These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Getting Rid of the Undesirables (for good this time)

First post First post First post
Author
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
#761 - 2012-10-18 02:45:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
I pay almost sixty dollars a month for this game. I'd hope that at least part of the money goes toward programming and maintenance, instead of acting as a conduit for Hilmar's office desk coke pile. One would think that programming, testing, and maintenance are the main expenditures of a software developer, but CCP makes it sound like those things are just passing considerations.

And having to work is not an excuse for not working.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Karl Hobb wrote:
Take an interesting and rich aggression model that rewards planning and knowledge, and has been proven through the years, and replace it with a very simple model that retains none of the richness. Progress?

Depends on what you are trying to achieve. If it's one promoting consequence, yes. But as we are seeing there are some who don't want consequence as it means taking the total control they had over aggression selection away.

And once again we go back, full circle, to that well-proven argument that gankers and pvpers are too afraid of losing their ships.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#762 - 2012-10-18 02:46:16 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Depends on what you are trying to achieve. If it's one promoting consequence, yes. But as we are seeing there are some who don't want consequence as it means taking the total control they had over aggression selection away.

You already have consequence, most people just don't choose to enforce it. I doubt much will change in the new system.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.

Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#763 - 2012-10-18 02:49:21 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Karl Hobb wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
So am I correct in assuming that the situation is so critical, that they have no choice but to roll out this system?

lol, no. I'm with Lord Zim on this, it's undoubtedly yet another attempt to make high-sec safer. While they may tout this system as allowing a lot of other things to go through, I'm fairly certain they could have simply written this new system and retained the old rules. No, I'm not fairly certain, I know.

Abso-*******-lutely.

The worst part is that they simply can't man up and admit their agenda. The obviously want even the "griefer" sub bucks, so they're taking their chances with lies, hoping that we won't notice, and thus create these "technical hurdle" excuses, which wouldn't work on any but the most uninformed players. They're insulting our intelligence by doing this.

I thought this subject was about mechanics, not idealogy.

Given that the right to kill a ganker was already in the game it's really down to how he can be killed rather than whether he should be isn't it?

Let's not go there. Please. 50 threads on this already.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#764 - 2012-10-18 02:49:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
I pay almost sixty dollars a month for this game. I'd hope that at least part of the money goes toward programming and maintenance, instead of acting as a conduit for Hilmar's office desk coke pile. One would think that programming, testing, and maintenance are the main expenditures of a software developer, but CCP makes it sound like those things are just passing considerations.

And having to work is not an excuse for not working.

Ok, I can agree with your premise on the killrights issue, but lets please not turn this into an "I pay for the game therefore I must get my way argument." For one it works both ways, for and against you, and 2 it's in no way productive.

That aside the money you give to CCP should spend some time securing efficiencies that make sure future changes and expansion can happen more efficiently. this includes things like labor and game mechanics changes.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#765 - 2012-10-18 02:51:31 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Depends on what you are trying to achieve. If it's one promoting consequence, yes. But as we are seeing there are some who don't want consequence as it means taking the total control they had over aggression selection away.

You already have consequence, most people just don't choose to enforce it. I doubt much will change in the new system.

Then what is the issue? simplified code + very little change in behavior = highsec becomes no safer and CCP makes game changes faster. Win for everyone!
Bart Starr
Aggressive Structural Steel Expediting Services
#766 - 2012-10-18 02:52:00 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
"Technical issues" isn't an excuse at all. It simply can't be. It's impossible for it to be.

They have had a working system for many, many years now. And now they're going to get rid of it, but at the same time tell us "sorry guys, it's simply too difficult to code something like that"? I'm just not buying it.

Transferable killrights? They were? When?

I was talking about the flagging mechanics in general. The all-encompassing suspect flag replacing current aggression mechanics, that stuff.

We're going from a system where it's possible to be aggressed to an individual or a corporation to a system where you can only be aggressed to everybody, solely on the premise that the old system would be too difficult to recreate with modernized code. Derp.


If their goal was really to 'simplify things', they would have really kept things simple and avoided 1 to 1 flags entirely...

1). You attack a suspect, you become a suspect OR
2.) suspects can be freely attacked by anyone and vigilantes receive no flag. (ie, still have Concord protection)

But #1 wouldn't make Carebears safe enough for CCP, because criminals would be counter ambushing them.
CCP wanted to provide carebears with 1 vs 'unlimited' gang raep fights at the expense of the 'suspects'.

And #2 is going too far, even by CCP's post Incarna standard.

So, enter the 'Limited Engagement' - a concept which contradicts the entire point of CW 2.0, by reintroducing the one to one flag.

And I haven't even touched on the other penalties that have been layered on gankers, can flippers and ninjas.

Conclusion: The primary purpose was simply to insulate Carebears further from damage in highsec. 'Flag streamlining' is simply a fig leaf.
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#767 - 2012-10-18 02:52:18 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
And once again we go back, full circle, to that well-proven argument that gankers and pvpers are too afraid of losing their ships.

