These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Remove the Limited Engagement if shooting criminals, allow risk-free Remote Repping of victims
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Karig'Ano Keikira
Tax Cheaters
#21 - 2013-02-21 11:44:00 UTC
If i understood it correctly, it goes like this:
-> B (miner) is attacked by A (ganker) => A gets criminal flag;
as result, being a criminal, A can now be shot by everyone and concord is on its way to pop him;
everyone who shoots A will not get suspect flag or criminal flag
-> at this moment, C (orca) assists A by repairing him and gets suspect flag? <--*
-> however if C (orca) attacks A (say by drones), he gets no suspect flag
*: imo, this makes no sense at all and if it is true, it is either totally unintuitive weird mechanic (and new Crimewatch is supposed to get rid of these), bug or an oversight :(
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#22 - 2013-02-21 12:45:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
No.

Remote Reps are far too powerful to be allowed in that way, and it will be exploited to no end. Getting rid of their penalty-free use was one of the best things that ever happened to the game.

Your entire problem was that your drones aggressed — that's what you need to fix.

Karig'Ano Keikira wrote:
If i understood it correctly, it goes like this:
-> B (miner) is attacked by A (ganker) => A gets criminal flag;
as result, being a criminal, A can now be shot by everyone and concord is on its way to pop him;
everyone who shoots A will not get suspect flag or criminal flag
-> at this moment, C (orca) assists A by repairing him and gets suspect flag? <--*
-> however if C (orca) attacks A (say by drones), he gets no suspect flag
No.

Your starred line is incorrect.

What happens is
-> at this moment, B daftly decides to attack A, triggering a limited engagement.
-> C (Orca), then assists B, thereby getting a suspect flag for interfering with that limited engagement (had C assisted A, he would have gotten a criminal flag instead). Had he attacked A, he too would have started a (separate) limited engagement.
Alice Saki
Nocturnal Romance
Cynosural Field Theory.
#23 - 2013-02-21 12:49:45 UTC
I agree with OP, I'm all for ganking but it seems fair a Neutral would help out someone in distress without penalty.

FREEZE! Drop the LIKES AND WALK AWAY! - Currenly rebuilding gaming machine, I will Return.
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#24 - 2013-02-21 13:13:22 UTC
nope

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Mag's
Azn Empire
#25 - 2013-02-21 13:15:27 UTC
NO. The issue here, was his drones attacking the ganker.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
GreenSeed
#26 - 2013-02-21 13:15:29 UTC
there's nothing wrong with the way it is now, just don't have drones out and you can get all the reps you want. you can even have a logistics ships perma repping you.... oh and mine in a skiff. (never hurts to mention that)
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#27 - 2013-02-21 13:15:43 UTC
This is exactly the type of nonsense that made the previous iteration of crimewatch so wretched. Shoot your main with a disposable alt, use RR risk-free while wartargets are shooting your main and... yeah, "get thee hence"

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#28 - 2013-02-21 13:17:00 UTC
I mean I realize that most hiseccers can't stand the thought of being shot without penalty while engaging in PvP in every sense of the word but that doesn't mean that CCP needs to cater to your risk-averse playstyle

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Jalequin
Jalequin Corporation
#29 - 2013-02-21 13:40:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Jalequin
Since some of you are blaming the drones for the engagement flag then, an alternative for this would be to set automatic drone retaliation a suspect level action (orange safety).

Ergo: If your drones are set to aggressive before being ganked, and your safety is green, the drones will not engage the ganker; hence not triggering the Limited Engage flag and freely allow remote repping.
For the drones to attack the ganker, safety would need to be orange.


As the current system stands, if the victim retaliates in any way then he is locked into a 1v1 and anyone who provides repping will be flagged a suspect. Let's make it so that aggressive drones don't automatically trigger the 1v1 flag.


Simply 'not having drones out aggressive' shouldn't be the solution. One shouldn't need to be constantly switching passive/aggressive for when rats spawn and other players warp in. You are not 100% sure of who is a ganker and who isn't.
An automatic trigger of a Limited Engagement should not be an accident, but intentional. Having drones set to aggressive shouldn't force you into such situation.

Mass Tests Videos: http://j.mp/14PE0uz - June 14th http://j.mp/10Db6ry - May 16th http://j.mp/19uIPJM - April 11th
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#30 - 2013-02-21 13:45:38 UTC
Jalequin wrote:
During yesterdays' mining I was mining along side an Orca who was in a different fleet. Moments into this session I was ganked.
When I was engaged, as usual the ganker glowed the criminal flag and triggered Concord.

I noticed that when my aggressive drones responded into shooting him, I was flagged into a Limited Engagement; now, this did not stop Concord from poping him, but it prevented the non-hostile Orca from repping my shield. Because my drones' response triggered a 'legal' 1v1 engagement with the ganker, the orca would have also been flagged into a Limited Engagement /Suspect with the ganker if he had decided to provide me with shield rep.

The Limited Engage for both the victim and Orca would then last well into minutes after Concord pops the ganker ship; effectively forcing the Orca to dock for the duration of the 5-minute engagement countdown -the Orca is being punished for attempting to save me from what is (by Concord standards) an illegal PvP event.



Proposition:
Disable the Limited Engagement flag if the victim is defending himself against a Concord-triggered criminal. Allow ganking victims to be freely repped by neutral players without the risk of being engaged vs the ganker nor to the gankers' fleet, or receive any form of flagging.


No, don't be stupid. Invulnerable neutral RR is bullshit.

If you don't want to get flagged then don't sit with drones out that are set to aggressive. Simple.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#31 - 2013-02-21 13:59:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Alice Saki wrote:
I agree with OP, I'm all for ganking but it seems fair a Neutral would help out someone in distress without penalty.
They can. They just can't help willing combatants without penalty.

Jalequin wrote:
As the current system stands, if the victim retaliates in any way then he is locked into a 1v1 and anyone who provides repping will be flagged a suspect. Don't punish the victim.
If he fights back, he's no longer a victim but a willing participant in the fight. As such, he's decided that he doesn't want outside help any more. He is not being punished — he's choosing the limitations to operate under.

Quote:
Simply 'not having drones out aggressive' is not an option.
Of course it is. The other option is to have them on aggressive, but pull them in any time something suspect appears on grid. Either way, if you want to keep your flagging in check, you have to pay attention. Your decision not to pay attention is not a reason to bring back one of the most awful and idiotic aspects of highsec combat.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#32 - 2013-02-21 15:06:27 UTC
Jalequin wrote:
Simply 'not having drones out aggressive' is not an option. Please don't make mining even more tediously boring than it already is by forcing us to stare waiting for rats to spawn.


I suspected as much. You want to be able to sit and 100% afk while mining, you want your drones out and set as aggressive so they'll take care of rats (and maybe even suicide gankers) automatically without any input what-so-ever.

You refuse to accept the fact that this choice comes with consequences (i.e. your aggressive drones make you a willing combatant) and instead cry for mechanic changes to further facilitate your ability to NOT play the game.

You are a filthy bot aspirant.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#33 - 2013-02-21 15:07:14 UTC
Andski wrote:
This is exactly the type of nonsense that made the previous iteration of crimewatch so wretched. Shoot your main with a disposable alt, use RR risk-free while wartargets are shooting your main and... yeah, "get thee hence"

This is actually a great way to make repping impossible without getting a suspect flag.

Ship A and C use the same player, for simplicity sake.

So do ships B and D.

Ship A is an offensive craft, intent on a suicide gank. it attacks ship B.

Ship B is the target, a mining vessel in this example.

Ship C is a disposable attack craft, it also attacks ship B, but then ASAP quickly warps off grid to die by Concord. It's purpose is to open a separate LE with ship B that ship D cannot join by shooting at it.

Ship D is capable of remote repping. It could even aggro ship A, and get into a limited engagement to stay in the rules for that aspect. But because ship C also started an engagement, and is not present to shoot at to create a LE for it, it cannot avoid a suspect flag if it reps.

You just killed the presence of the repping ship by using a noob alt.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
#34 - 2013-02-21 15:17:13 UTC  |  Edited by: DJ P0N-3
Let me see if I understand correctly: A lands and shoots at B. B retaliates and enters LE with A. C aids B and gains an LE with A. No one else can legally shoot B or C. C is saving B and C is tanky enough that A probably can't take C out before CONCORD lands. CONCORD kills A. B gets a killmail and a warm glow of satisfaction from being a capsuleer of easy virtue re: killmails. B and C are both in the LE with A until the fifteen minute timer runs out, but there's nothing stopping B and C from docking up and getting a sandwich or something to fortify themselves for a long day of mining.

Why is this a problem? Or are we still in the land of "you have to use a hostile module on A to enter the LE with them and just repping their target won't do that"? That is a bit silly, but they give Orcas drone bays. Leave out some drones on aggressive and rep away.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#35 - 2013-02-21 15:26:17 UTC
DJ P0N-3 wrote:
Let me see if I understand correctly: A lands and shoots at B. B retaliates and enters LE with A. C aids B and gains an LE with A. No one else can legally shoot B or C. C is saving B and C is tanky enough that A probably can't take C out before CONCORD lands. CONCORD kills A. B gets a killmail and a warm glow of satisfaction from being a capsuleer of easy virtue re: killmails. B and C are both in the LE with A until the fifteen minute timer runs out, but there's nothing stopping B and C from docking up and getting a sandwich or something to fortify themselves for a long day of mining.

Why is this a problem? Or are we still in the land of "you have to use a hostile module on A to enter the LE with them and just repping their target won't do that"? That is a bit silly, but they give Orcas drone bays.

Nope, you did not get it.

Ship A and C are working together.
Ship A is the ganking vessel. It gets the first LE with ship B, who is the target.

Ship A knew about ship D, a repping capable vessel, so it sent in the noob ship referred to as ship C.
Ship C targets ship B and DPS it just long enough to establish a LE with it, but warps off grid before ship D can also enter an LE with it.

Because ship C has a LE with ship B, noone can rep ship B without getting the suspect flag. We can safely say ship A has friends around in non disposable fighting vessels in case ship D thinks about getting brave. They would love a consequence free kill mail on an Orca or other Logi boat.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#36 - 2013-02-21 15:46:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
DJ P0N-3 wrote:
Let me see if I understand correctly: A lands and shoots at B. B retaliates and enters LE with A. C aids B and gains an LE with A. No one else can legally shoot B or C. C is saving B and C is tanky enough that A probably can't take C out before CONCORD lands. CONCORD kills A. B gets a killmail and a warm glow of satisfaction from being a capsuleer of easy virtue re: killmails. B and C are both in the LE with A until the fifteen minute timer runs out, but there's nothing stopping B and C from docking up and getting a sandwich or something to fortify themselves for a long day of mining.
Not quite.

A shoots B and gets a Criminal flag.
B retaliates, gets an LE with A.
C aids B, gets a Suspect flag for butting in on an LE.
A gets killed by CONCORD; B is in an LE with A for 15 minutes (not that it matters — A can't undock without further ship loss); and C is free for all to kill.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Ship A and C are working together.
Ship A is the ganking vessel. It gets the first LE with ship B, who is the target.

Ship A knew about ship D, a repping capable vessel, so it sent in the noob ship referred to as ship C.
Ship C targets ship B and DPS it just long enough to establish a LE with it, but warps off grid before ship D can also enter an LE with it.
…except that doing so means that ship C also gets CONCORDed, can't warp off, and no LE is generated with it (or with A to begin with) unless B shoots back. You can not “enter an LE” the way you describe it, nor can LEs be inherited. In fact, in your scenario, ship C is completely redundant since it only does what A is already doing.

You can't make someone incapable of receiving reps by shooting at them — they have to disqualify themselves from repping support by actively entering an LE with you. If they choose not to do that, there's nothing you can do about it.
Jalequin
Jalequin Corporation
#37 - 2013-02-21 15:50:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Jalequin
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Ships A,B,C,D


Ships A and C are gankers, A being main DPS and C being noob.
^
v
Ships B and D are miners, B being barge and D being Orca.


If A attacks B, A has triggered Concord
If C attacks B, C has also triggered Concord.
^
They're now both Concord triggered criminals with indifference towards who is engaged or who isn't.


Under my suggestion, the victim (B) will not have a limited engagement on either gankers, it will not matter if 100 ships are ganking B, if all of them are Concord criminals, the Orca D can freely activate reps on the victim (B).


Under no circumstances is the Orca immune to the gankers, the gankers can attack the orca if they which to claim more ships during that gank. They have already triggered Concord.

Mass Tests Videos: http://j.mp/14PE0uz - June 14th http://j.mp/10Db6ry - May 16th http://j.mp/19uIPJM - April 11th
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#38 - 2013-02-21 15:51:50 UTC
Tippia wrote:
DJ P0N-3 wrote:
Let me see if I understand correctly: A lands and shoots at B. B retaliates and enters LE with A. C aids B and gains an LE with A. No one else can legally shoot B or C. C is saving B and C is tanky enough that A probably can't take C out before CONCORD lands. CONCORD kills A. B gets a killmail and a warm glow of satisfaction from being a capsuleer of easy virtue re: killmails. B and C are both in the LE with A until the fifteen minute timer runs out, but there's nothing stopping B and C from docking up and getting a sandwich or something to fortify themselves for a long day of mining.
Not quite.

A shoots B and gets a Criminal flag.
B retaliates, gets an LE with A.
C aids B, gets a Suspect flag for butting in on an LE.
A gets killed by CONCORD; B is in an LE with A for 15 minutes (not that it matters — A can't undock without further ship loss); and C is free for all to kill.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Ship A and C are working together.
Ship A is the ganking vessel. It gets the first LE with ship B, who is the target.

Ship A knew about ship D, a repping capable vessel, so it sent in the noob ship referred to as ship C.
Ship C targets ship B and DPS it just long enough to establish a LE with it, but warps off grid before ship D can also enter an LE with it.
…except that doing so means that ship C also gets CONCORDed, can't warp off, and no LE is generated with it (or with A to begin with) unless B shoots back. You can not “enter an LE” the way you describe it, nor can LEs be inherited. In fact, in your scenario, ship C is completely redundant since it only does what A is already doing.

Im sorry, we were using an example where the drones on ship B established the LE with both A and afterwards C.
C is disposable, and has no use beyond this.

If B has no aggressive drones that respond to hostile fire, no LE exists anywhere, and ship D can freely rep.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#39 - 2013-02-21 15:54:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Jalequin wrote:
Under my suggestion, the victim (B) will not have a limited engagement on either gankers, it will not matter if 100 ships are ganking B, if all of them are Concord criminals, the Orca D can freely activate reps on the victim (B).
This is already the case. B only enters an LE by engaging either ship back, in which case they should be disqualified from remote support… which again is already the case. If you commit to the fight, you're in the fight — no-one is coming to bail you out. If you think you need bailing out, don't commit to the fight.

All in all, no change needed.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Im sorry, we were using an example where the drones on ship B established the LE with both A and afterwards C.
C is disposable, and has no use beyond this.
Then C is still completely redundant since he does nothing that A isn't already doing. It's just a waste of a ships and standings.
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
#40 - 2013-02-21 16:03:19 UTC  |  Edited by: DJ P0N-3
Tippia wrote:
DJ P0N-3 wrote:
Let me see if I understand correctly: A lands and shoots at B. B retaliates and enters LE with A. C aids B and gains an LE with A. No one else can legally shoot B or C. C is saving B and C is tanky enough that A probably can't take C out before CONCORD lands. CONCORD kills A. B gets a killmail and a warm glow of satisfaction from being a capsuleer of easy virtue re: killmails. B and C are both in the LE with A until the fifteen minute timer runs out, but there's nothing stopping B and C from docking up and getting a sandwich or something to fortify themselves for a long day of mining.
Not quite.

A shoots B and gets a Criminal flag.
B retaliates, gets an LE with A.
C aids B, gets a Suspect flag for butting in on an LE.
A gets killed by CONCORD; B is in an LE with A for 15 minutes (not that it matters — A can't undock without further ship loss); and C is free for all to kill.


Got it. Seems a little odd that aiding B isn't equivalent to shooting A since in my mind they're functionally the same thing, but I imagine that would have been painful to code and god hates neutral reps anyway.

edit: I realize I was thinking of a report of weirdness with hisec wars wherein the logi pilots in the war had to aggress the war targets before repping their side for some reason. This was many moons ago, so it's probably been fixed.