1 can now aggress WK1.
WK2 aggresses Suspect1.
Suspect1 can now aggress WK2.
RR heals Suspect1 > Suspect2 ... treated seperatley but now open to attack by WKs or Suspects.
In this sense only those who deliberatley attack a suspect can be aggressed by that suspect but they dont become suspects themselves.
In this sense the Suspect or can flipper, chooses his battlefield carefully and likley wont be agressed unless there is a protective force already there or one close by to intervene, or the miner has to reship to do so personally.
The only potential disparity is the WK's can be RR'd without becoming suspects. But even their aggressions can be tied into each WK and their associated suspect(s) if needs be.
Of course how much this complicates what is meant to be a more simplified model is unclear I guess. But it is certainly a possibility in terms of no Concord or no cascade outcome? Unless I missed something.
The best alternative with a completely "suspect" model would be to allow it to cascade I guess. This would be preferable to a Concord intervention that as a result I don't think is intended for this category. That is why can flipping is labelled in the missdemeanor category as opposed to GCC. Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
222
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:03:00 -
[314] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote:As a result if anyone attacks a suspect to enact white knighting, then why not simply allow the "suspect" to have clear defence to aggress that person without Concord intervention. How many times do multiple people have to tell you that under the current proposal, the suspect will not be able to aggress the white knight without CONCORD intervention/and or security status penalties? |
Diva Ex Machina
Son's of The Hammer The Methodical Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:04:00 -
[315] - Quote
lilol' me wrote:Be interesting to see the full details. But you have to remember guys CCP are trying to bring in new players as well as fulfill the needs of the older players. Being constantlyu ganked and griefed by vets that cant pvp proper is going to lose them valuable players for the future, hence severely effecting retention.
There is low sec and nullsec (yes 2 massivee areas of eve) for you to pvp in. Get some balls and go there, instead of being lame and getting easy kills in empire on poor noobies.
Oh for the record i am bitter vet... so before you start crying poor noob player,
People keep saying this but what I want to know is are those new players going to stick around long term when level 4 missions start to pall and they can't sell what they manufacture because nobody is blowing ships up in high sec anymore? Ia a player who quits because he got ganked a few times really the type of player that will enjoy Eve long term?
Oh and for the record I am a noob player (five months still feels noobish to me) and one of the things that attracted me to this game is that it seemed like one that could keep me entertained for years just by virtue of the fact that it has complicated mechanics and a lot of people who would like to make ruin my day.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
402
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:07:00 -
[316] - Quote
Xorv wrote:Doesn't matter how you cut it, people like you have no real interest in making an immersive game world or having a real Sandbox game, you're just out to turn EVE into a full on Themepark game and another WoW clone.
Balls. I have played DFO and other pure PvP games. EvE is actually the one PvP game whose PvP I got bored the quickest (blobs, neutral reps, pocket cynos, lack of positional fighting, awfully BAD collision mechanics).
I just happen to prefer killing people who can fight back instead of throwing axes on the short bus guys to engross my e-peen.
This is the pure and only truth and does not matter how YOU cut it.
Because if PvP was really what you were after, you'd go where there's real PvP: low sec, WH, NPC 0.0. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Chanina
ASGARD HEAVY INDUSTRIES Viking Empire
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:08:00 -
[317] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote:As a result if anyone attacks a suspect to enact white knighting, then why not simply allow the "suspect" to have clear defence to aggress that person without Concord intervention. How many times do multiple people have to tell you that under the current proposal, the suspect will not be able to aggress the white knight without CONCORD intervention/and or security status penalties?
Maybe you should take is post more like a proposal. Sometimes devs happen do read some posts. I'm totally against the option of fighting someone who can't fight back. if i decide to protect my can (attack the flipper) it should result in a "normal" fight. The exception that anyone can join this fight (hole alliance not only just the corp the conti was from) sounds like a good improvement.
If they can't fight back the only thing that will happen is that they use noob ships to do it and continue their business without real fights just to annoy miners and co. |
Diva Ex Machina
Son's of The Hammer The Methodical Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:09:00 -
[318] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote:I really don't see the logical problem to the issue.
People want to see in the logic either an inability to defend, without Concord taking over, which seems an unfair overkill for the task.