Well, I for one am (except maybe those gank Thrashers), but then, I don't get out much. Sad

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#768 - 2012-10-18 02:54:24 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

And once again we go back, full circle, to that well-proven argument that gankers and pvpers are too afraid of losing their ships.

Then again, what is the issue with crimewatch?
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#769 - 2012-10-18 02:57:27 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Then what is the issue? simplified code + very little change in behavior = highsec becomes no safer and CCP makes game changes faster. Win for everyone!

Bart "I'm a Republican" Starr wrote:
If their goal was really to 'simplify things', they would have really kept things simple and avoided 1 to 1 flags entirely...

1). You attack a suspect, you become a suspect OR
2.) suspects can be freely attacked by anyone and vigilantes receive no flag. (ie, still have Concord protection)

But #1 wouldn't make Carebears safe enough for CCP, because criminals would be counter ambushing them.
CCP wanted to provide carebears with 1 vs 'unlimited' gang raep fights at the expense of the 'suspects'.

And #2 is going too far, even by CCP's post Incarna standard.

So, enter the 'Limited Engagement' - a concept which contradicts the entire point of CW 2.0, by reintroducing the one to one flag.

And I haven't even touched on the other penalties that have been layered on gankers, can flippers and ninjas.

Conclusion: The primary purpose was simply to insulate Carebears further from damage in highsec. 'Flag streamlining' is simply a fig leaf.

'Nuff said.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.

Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
#770 - 2012-10-18 02:57:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

And once again we go back, full circle, to that well-proven argument that gankers and pvpers are too afraid of losing their ships.

Then again, what is the issue with crimewatch?

With Crimwatch? The suspect flag, obviously. Flagging people to everyone in the universe for petty crimes is a ridiculous concept. Thieves already get flagged to entire corporations when they steal. By flagging them to the entire universe, CCP is basically admitting to coddling their furry friends, since they're unable to defend themselves and their property even when they outnumber the bad guys.

"Aw, you munchkins can't take care of the Rifter that flipped your ore? Don't you worry your precious little heads about it, we'll just make the meanies fair game to everyone on the server so you won't have to worry about watching out for yourself in a competitive, sandbox MMO. :3"

It's a shame too, because some other parts of Crimewatch are really good, like the neutral RR nerf (and this is coming from a devout high-sec pvper).

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#771 - 2012-10-18 03:01:55 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Then what is the issue? simplified code + very little change in behavior = highsec becomes no safer and CCP makes game changes faster. Win for everyone!

Bart "I'm a Republican" Starr wrote:
If their goal was really to 'simplify things', they would have really kept things simple and avoided 1 to 1 flags entirely...

1). You attack a suspect, you become a suspect OR
2.) suspects can be freely attacked by anyone and vigilantes receive no flag. (ie, still have Concord protection)

But #1 wouldn't make Carebears safe enough for CCP, because criminals would be counter ambushing them.
CCP wanted to provide carebears with 1 vs 'unlimited' gang raep fights at the expense of the 'suspects'.

And #2 is going too far, even by CCP's post Incarna standard.

So, enter the 'Limited Engagement' - a concept which contradicts the entire point of CW 2.0, by reintroducing the one to one flag.

And I haven't even touched on the other penalties that have been layered on gankers, can flippers and ninjas.

Conclusion: The primary purpose was simply to insulate Carebears further from damage in highsec. 'Flag streamlining' is simply a fig leaf.

'Nuff said.

If you want to further disincentivise fighting back, which considering the aggressors initiative is already pretty dumb in most cases, yeah, number one works. And we can all agree number 2 is a terribly possibility under any circumstance.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
#772 - 2012-10-18 03:04:19 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
And we can all agree number 2 is a terribly possibility under any circumstance.

It's funny you should say that, because that's how they originally planned the system. It took a couple of threadnaughts (like this one!) to make them change their minds.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#773 - 2012-10-18 03:05:23 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
"Aw, you munchkins can't take care of the Rifter that flipped your ore? Don't you worry your precious little heads about it, we'll just make the meanies fair game to everyone on the server so you won't have to worry about watching out for yourself in a competitive, sandbox MMO. :3"

It's a shame too, because some other parts of Crimewatch are really good, like the neutral RR nerf (and this is coming from a devout high-sec pvper).

And here I was thinking your motivation was in making money killing those bad people.

/me walks off shaking his head mumbling something about "it's highsec ffs".

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#774 - 2012-10-18 03:08:15 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

With Crimwatch? The suspect flag, obviously. Flagging people to everyone in the universe for petty crimes is a ridiculous concept. Thieves already get flagged to entire corporations when they steal. By flagging them to the entire universe, CCP is basically admitting to coddling their furry friends, since they're unable to defend themselves and their property even when they outnumber the bad guys.

"Aw, you munchkins can't take care of the Rifter that flipped your ore? Don't you worry your precious little heads about it, we'll just make the meanies fair game to everyone on the server so you won't have to worry about watching out for yourself in a competitive, sandbox MMO. :3"

It's a shame too, because some other parts of Crimewatch are really good, like the neutral RR nerf (and this is coming from a devout high-sec pvper).

