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) |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
210
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 01:11:00 -
[151] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Tippia wrote: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.
Could you rephrase that? Those of us not there don't have all the details so I am not sure I understand what you wrote. If a player is flagged suspect, to everyone presumably from the way I heard it, and someone shoots a suspect, then the suspect can shoot back. Does the suspect shooting player also become suspect or just get aggro with the initial suspect? Apparently not. A suspect retaliating against a "vigilante" will be conferred all of the "benefits" of a criminal flag. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
906
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 01:20:00 -
[152] - Quote
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
prolix travail wrote:Could you also comment on the 'you are engaged in combat' dialog box that doesn't have the option to turn it off? I.e will it also be granted the usefulness of being turned off should a player not want it?
If you're talking about the non-suppressible "suicide gank" box, that's entirely replaced by the safety system.
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Can-flipping as-is will be impossible once the safeties are added. People should be able to choose to do dumb things, but they should also have the information they need to figure out that the thing they're doing is dumb. I want to clarify here: when I'm racing another explorer in a Gurista Scout Outpost and he pops the tower, will I be able to steal the loot from the can at the risk of him engaging me? Because if you break that mechanic, you've taken away something that was JUST FINE. And if someone wants to whine about how it's not fair that I took from "their" can, what about the fact that I did 90% of the damage in room 1 to unlock the gate and they just got lucky and landed the final blow on the tower? There's a lot more to consider here than "that's my can because I shot that rat".
Switch off first-level safety, steal from wreck, get suspect flag, do whatever you like with it.
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Making people be globally flagged with aggression for stealing will be a bad mechanic that people (me) will be able to exploit the hell out of. I mean seriously, it doesn't even seem to be intended to fix any kind of problem and the current system of flagging people to corporations is totally fine.
But whatever I'm going to be able to kill huge numbers of newbies with this, being able to get yourself flagged with aggression to an entire system is basically the holy grail of griefing.
The safety system should in principle catch 100% of noob-baiting attempts. You can't get a suspect flag without turning your safeties off first, and that will pop up a message saying approximately "hey newbie, the guy who asked you to push this button is trying to kill you, tell him to go away".
Hoshi wrote:Those safety switches, please make sure to place them so the can be accessed in space without blacking out the whole screen. That means don't put them under options but perhaps somewhere on the character sheet.
Honestly I'd like to have them somewhere on the HUD. They're not some big bad setting that you flip once and then leave off forever, they're a thing where your FC says "ok guys, we're going to engage them, safeties off", and then there are some flashing lights and stuff and your gunports open (that last bit I made up but you get the point).
|
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
906
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 01:22:00 -
[153] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:CCP Greyscale, that not what people will do. What they will do is:
Have each corp member create just one or 2 alts, and all corp members take turns killing each others alts. That way the effort to create the alts is spread out over many people. Or;
People will make "Shoot us!" corps full of -10 pilots, and let you shoot them all for a fee. Or;
Two pirate corps will get together and take turns killing each other.
How to fix: Make ship value lost be a determining factor is sec status gain. Yes you could buy your way up, but with proper balancing, it will be expensive.
Yeah, this is something we're going to have to drill into further as we get into actual implementation. Point taken, though.
Istyn wrote:I have a question regarding these two slides, if you don't mind, CCP Greyscale: http://i.imgur.com/I1dGd.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/PEAUZ.jpgCorrect me if I'm wrong, but you gain the suspect flag by say, can flipping someone - if they then shoot you and you defend yourself and blow them up, you then gain a sec hit? That seems a bit odd considering all of space can shoot you - thereby you're either guaranteed to lose a ship or a buttload of sec. The 'all of space can shoot you' bit isn't so bad, leading to more risk on the side of the griefer, but when they gain a sec hit for defending themselves, likely against an overwhelming force, it seems a bit one-sided. Seems like this would completely destroy the whole ninja salvager gameplay as well as numerous other griefer playstyles.
In the design as it stands, yes, if you defend yourself and kill the other party you're going to take a smallish sec hit. I'm more sanguine about the outcome here though - I have confidence that people doing this stuff will find a way to make the system work for them
Borun Tal wrote:On a related note, I hope the broken fleet salvage mechanic is fixed before this is implemented, if at all. For example, I'm often fleeted with an alt to do salvage behind me, and if said salvager docks or leaves grid, then returns to continue clean-up, suddenly that alt is a criminal. Clearly a broken mechanic.