Or they want to see a domino effect of "suspect" status being transfered. Which could be interesting.
What about the other logical argument, that only the person who actually commits the crime/missdemenor and gets flagged as a suspect is the only one who actually attains this status, unless someone helps the "suspect" of course.
As a result if anyone attacks a suspect to enact white knighting, then why not simply allow the "suspect" to have clear defence to aggress that person without Concord intervention.
Are you hard of thinking? That is exactly what people are worried about: that CCP have clearly indicated that the suspect won't be able to attack back. It has been said multiple times in this very thread by people who heard it from CCP and also from one of the devs himself that this is on the table.
Open your bloody eyes! |
Tsubutai
The Tuskers
74
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:12:00 -
[319] - Quote
Uh.... wow. Most of the stuff in the Crimewatch presentation was very nice, and I can understand the desire to simplify the aggression scheme (both conceptually and in terms of server load), but I have to echo the concerns expressed regarding a Suspect being shot by an Innocent player in highsec:
There must never be a situation in which one player can shoot another who is not allowed to respond in kind. |
Tarsas Phage
Pain Delivery.
56
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:17:00 -
[320] - Quote
Andski wrote:First and foremost, NEUTRAL RR IS A DUMB GIMMICK STOP WHINING ABOUT IT THIS IS LONG OVERDUE.
Now, my question is: how will these changes affect nonconsensual PvP? Specifically, suicide ganking.
The RR turns red in highsec once it reps someone you're aggressed to, you know. You can like, shoot at it and stuff to shoo it off.
You want to know what's the real gimmick in this game? Drag bubbles. So suck it, 0.0 smuggos. |
|
Grumpy Owly
367
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:20:00 -
[321] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote:As a result if anyone attacks a suspect to enact white knighting, then why not simply allow the "suspect" to have clear defence to aggress that person without Concord intervention. How many times do multiple people have to tell you that under the current proposal, the suspect will not be able to aggress the white knight without CONCORD intervention/and or security status penalties?
Actually no, the argument was about wether you would be able to defend against White nights who aggress you without the Concord intervention. Security penalties I stated as something that would happen however small or whatever.
CCP have yet to confirm this. Only players are making this assumption or reporting from a limited source it seems. I have no idea how trustworthy that source is.
Considering the only "official" evidence I have at this time is the Fanfest presentation where these missdemeanors would not invoke GCC or Concord in the process. There is nothing directly linking the fact they would do so due to being a suspect. That is what I want clarified by CCP.
To re-iterate however Concord attacking can flippers who defend against white knights is obviously not something I would like to see introduced anyhow. A WK making a "choice" to aggress should be able to be met with a defence. The interesting part I guess be the suspect flagging length and the fact he is flagged to more than just the offended parties. Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Jethro Winchester
The Logistical Nightmare
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:21:00 -
[322] - Quote
As far as can flipping is concerned I see no problem with the current system. If you are experienced enough to know what jetcan mining is then you deserve whatever you get if somebody steals ore from said can. In short if you don't want your ore stolen, don't leave it laying around. With the current mechanic if your can is flipped you have the option to retaliate, which you do at your own risk. If you want to jetcan mine safely have your corpmates (Oh, your in an NPC corp? Well then too bad.) provide cover while you jettison cans to your hearts content. If somebody DOES flip your can at least your corpmates can make sure he regrets it. Again, the way I see it the current mechanics are just fine, and if people were smarter about how they played the game they could avoid a lot of the 'problems' that the proposed changes aim to 'fix'. |
OT Smithers
Cult of Baal
119
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:23:00 -
[323] - Quote
Sounds fine to me. I can easily see it adding more PvP rather than less.
Love the changes to the KM's
Love having Logi and what now grab a timer. About freaking time. Maybe that will cut down the some of the carrier fagging in low sec.
I really love the tears from all the high sec can flippers and station huggers. Maybe they will have to learn some actual PvP.
........
I would like to see all profit removed from suicide ganking.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
225
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:27:00 -
[324] - Quote
Jethro Winchester wrote:Again, the way I see it the current mechanics are just fine, and if people were smarter about how they played the game they could avoid a lot of the 'problems' that the proposed changes aim to 'fix'. Three threads and thousands of posts might unfortunately mean that this is simply too much to ask of the generation whose general ineptitude is responsible for the health hazard warnings on plastic forks and styrofoam coffee cups. |
Liam Mirren
340
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:31:00 -
[325] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:I really love the tears from all the high sec can flippers and station huggers. Maybe they will have to learn some actual PvP.
