These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jalequin
Jalequin Corporation
#41 - 2013-02-21 16:09:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Jalequin
Tippia wrote:
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.


It's alright to have it so that if you deliberately engage the ganker, that you will be locked in a 1v1 (In my preference I'd rather still allow repping support even while you attack them, but it's not terribly necessary since you only would need to attack the gankers until Concord arrives)

There remains the original issue in where the aggressive drones triggered the LE. One shouldn't need to be constantly switching passive/aggressive drones for when rats spawn and other players warp in. You can never be 100% sure of who warped in to gank you and who didn't. By the time the ganker engages, you might not be fast enough to set pull in the drones before they attack the ganker and trigger the LE.

Which brings me back to a previous post mentioning a possible solution:
Quote:
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/red. Let's make it so that aggressive drones don't automatically force you into a 1v1 against a ganker


A Limited Engagement trigger should not be accidental. Having drones set to aggressive shouldn't force you into such situation.


ADD: I still believe it would be best to simply not flag the Orca as a suspect because he decided to provide rep for someone that's being ganked - regardless of it whether or not the victim if retaliating against the ganker.
A victim being shot at by a Concord criminal should not put friendly reps at risk of being flagged a suspect for providing support.

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
#42 - 2013-02-21 16:10:07 UTC
Tippia wrote:
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.

The repping ship could have also used drones, as per my earlier suggestion a few posts back, or had other offensive token items.

The point is, it could have fired on the now suspect / criminal ship attempting to gank, opening a new LE that would in turn permit it to rep ship B. (Makes zero sense to get flagged suspect if you are already in a LE with the DPS ship)

Ship C's purpose is to open a new LE on ship B, which ship D could not also join.
(It is out of range, it is not on grid, whatever reason may be). Ship C is a noob alt which has no value, and can be remade if it's sec status gets inconvenient.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
#43 - 2013-02-21 16:16:59 UTC
Jalequin wrote:
Tippia wrote:
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.


It's alright to have it so that if you deliberately engage the ganker, that you will be locked in a 1v1 (In my preference I'd rather still allow repping support even while you attack them, but it's not terribly necessary since you only would need to attack the gankers until Concord arrives)

There remains the original issue in where the aggressive drones triggered the LE. One shouldn't need to be constantly switching passive/aggressive drones for when rats spawn and other players warp in. You can never be 100% sure of who warped in to gank you and who didn't. By the time the ganker engages, you might not be fast enough to set pull in the drones before they attack the ganker and trigger the LE.

Which brings me back to a previous post mentioning a possible solution:
Quote:
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. Let's make it so that aggressive drones don't automatically force you into a 1v1 against a ganker


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.


If you're running aggressive modules hot and have auto target back set, will a green safety already prevent you from getting into an LE with a criminal? That's the only reason I could think of to include aggressive drones in that. You're effectively doing the same thing by having aggressive drones out.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#44 - 2013-02-21 16:30:00 UTC
DJ P0N-3 wrote:
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.
The difference is that in one case, B is signalling his willingness to fight A and in the other he does not.

If he really is a hapless victim, then you can save him just fine. Neither if you are actually doing anything to A, so neither of you will suffer any harsher consequences (aside from some P-flagging). If B does indeed do something to A, then aiding him takes on a different aspect: now both of you are actively trying to make A have a really really bad day (rather than just making him fail in his attempt to kill someone), and since you had no real beef with him to begin with, you're now flagged as a belligerent troublemaker.

Quote:
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.
Yes, that was a bug with the first release of CW2.0 — it has received “a few” tweaks since… P

Nikk Narrel wrote:
The point is, it could have fired on the now suspect / criminal ship attempting to gank, opening a new LE that would in turn permit it to rep ship B. (Makes zero sense to get flagged suspect if you are already in a LE with the DPS ship)
It makes sense under the basic rule of “don't butt in on other people's LEs”. It's very straight-forward and it keeps RR from being the horrible mess it was before. If you really want to help, just bring some ECM instead — it'll have an even better effect and no-one needs to worry about cross-flagging mishaps.

Quote:
Ship C's purpose is to open a new LE on ship B, which ship D could not also join.
…but again, you can't join people's LEs. That's the whole point of LEs — they're between you and whoever chose to attack you back — and breaking that simple design will only cause more problems than it is meant to solve.

Either way, giving RR special exceptions because people have itchy trigger fingers is to attack the wrong problem. Get something that keeps that trigger finger in check instead.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#45 - 2013-02-21 17:44:03 UTC
Tippia wrote:
…but again, you can't join people's LEs. That's the whole point of LEs — they're between you and whoever chose to attack you back — and breaking that simple design will only cause more problems than it is meant to solve.

Either way, giving RR special exceptions because people have itchy trigger fingers is to attack the wrong problem. Get something that keeps that trigger finger in check instead.

Hmmm...

Now, on the one hand, I understand that mining is apparently intended to be a merciless endurance contest.
This mechanic that exploits the practice of having drones automatically defend a ship indicates this.
Apparently they are supposed to be manually triggered. If you zone out or simply are paying attention to a different account, tough.

The alternative, which is consistent with the safe settings, is to have drones only react automatically to NPCs.

Seriously, bots can program in this micro managing behavior so that they can become more effective than a live player who could be distracted by a TV or real life interruption.

This is good?

Effectively programming the system so if you retaliate by drones intended to fight off NPCs, you are isolated from assistance.
This is, by intended or unintended design, aimed at hurting players in high sec who are not botting, but are not 100% paying attention.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#46 - 2013-02-21 19:06:18 UTC

Let me spell this out.....

Creating Risk-Free logistics is bad.... mkay!!!!

Hell NO....

It will be abused.... massively....

--- This will completely destroy dueling...
--- This will bring back neutral RR to wars...

FYI.... you could have received flag-free RR if you hadn't aggressed you attacker.... Or, you could have received flag-free RR if the orca pilot had aggressed the suspects before attempted to rep you...

Finally, a criminal or suspect can only legally fire back on people that shoot them.... This is already heavily imbalanced against the attacker, and if you really need to add in unassailable RR to it too... then you should never undock!!! There are many tools for you to utilize, do so!
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#47 - 2013-02-21 19:22:43 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
FYI.... you could have received flag-free RR if you hadn't aggressed you attacker.... Or, you could have received flag-free RR if the orca pilot had aggressed the suspects before attempted to rep you...

Ahhhh... According to Tippia, this is not the case.

Once you established a LE, the orca could do nothing to help you without being suspect flagged.
My example specified the Orca establishing a LE by using a drone to attack, but apparently mutual LE's don't permit crossover assistance like that.

Logistics can never be used in HS if a LE has been established, apparently. War Decs don't actually use LEs, so are not affected.

Tippia wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:

The point is, it could have fired on the now suspect / criminal ship attempting to gank, opening a new LE that would in turn permit it to rep ship B. (Makes zero sense to get flagged suspect if you are already in a LE with the DPS ship)

It makes sense under the basic rule of “don't butt in on other people's LEs”. It's very straight-forward and it keeps RR from being the horrible mess it was before. If you really want to help, just bring some ECM instead — it'll have an even better effect and no-one needs to worry about cross-flagging mishaps.


...shrug...

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#48 - 2013-02-21 19:27:29 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
The alternative, which is consistent with the safe settings, is to have drones only react automatically to NPCs.
That's pretty bad since that would break a lot of methods to combat ewar.

Quote:
Seriously, bots can program in this micro managing behavior so that they can become more effective than a live player who could be distracted by a TV or real life interruption.

This is good?
Who cares. What bots can and can't do is a completely unrelated matter, and isn't reason to (re)introduce horrible mechanics. As it is, the drones are not a problem either — you can already make them do what they need to do with a minimum of input. If you have no intention of being at the screen, then getting blown up as a result is pretty appropriate, and the drones being a curse as well as a boon is a nice inherent trade-off for the benefits they provide.

Also, the game also already offers all the warning mechanics you need: just keep your drones docked, and set your shield warning threshold to something ridiculously high. When the client beeps, it's time to deploy the drones and shoot stuff. vOv
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#49 - 2013-02-21 19:32:46 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Also, the game also already offers all the warning mechanics you need: just keep your drones docked, and set your shield warning threshold to something ridiculously high. When the client beeps, it's time to deploy the drones and shoot stuff. vOv

That's a good tip.

I never even knew such a thing existed, now when I am flipping between accounts I can use this to help.

Thanks Tippia!

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
#50 - 2013-02-21 19:50:58 UTC
Tippia wrote:
DJ P0N-3 wrote:
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.
The difference is that in one case, B is signalling his willingness to fight A and in the other he does not.

If he really is a hapless victim, then you can save him just fine. Neither if you are actually doing anything to A, so neither of you will suffer any harsher consequences (aside from some P-flagging). If B does indeed do something to A, then aiding him takes on a different aspect: now both of you are actively trying to make A have a really really bad day (rather than just making him fail in his attempt to kill someone), and since you had no real beef with him to begin with, you're now flagged as a belligerent troublemaker.


That makes sense. It seems more logical in the abstract to make LEs flexible enough that anyone involving themselves on either side lets them into the LE for a skirmish, but the more I think about it the more it seems like a giant hassle that isn't worth the coding time when there are plenty of ways to work around this (e.g. rep and run as soon as CONCORD solves the problem).
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#51 - 2013-02-21 20:34:27 UTC
Easy fix. Just make it propagate the LE, on the provision that the other side of the LE is Suspect/GCC only.
If both sides are legal, then it's a suspect action.

It's not 'quite' so clean as the current system. But the current LE system is a bit limited. Especially with fleets. You can't even help out a corp/fleet mate who engaged in an LE, which causes a real mess in events. So the LE flag needs to have a way to propagate, the same as the weapons & PvP/PvE flags currently do. (If you remote rep someone with a weapons flag, you gain a weapons flag).

Hmmm, I guess that actually makes it cleaner, since it means LE flags propagate in the same way as Weapons/PVE/PVP flags do from remote reps, rather than LE being the odd one out that doesn't have the same rules.
sabre906
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2013-02-21 22:36:26 UTC  |  Edited by: sabre906
Do the trolls against fixing this obvious oversight not understand what OP was talking about?

OP was saying his barge got aggro for attacking ganker *after* ganker triggered GCC.

The main oversight has nothing to do with rr. It's that someone/anyone can get aggro for shooting someone who already triggered GCC. If not for that, there would have been no aggro to pass to rr.

What is this "rr exploit" concern? If his barge was engaged in another engagement and received aggro from that other source at the same time, the Orca that reps him will receive aggro from said other source as per normal. This is this, that is that. Nothing is broken.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#53 - 2013-02-21 22:38:12 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Easy fix. Just make it propagate the LE, on the provision that the other side of the LE is Suspect/GCC only.
If both sides are legal, then it's a suspect action.

It's not 'quite' so clean as the current system. But the current LE system is a bit limited. Especially with fleets. You can't even help out a corp/fleet mate who engaged in an LE, which causes a real mess in events. So the LE flag needs to have a way to propagate, the same as the weapons & PvP/PvE flags currently do. (If you remote rep someone with a weapons flag, you gain a weapons flag).

Hmmm, I guess that actually makes it cleaner, since it means LE flags propagate in the same way as Weapons/PVE/PVP flags do from remote reps, rather than LE being the odd one out that doesn't have the same rules.

Yeah, this would make more sense.

If you could freely shoot them, and only experience the possibility they might shoot you back, repping one of their targets and treating it as if you shot them instead is logical.

Either way, they get to shoot you back. This is fair.

I don't believe anyone objects to the target, who has a shoot me painted in bright GCC colors all over him, being able to target and fire at the logi boat who has EITHER shot at him directly, or repped a ship he was fighting with.

Just to confirm, this is about teamwork. Fighting as a bunch of individuals is cute, but it is not effective teamwork.

By this logic, you could rep the guy on GCC cooldown, just shoot him once first to create the LE.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
sabre906
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#54 - 2013-02-21 22:44:24 UTC  |  Edited by: sabre906
Forget RR. This has nothing to do with RR.

GCC is GCC. Someone who trigger GCC should be free game to anyone else without giving out aggro.

RR on those that shoots the GCC triggerer, who's going to die anyway, naturally won't receive the nonexistent aggro. Which is fine.

Just because OP mentioned "RR" in a clear oversight that has nothing to do with RR, ppl start going monkeyshit.Roll
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#55 - 2013-02-21 22:59:08 UTC
sabre906 wrote:
Forget RR. This has nothing to do with RR.

GCC is GCC. Someone who trigger GCC should be free game to anyone else without giving out aggro.

RR on those that shoots the GCC triggerer, who's going to die anyway, naturally won't receive the nonexistent aggro. Which is fine.

Just because OP mentioned "RR" in a clear oversight that has nothing to do with RR, ppl start going monkeyshit.Roll

Frankly, I agree with you.

Not being able to fight this target with GCC active, in the manner of our choosing, is a nerf to logi pilots as well as the target they could have otherwise helped.

You can ECM them into seeing cartoon characters on their overview, or blast them with any single target weapon you desire... just don't rep any of the other ships also firing on them.... it, uh, wouldn't be fair.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Sierra Starseeker
#56 - 2013-02-22 04:07:44 UTC
So many Ganker scum and Ganker yes-men in this thread, sick.
Go pad your lame killboards with something that can actually shoot back and provide a challenge.

The OPs' got a valid point and this should actually be implemented rather sooner than later.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#57 - 2013-02-22 07:37:43 UTC
Sierra Starseeker wrote:
So many Ganker scum and Ganker yes-men in this thread, sick.
Go pad your lame killboards with something that can actually shoot back and provide a challenge.

The OPs' got a valid point and this should actually be implemented rather sooner than later.


Actually the op doesn't have a Valid point.
The Op is asking for 'No flag' Remote reps. Meaning the target can't do a thing about the remote reps.

What should happen is the limited engagement propagates if the 'Hostile' (Defined by the other side of the LE from the person you are repping) is either suspect or GCC. This allows the other side to then shoot the Logistics if they choose to, however means the logistics doesn't go suspect for helping defend against a gank attempt.

Simply because a gank target fights back DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE WILLING TO FIGHT. It means the ganker pushed them into a corner, is trying to kill them, and they are doing what they can back in an attempt to survive. While in reality it's unlikely in the event of a GCC that they will kill their attacker before concord shows up, they shouldn't be punished for doing so. Unless you all like to encourage total carebearing where by not fighting back is actually BETTER for someone than trying to PvP before concord shows up? Personally I like the idea of encouraging mining barges to actually fight back, the kill mails they get might get them bloodthirsty enough to try PvP after a while.

So, TLDR version.
Make the LE spread if the other side is Suspect/GCC
If the other side isn't, then logi goes suspect (For Neutral Logi in duels etc)
This way Logi has consequences, but can actually take part.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#58 - 2013-02-22 09:50:11 UTC
Jalequin wrote:
Tippia wrote:
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.


It's alright to have it so that if you deliberately engage the ganker, that you will be locked in a 1v1 (In my preference I'd rather still allow repping support even while you attack them, but it's not terribly necessary since you only would need to attack the gankers until Concord arrives)

There remains the original issue in where the aggressive drones triggered the LE. One shouldn't need to be constantly switching passive/aggressive drones for when rats spawn and other players warp in. You can never be 100% sure of who warped in to gank you and who didn't. By the time the ganker engages, you might not be fast enough to set pull in the drones before they attack the ganker and trigger the LE.

Which brings me back to a previous post mentioning a possible solution:
Quote:
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/red. Let's make it so that aggressive drones don't automatically force you into a 1v1 against a ganker


A Limited Engagement trigger should not be accidental. Having drones set to aggressive shouldn't force you into such situation.


ADD: I still believe it would be best to simply not flag the Orca as a suspect because he decided to provide rep for someone that's being ganked - regardless of it whether or not the victim if retaliating against the ganker.
A victim being shot at by a Concord criminal should not put friendly reps at risk of being flagged a suspect for providing support.


Setting your drones to aggressive is deliberately saying "I want them to get involved and shoot things". You did that. You made that decision. Live with it. If you don't want to get into a LE then don't set your drones to aggressive. Or set them aggressive but pull them in if a ganker lands in belt. The onus is on you to manage your drones and make your own decisions. Crying that the game doesn't do it automatically and let you afk for 23/7 is stupid. This thread is stupid.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#59 - 2013-02-22 09:55:01 UTC
Also, remember when greyfail said the point of crimewatch 2.0 was to make the aggression mechanics simple

hahahahahahahha
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#60 - 2013-02-22 15:22:18 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Also, remember when greyfail said the point of crimewatch 2.0 was to make the aggression mechanics simple

hahahahahahahha

Simple is good, simple minded is bad.

If I can blast someone because they are suspect or GCC flagged, I should get a LE with them exclusively. They are open targets that anyone can freely violate in a repeated fashion.
If I choose to display my raging hostility towards them by instead repping an enemy of theirs, I should also get a LE with them exclusively. I should not get a suspect flag. If I am not repping someone with GCC or suspect flags, I should not get one.

The concept that blowing up someones ship is more respectable and acceptable than helping an ally goes against the implied desire for teamwork.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...