Yeah that's just dumb, and I think Masterplan has already actually fixed that (or is about to soon).
Qvar Dar'Zanar wrote:This.
Add duel system please.
Already on the to-do list. |
|
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
460
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 01:24:00 -
[154] - Quote
Dang Greyscale... A+ for dedication to your work but shouldn't you be out partying right now?
|
Yuller
The Filthy Few Pendulum of Doom
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 01:28:00 -
[155] - Quote
There is nothing wrong with the current aggro mechanics...Where do you people come up with this stuff???This entire damn game is becoming a carebear fest.. |
Myxx
Blacklight Incorporated Broken Chains Alliance
500
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 01:28:00 -
[156] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Qvar Dar'Zanar wrote:This.
Add duel system please. Already on the to-do list.
DONT make it a consensual PVP flag. PVP is not consensual in EVE, nor should it ever be. Leave room for criminal activity and other shenanigans. Don't make things safer than they already are.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5734
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 01:33:00 -
[157] - Quote
Yuller wrote:There is nothing wrong with the current aggro mechanics...Where do you people come up with this stuff???This entire damn game is becoming a carebear fest.. There's plenty of things wrong with it GÇö the trick lies in fixing those problems while still retaining the maximum amount of freedom to shoot people for various reasons.
Myxx wrote:DONT make it a consensual PVP flag. PVP is not consensual in EVE, nor should it ever be. Leave room for criminal activity and other shenanigans. Don't make things safer than they already are. It'll be consensual in much the same way as a current GÇ£let's swap cans to steal fromGÇ¥ duels are. The main difference is that if you try to bring in more support than was agreed upon, that support will putting itself at (severe) risk.
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. |
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 01:34:00 -
[158] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:Making people be globally flagged with aggression for stealing will be a bad mechanic that people (me) will be able to exploit the hell out of. I mean seriously, it doesn't even seem to be intended to fix any kind of problem and the current system of flagging people to corporations is totally fine.
But whatever I'm going to be able to kill huge numbers of newbies with this, being able to get yourself flagged with aggression to an entire system is basically the holy grail of griefing. The safety system should in principle catch 100% of noob-baiting attempts. You can't get a suspect flag without turning your safeties off first, and that will pop up a message saying approximately "hey newbie, the guy who asked you to push this button is trying to kill you, tell him to go away".
I think he was discussing this in the case where you can do something reasonable, like defend yourself when you're a suspect, rather than just take it up the ass if you're a little church boy, as you seem to be going for. |
head hallow
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 01:45:00 -
[159] - Quote
i hear CCP has been recruiting devs from WoW. This would certainly explain many things... |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
384
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 01:49:00 -
[160] - Quote
Yes, I was expecting Greyscale to have come up with ideas that actually made sense from a gameplay perspective. I mean simplifying convoluted systems is great and everything, but I don't see how a sane person would think that doing it at the expense of completely removing non-war related PVP from highsec would be a good idea.
|
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
210
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 01:58:00 -
[161] - Quote
head hallow wrote:i hear CCP has been recruiting devs from WoW. This would certainly explain many things... No, don't insult WoW. I've played both games for quite a while and I can tell you for a fact that post-decshield EVE is already quite a bit more mellow than the dickery that goes on in some of the more populated pvp servers.
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Yes, I was expecting Greyscale to have come up with ideas that actually made sense from a gameplay perspective. I mean simplifying convoluted systems is great and everything, but I don't see how a sane person would think that doing it at the expense of completely removing non-war related PVP from highsec would be a good idea. High-sec wardecs are at this point very likely to have a consensual element attached to them. Let's not ignore the giant elephant in the room. |
Minmatar Citizen 20120322
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:03:00 -
[162] - Quote
calm down bro, WoW's crap anyway. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
385
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:06:00 -
[163] - Quote
I wasn't discounting that at all, it's been since the GM announcement about the change in policy regarding dec shield mechanics that whatever changes get made to wars that they aren't going to offer the defender some kind of get out clause. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2899
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:08:00 -
[164] - Quote
Is this intended as a nerf to suicide ganking, or will the concord replacement allow similar amounts of DPS to be done before death? |
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises
303
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:08:00 -
[165] - Quote
Velicia Tuoro wrote: New "suspect" flag - Minor crimes. Anyone can shoot you without penalty. - Flipping a can for example
this is ******* stupid. |
Bump Tremor
Tremor Recorded Variable Enterprise Training Standards
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:12:00 -
[166] - Quote
I have actually read every post in this thread - save for any posted whilst writing this. Absolutely a great read
One plus not mentioned in the new can flipping model occurs in incrursions. When the mothership is killed ending the incursion and paying out the LP stored in the LP pool, the mother ship drops a loot can which is usually stolen by a twerp floating around in a fast, small ship who only - under the current setup - draws aggro from the one ship in the approximately 80 ship fleet who delivered the killing blow. The small fast ship did not rise up to the level of being deemed a worthy target by the sansha fleet and could therefor roam with impunity anywhere in the room. Once snatching the loot, the ship seems to disappear is some manner beyond my comprehension and seemingly outside of the mechanics of cloaking in the midst of 80 ships in such a small space
Anyone who attempts to thwart the thief beyond targetting before or after the loot is snatched, save for the one ship who happens to land the fatal blow, incurs the full wrath of Concord
As I think I understand the new system, fleets in the future will be able to have every ship target the thief and volley fire as soon as the thief turns red to them all. Hopefully, the magical disappearing act will be solved as well
Well done, CCP. and many thanks to all at the round table, the player who provided the pix of the slides and all of those who provided a running commentary.
I think the commentary is a fine example for the news organizations of the world to follow as it seem to have been completely devoid of the observer's opinions and just reported facts. What a concept! Putting news on the front page and opinions back on the editorial page where they belong instead of having a jumble of each "reporter's" opinion mixed in with only the facts which support a political viewpoint and the total absence of any fact which might raise doubt about that pre-defined political viewpoint.. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
400
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:18:00 -
[167] - Quote
Tippia wrote: 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.
I see ...
Someone attacking the suspect should be aggroed to the suspect, as if the "duel" flag had been turned on. If someone then reps the suspect, then they also get the aggro, but that could lead back to the spaghetti situation again - Have to find a way to deal with that, perhaps flag the repper as suspect. Not a good thing if the can flipper can't shoot back - that has to be addressed along with people then coming in and repping either party. Flag the reppers suspect perhaps, they know what they're getting into with the saftey feature.
You are right though, more and more suspects will turn into some crazy chaos ... which maybe isn't a bad thing either. However with the saftey on, you have to opt-in to the chaos. So it is not as if people could be baited with out a warning.
Salvage prices would drop, but tractor beams and salvagers would move faster off the market as well. More ships blowing up ... good for the economy perhaps.
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2899
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:18:00 -
[168] - Quote
Also, if you do not intend this as a nerf to suicide ganking, I presume you will be consulting with CSM members with experience in this area (mittens) to ensure you get the "time allowed to live" right? Please keep in mind the concord travel time is used for all real suicide ganks so you should make the instant death ray take the proper time for when CONCORD is already in system (six seconds, plus spawn time).
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. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
400
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:21:00 -
[169] - Quote
Tippia wrote: 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.
Yeah suspect = dead is not good. And the duel 'flag' kicking in sounds like a good idea. Then flag any remote reppers as suspects. This way people can still 'cheat' on duels and get some use of their alts, but they have to accept the additional risk for getting involved. |
Bump Tremor
Tremor Recorded Variable Enterprise Training Standards
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:22:00 -
[170] - Quote
I also want to thank DariusIII for bring the whole risk/reward idea up to CCP. |
|
EnslaverOfMinmatar
BRAPELILLE MACRO BOT MINERS
19
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:24:00 -
[171] - Quote
Minmatar Citizen 20120322 wrote:calm down bro, WoW's crap anyway.
This Only retards play WoW. Every EVE player must read this http://www.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=29-01-07 or uninstall and DIAF |
Severian Carnifex
113
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:25:00 -
[172] - Quote
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. |
Cannibal Kane
Brotherhood of KANE
301
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:26:00 -
[173] - Quote
Hummm...
That will change my gameplay drasticly. I don't mind being shot at by everybody, but the idea that if I shoot back and kill I get sec hit rubs me the wrong way.
I joined the game since I like shooting at people. I go and flip cans when no wartargets are online.
There is nothing wrong with the current agression mechanics yet there seems to be a need to overcomplicate it. I did not join EVE for PVE so i grind my sec status up for defending myself. If I wanted to PVE stuff I would have kept playing a Single player game and not the only MMO i like because of it's PVP.
This kind of change makes it sounds like the wardec options will now have a "I DON'T WANT" button to opt out as well.
I hope the sec status hit is not set in stone.... I'm not a Pirate, I'm a Terrorist. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
400
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:30:00 -
[174] - Quote
Cannibal Kane wrote:This kind of change makes it sounds like the wardec options will now have a "I DON"' WANT" button to opt out as well.
I am getting a future picture in my head, assuming what Tippia said about the duel system kicking in is true for non-war pvp, war might be fun again because someone won't swarm in with a bunch of neut reppers. I don't see CCP doing a "we agree to war" button. That's rather un-eve. Could be wrong of course :) |
Grumpy Owly
360
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:32:00 -
[175] - Quote
Am sure there are final tweaks and kinks to resolve and I'd like to see more of the war dec and FW mechanics in detail to have a complete picture of the move of PvP activities in Empire.
However, the proposal by CCP here I welcome as a much needed change to add more fun and promote PvP in Empire whilst also giving some ramifications to criminal activity that at present is sadly missing. With further corrections to the Bounty Hunting system it could potentially give realistic white knighting opportunities a real career chance in Empire.
+1 CCP Bounty Hunting for CSM7
It's just criminal - Smuggling |
Cannibal Kane
Brotherhood of KANE
301
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:34:00 -
[176] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Cannibal Kane wrote:This kind of change makes it sounds like the wardec options will now have a "I DON"' WANT" button to opt out as well. I am getting a future picture in my head, assuming what Tippia said about the duel system kicking in is true for non-war pvp, war might be fun again because someone won't swarm in with a bunch of neut reppers. I don't see CCP doing a "we agree to war" button. That's rather un-eve. Could be wrong of course :)
The new proposed agression mechanic is pretty un-eve as well.
I'm not a Pirate, I'm a Terrorist. |
Cannibal Kane
Brotherhood of KANE
302
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:36:00 -
[177] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote:Am sure there are final tweaks and kinks to resolve and I'd like to see more of the war dec and FW mechanics in detail to have a complete picture of the move of PvP activities in Empire.
However, the proposal by CCP here I welcome as a much needed change to add more fun and promote PvP in Empire whilst also giving some ramifications to criminal activity that at present is sadly missing. With further corrections to the Bounty Hunting system it could potentially give realistic white knighting opportunities a real career chance in Empire.
+1 CCP
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 ramification of going criminal is EVERYBODY gets to shoot you... mob justice which is fine. The sec status thing bugs me. I'm not a Pirate, I'm a Terrorist. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
401
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:37:00 -
[178] - Quote
Cannibal Kane wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:Cannibal Kane wrote:This kind of change makes it sounds like the wardec options will now have a "I DON"' WANT" button to opt out as well. I am getting a future picture in my head, assuming what Tippia said about the duel system kicking in is true for non-war pvp, war might be fun again because someone won't swarm in with a bunch of neut reppers. I don't see CCP doing a "we agree to war" button. That's rather un-eve. Could be wrong of course :) The new proposed agression mechanic is pretty un-eve as well.
In what way? Sounds to me that overall it will create more oppertunity for PVP while at the same time nerfing some of the meta crap that gets abused to the point no one does anything but gank these days. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
401
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:39:00 -
[179] - Quote
Cannibal Kane wrote: 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.
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. |
Cannibal Kane
Brotherhood of KANE
302
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 02:39:00 -
[180] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Cannibal Kane wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:Cannibal Kane wrote:This kind of change makes it sounds like the wardec options will now have a "I DON"' WANT" button to opt out as well. I am getting a future picture in my head, assuming what Tippia said about the duel system kicking in is true for non-war pvp, war might be fun again because someone won't swarm in with a bunch of neut reppers. I don't see CCP doing a "we agree to war" button. That's rather un-eve. Could be wrong of course :) The new proposed agression mechanic is pretty un-eve as well. In what way? Sounds to me that overall it will create more oppertunity for PVP while at the same time nerfing some of the meta crap that gets abused to the point no one does anything but gank these days.
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'm not a Pirate, I'm a Terrorist. |
|
|
|
|
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 |