I heard that hanging in Tama with a bunch of friends and some added gang links, waiting for a poor sod who's hoping to find solo action and then blobbing the living **** out of him is a far superior form of PVP (and yes, 6 v1 IS blobbing, in Tama).
I could have heard wrong tho. Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5745
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:36:00 -
[326] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:I'll tell you how it will promote it for me ... I don't have to worry about some guy warping in some neut repper or his silly orca alt - i'll be more inclined to fight, and more inclined to flip a few cans. He's not going to warp in "some neut repper," but he is going to warp in some neut repper S. Significant numerical superiority will be the most efficient counter for these changes. There will be no neutral reppers with this change. There will be reppers who are one of more of the following: a) free for all to shoot; b) locked out by docking timers (while being free-for-all targets); c) killed by CONCORD.
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Liam Mirren wrote:...So RIGHT NOW is the moment to voice your opinion. Actually no, not so much. The correct time is when the 'plans' are not on beer stained napkins but on the test server .. if you blow your load on every hypothetical you come across you'll die from dehydration. Actually, yes, very much. Now is when they're deciding what the design goals of the refactoring is and right now, that list pretty much consists of GÇ£get rid of one-to-one flaggingGÇ¥. This is the point in the process where we GÇö who live with these mechanics on a daily basis GÇö chip in and say GÇ£no, this reduction removes functionalities X, Y, and Z, and it's imperative that they remainGÇ¥. This is when we get the message across that other goals need to be on the list, and that we can see severe exploits and gaps in the system as proposed so far.
If anything, IMO, this is the exact opposite of Incarna: they're telling us something that needs to happen and why, and they're asking for our feedback on what needs to still be there at the other end and what issues we have that need to be fixed at the ground floor, rather than be clumsily patched in at a later date.
Oh, and Grumpy and Liang: as someone who was there for both the presentation and the roundtable, and who also took part in the discussions on the stairs afterwards let's make this clear: right now the plan is that flagging yourself as GÇ£suspsectGÇ¥ gives you no special rights. You are now a legal target for everyone. Attacking you does not make anyone a suspect. Anyone attacking you are therefore illegal targets, and if you try to shoot back at them as they kill you, CONCORD smacks you down hard. Directly from the devs' mouths. Also from their mouths is the only alternative with the current proposed implementation: anyone who attacks a GÇ£susspectGÇ¥ is also flagged a GÇ£susspectGÇ¥. You can now fire back at your attackers. The problem with this (and why they're reticent to do it) is that this will very quickly lead to a situation where half the system is flagged a free-for-all target. There's also the notion that, if people know they'll become free-for-all, they won't use the opportunity to shoot suspects, and that kind of ruins the point of having them GÇö it basically means highsec becomes an opt-in lowsec. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
921
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:38:00 -
[327] - Quote
Hey dudes, I see you made a lot of posts while I was asleep.
Ok, thing up front, here's how talking about things at fanfest works. When we do a devblog, we generally hold it off until we've got a good idea how we think everything's going to work, and then we explain our plan.
When we do a talk or a roundtable at fanfest, we're wheeling out designs at whatever stage they happen to be at. It's not the same as a devblog because stuff isn't always "done". I'll come back to this in a bit.
Weaselior wrote:Is this intended as a nerf to suicide ganking, or will the concord replacement allow similar amounts of DPS to be done before death?
Nope, not intended as a change to suicide ganking at all. Any CONCORD replacement will keep the same time interval as current CONCORD spawns. We're kicking around the idea of deploying an instant warp-scrambler to prevent warping-around shenanigans, but we don't have any plans to alter the DPS delay right now.
Weaselior wrote:In addition, I would suggest you consider that CONCORD's very exploitability makes it fun: it's interesting to have it as something you jerk around and abuse (within limits, of course) that makes it interesting. Things like prepping concord, moving it, these all add flavor to the game. It's much better to leave CONCORD as it is, while tweaking it every time something really broken is discovered, than just say fuckit and go the death ray route.