If they sent out a notice to everyone in the system I could see this as coddling. Or if they were locking you in place for others to come retaliate. But they aren't. you still have control over where and who you engage and at worse must be a bit more aware of who's around. People can now assist each other in highsec without being in the same corp and somehow this is a terrible thing? I wasn't aware group play was supposed to be so limited by design.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
#775 - 2012-10-18 03:13:35 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
And here I was thinking your motivation was in making money killing those bad people.

/me walks off shaking his head mumbling something about "it's highsec ffs".

I'm not allowed to have more than one play style?

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
If they sent out a notice to everyone in the system I could see this as coddling. Or if they were locking you in place for others to come retaliate. But they aren't. you still have control over where and who you engage and at worse must be a bit more aware of who's around. People can now assist each other in highsec without being in the same corp and somehow this is a terrible thing? I wasn't aware group play was supposed to be so limited by design.

If that's your argument, then why are they not allowing random neutrals to shoot my war targets if they're in a fleet with me?

The point is, this doesn't just affect people flipping miners in out of the way systems. It also affects suicide-gank loot scoopers. This whole thing is made with the intent of nerfing suicide-ganking haulers (and shiny mission boats). The miners already got their buff.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

Bart Starr
Aggressive Structural Steel Expediting Services
#776 - 2012-10-18 03:17:07 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
And we can all agree number 2 is a terribly possibility under any circumstance.

It's funny you should say that, because that's how they originally planned the system. It took a couple of threadnaughts (like this one!) to make them change their minds.


Exactly.

The original plan?
- Vigilante RR would be protected by Concord. (this led to the current counter-intuitive situation today where highsec RR gets you a flag to everyone, while simply shooting at a suspect does not.)
- Suspects who defend themselves against a vigilante take sec status penalties for shooting back.

Only pages and pages of players telling them how stupid this was got him to rethink a bit.
But it clearly showed what his design intentions are.

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#777 - 2012-10-18 03:26:19 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
And here I was thinking your motivation was in making money killing those bad people.

/me walks off shaking his head mumbling something about "it's highsec ffs".

I'm not allowed to have more than one play style?

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
If they sent out a notice to everyone in the system I could see this as coddling. Or if they were locking you in place for others to come retaliate. But they aren't. you still have control over where and who you engage and at worse must be a bit more aware of who's around. People can now assist each other in highsec without being in the same corp and somehow this is a terrible thing? I wasn't aware group play was supposed to be so limited by design.

If that's your argument, then why are they not allowing random neutrals to shoot my war targets if they're in a fleet with me?

The point is, this doesn't just affect people flipping miners in out of the way systems. It also affects suicide-gank loot scoopers. This whole thing is made with the intent of nerfing suicide-ganking haulers (and shiny mission boats). The miners already got their buff.

Random neutrals can easily join in shooting your war targets by joining your corp and no longer being neutrals. That said this is again an argument that has a reverse in that there is no reason to allow anyone but the person whose can you flipped to retaliate. Either way the level of possible repercussion may be in CCP's hands to decide what is possible but is up to the criminal to minimize and requires other interested parties to take advantage of. You aren't going to loose your ship because a group of apathetic individuals is nearby.

The loot issue I agree can and should be handled. but it can be handled under the new system. Could roll out wait until all the issues are ironed out? Probably. But the biggest issues here, which seems to be the global flagging, I just can't see as the issue you see it.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
#778 - 2012-10-18 03:30:19 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Random neutrals can easily join in shooting your war targets by joining your corp and no longer being neutrals.

That's also funny. I remember telling CCP SoniClover that exact line, and then he started talking about PUGs.

"As for the corporation side, there is a difference between a corporation goal and an impromptu gang action. Corporation goal implies pre-planning and long-term strategy, neither of which fits very well into the public kill right system. So what I'm saying is that corporations are great for getting people to work together for many things, especially long-term goals, but don't support some forms of co-operative gameplay all that well, like impromptu pick-up group activity."

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#779 - 2012-10-18 03:30:50 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
But the biggest issues here, which seems to be the global flagging, I just can't see as the issue you see it.

Global flagging probably won't change much because people still won't be enticed to shoot back. The problem is global flagging as a kill rights mechanic. It's downright ********.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#780 - 2012-10-18 03:33:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Random neutrals can easily join in shooting your war targets by joining your corp and no longer being neutrals.

That's also funny. I remember telling CCP SoniClover that exact line, and then he started talking about PUGs.

"As for the corporation side, there is a difference between a corporation goal and an impromptu gang action. Corporation goal implies pre-planning and long-term strategy, neither of which fits very well into the public kill right system. So what I'm saying is that corporations are great for getting people to work together for many things, especially long-term goals, but don't support some forms of co-operative gameplay all that well, like impromptu pick-up group activity."

That was for the killrights if I recall correctly, which oddly enough even if done as a single person LE would allow each individual equal opportunity to invoke it.

Which by the way I agree on the point that FFA killrights was a very bad design.