It is fun, and I always find it amusing when people find some new trick (someone explained the tornado circle-warp to me last night), but at the same time it's the clear and explicit policy of CCP that avoiding CONCORD is an exploit ,and we shouldn't be relying on our CS staff to enforce failures of the game mechanics in this regard. That's where we're coming from on this - if it's the design intent that something be the case (you can't avoid CONCORD), then the game should actually enforce that intent.
Severian Carnifex wrote:Are you trying to solve a problem of excessive (and really to easy and cheap) suicide ganking of miners with this changes too??? I hope you will look at that problem too with this.
Nope, not something we're considering right now, see above.
Tarsas Phage wrote:What Crimewatch 2.0 needs to be is a reimplementation of current logic - ie, the current aggression mechanics. Yes, the current Crimewatch code is buggy and convoluted, it needs to be modularized, it needs latent bugs fixed and some additional non-gameplay-affecting features added such as KM's for self-destructs while under aggression. CCP Greyscale and Masterplan need to do this first. Then and only then should actual gameplay-affecting changes be considered.
/T
Which is exactly what we're currently doing, as explained by Masterplan at the beginning ofthe presentation. |
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
921
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:39:00 -
[328] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Defending yourself while you're suspect-flagged is an ongoing conversation; we've not decided on anything yet, and we'll devblog when we've got it better nailed down Are you ******* serious m8? That's the dumbest thing you've ever said - and that's saying a lot. -Liang Ed: Just to be clear: it should never be in doubt that the player will have the right to defend themselves while merely a suspect. The fact you haven't even decided if that's possible is just out of this ******* world.
Ok, so firstly, see the first bit of my previous post. This isn't something we flagged up as an issue early on, but which looks like it should be solvable so we've not dedicated a whole lot of work to it yet.
Here's the awkwardness with all three obvious solutions to this problem:
1. You can't defend yourself. Silly but robust. 2. Anyone who attacks a suspect becomes a suspec. Robust, but effectively nullifies the penalties of the suspect flag because the risk of engaging a suspect becomes huge without fully comprehensive scouting (which with cloaking and high local-counts is pretty much impossible in hisec). 3. We reintroduce one-to-one flagging in its current form, which is nice in this limited scenario but causes endless breakages and exploits in aggregate, as we've discovered over the past decade or so.
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.
And yes, I know "I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU EVEN CONSIDERED THAT OPTION"; we consider all the options, and yesterday I threw one out to gauge the player reaction to it, which generated some useful feedback.
Vimsy Vortis wrote: CCP Greyscale is just continuing his long pattern of making horrible changes to game mechanics without running them past anyone. If you liked Sov mechanics and the sanctum nerf I'm sure you'll enjoy greyscale's new and improved aggression system.
Forgive my slow brain, I've just woken up, but... a thirty-minute presentation, 15 minutes of Q&A, a one-hour roundtable and a 16-page-and-counting forum thread... and I'm not running this past anyone? Bwuh?
Liang Nuren wrote: Its both, actually. Its CCP saying something which could potentially be interpreted in a good way (but really shouldn't be) and a player relating what the CCP Dev explained to him in person. That's the current plan. It is the intended behavior of the new Crimewatch that players will not PVP flag for killing PVP flagged players.
-Liang
You literally just quoted me saying "we've not made our mind up what the intended behavior is". |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5745
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:42:00 -
[329] - Quote
GǪalso, Greyscale, if you feel I'm misrepresenting what you or Masterplan said at either the panel or the presentation, please correct it. I'm not awake either at this point. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
225
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 09:49:00 -
[330] - Quote
Greyscale, have you considered the possibility that the current can-flagging mechanics are already adequate? I know you want to add on to the game, but sometimes new additions do more harm than good. Having a system where a can-flipper gets aggro toward the can owner's corporation is quite fair and balanced. Extending that aggro to the whole alliance might also be tolerable. But extending it to every single player in high-sec is ridiculous.
Also, note how we're not criticizing the RR and security status proposals. It's this specific change that we have an issue with, and quite frankly, it should be dropped without further discussion. I feel like my words are falling upon deaf ears, however. I shudder to think what kind of surprises Sunday will bring. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |