These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#61 - 2013-02-22 15:26:16 UTC

Wow... there is a surprising amount of support for this bad idea:

Things to point out:

If you shoot some, they should be allowed to shoot you back.... ALWAYS...
Remote Repping your friend so he doesn't die is equivalent to attacking their opponent....
Transferable LE's leave us in the same craptastic situation we had before Crimewatch 2.0.....
----- There are many, many circle jerk problems that come up with A transfers to B that can transfer beyond...
----- Suspect flagging the logi is the simplest solution to this problem... There is ONLY one other acceptable option, and that is to automatically create LE's between the logi ship, and EVERY ship that is aggro'd on the Reppee.... but then you have check for whether an LE can be created (do to Suspect/Criminal Flagging), and much more.... It quickly becomes complicated to code, and complicated to explain.... Sticking with the simple solution is easy to understand and work with....


Seriously people... what is difficult about:
-- If you rep a friend who's in an LE you get a suspect flag......

Why can't you work with this?
A.) Getting a suspect flag isn't the end of the world... especially in t1 logi figs and cruisers....
B.) You can still fight, just as effectively, utilizing EWAR....
C.) You can still give reps to anyone that doesn't create the LE in the first place.... If the guy doesn't "shoot back", then they don't get an LE..... how hard is this?

Why is removing the suspect flag a bad idea?
--- It creates Risk-free logistics... You can bring this in to rep people in duels so they don't die.... you could make highsec gate camps to catch Suspects/Outlaws with risk free logistics....

In short.. the current system is fine, and people need to adapt or die....
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#62 - 2013-02-22 15:43:56 UTC
Yeah I don't see the problem with the current system. If you don't want to get a suspect flag then don't butt in on a limited engagement. If you don't like that your friends can't butt in when you start a limited engagement then don't start a limited engagement.
Jalequin
Jalequin Corporation
#63 - 2013-02-22 15:52:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Jalequin
The idea is to make fights between a victim and a Concord criminal have different rules than if it were just any other LE fight.


As it is now, if a neutral ship decides to rep another ship that is engaged in an LE (Whether it's a legal LE on illegal Concord trigger LE), the repper will be flagged a suspect for interfering with 'an LE'.

However (this is were my idea would apply):
If the person that started the fight did so illegally -becoming a Concord criminal- then free public repping will be allowed for the victim.


The changes will only apply *if* the fight is against a ganker. Legal EWAR fights will be unaffected, there are no loopholes or exploits, it's a simple thing to understand. A fight with a Concord target will have special properties.


IF:
A combatant in the LE did not break Concord law, the LE is legal and any interference from neutrals will mark them a Suspect.

IF:
The aggressor triggered Concord, the LE is illegal so public intervention will be allowed, no suspect flags will be given.



I'm not sure of how else to explain it. Those of you gank advocates that still insist on miners just having better control of their drones, favoring harsher anti-afk features: Consider this:
If a miner decides to go afk and you gank them, there will be no one at the keyboard to save the pod.
From a gankers' point of view, afk mining is good; you're guaranteed a pod kill.

Mass Tests Videos: http://j.mp/14PE0uz - June 14th http://j.mp/10Db6ry - May 16th http://j.mp/19uIPJM - April 11th
Doddy
Excidium.
#64 - 2013-02-22 15:55:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Doddy
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.


Right

1) this only happened because you tried to get on the kill mail. If your drones are not agressive the orca can rep you with impunity.

2) If the orca has to dock who cares, he saved you didn't he?

3) The ganker is criminal, if he undocks again concord will kill him again, so the limited engagement is completely irrelevant unless you are at the station, and fire at him each time he undocks and draw the 5min limited engagement out longer than the 15 min criminal timer. In which case you deserve to die.

5) The orca would have a suspect timer, and so would be best to dock for its duration, again the LE is irrelevant.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#65 - 2013-02-22 16:02:22 UTC
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.

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.

Seriously?

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Doddy
Excidium.
#66 - 2013-02-22 16:19:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Doddy
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.


You realise that if LE flags can propigate we just have the old system that ccp hated and wanted rid of, but with more complications and some flashy lights? The system we had before worked just fine in terms of propigation, ccp just hated it because of the work load and any form of LE propigation is simply bringing that back. Even having an LE at all is a result of them realising that their new system was worse than the old one.
Doddy
Excidium.
#67 - 2013-02-22 16:28:45 UTC
Jalequin wrote:

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



How does one accidentally set drones to agressive?
SoOza N'GasZ
L F C
Ethereal Dawn
#68 - 2013-02-22 16:46:04 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 been flagged a suspect if he had decided to provide me with shield rep.

The Limited Engage/Suspect 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.


I support this.

Legba
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#69 - 2013-02-22 17:44:07 UTC
Doddy wrote:
Jalequin wrote:

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



How does one accidentally set drones to agressive?

Obviously the setting is not accidental. The misuse of an automated response does not provide evidence of intent, however.

It is typically intended to be used against NPC attacks, often by a player who was concerned over response time if they did not notice the NPC attacking soon enough.

It would make more sense if automated drone responses were not considered as grounds to open a LE at all.
(And no, I don't care if someone has 20 drones guarding them due to other pilots selecting a defend option on a single ship)

If the controlling player did not manually direct the drones to attack, it was not evidence of intent.

As this has such limited value to the attacking pilot, changing nothing about the outcome except in rare cases where potential repping could happen, there is little reason not to change this.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#70 - 2013-02-23 01:38:27 UTC
Doddy wrote:
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.


You realise that if LE flags can propigate we just have the old system that ccp hated and wanted rid of, but with more complications and some flashy lights? The system we had before worked just fine in terms of propigation, ccp just hated it because of the work load and any form of LE propigation is simply bringing that back. Even having an LE at all is a result of them realising that their new system was worse than the old one.


Not really. We have a far simpler flag system still even if the LE propogates.
Right now, the LE system is actually more complex than if LE's propogated automatically (With Suspect/GCC opponents only). Since LE's are the exception to the general rule. All the other flags already propogate when you rep someone. If they have a weapons flag or a PvP flag or a PvE flag, you gain it when you rep them. LE is the odd one out here. And it doesn't make sense.
If they have an LE with a non suspect, then sure, make logi go suspect, but right now we have the weird situation where Logi have to fit guns to get an LE to be able to Rep someone attacking the suspect. If that LE propogates freely, Logi don't have to 'fail fit'.
Vegine
Sphere Foundation
#71 - 2013-02-23 02:22:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Vegine
Parsival wrote:
Risk free? The ganker is guaranteed to lose his ship (potentially without getting the kill anyway), they take a big sec status hit, they give their target a free shot for the next month through kill rights and using the OP's logic they suffer the awful penalty of having to dock for fear of being shot at because of criminal flag.... oh the horror Roll

Compare gangking a ship in high sec to squash a bug on a wall.

For below analogy
Brains = ship you gangk with or usually fly around in
Bug = your easy prezy gang target
Hard wall = concord, consequence sec hit etc

Just because you've decided to splatter your brains to squash a bug on a hard wall you cant really say thats taking a risk... There's another much more suited word for that Big smile. If the bug actually even got away after all you go through to squash it well then its just......sad Big smile

and because your brain's so worthless that that even if someone come take it away from you as revenge wont result in much being lost, you can claim such bug squashing activity is pretty safe and risk free.

More for a laugh rather than a perfect fit analogy for all the ganks out thereP
icutwood
E404
#72 - 2013-02-24 03:15:44 UTC  |  Edited by: icutwood
Jalequin wrote:
The idea is to make fights between a victim and a Concord criminal have different rules than if it were just any other LE fight.

... (trimmed for brevity)

I'm not sure of how else to explain it. Those of you gank advocates that still insist on miners just having better control of their drones, favoring harsher anti-afk features: Consider this:
If a miner decides to go afk and you gank them, there will be no one at the keyboard to save the pod.
From a gankers' point of view, afk mining is good; you're guaranteed a pod kill.


I think you're on the right track, it's the least convoluted idea at any rate.

Alternatively you can describe your idea in terms of flag precedence, a GCC on a player should invalidate all LE's on that player for the duration of the GCC. Just in case there is confusion that means if the length of the LE is greater than the GCC you would still be able to fight said player after reshipping. This avoids all that nasty neut RR stuff too.

There is no logical reason why RR'ing a victim should be treated differently to helping the victim by blastin' said criminal, arguments regarding how possible implementations could be abused is a separate issue completely.

Edit: For clarity, LE invalidation occurs at both ends.
sabre906
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#73 - 2013-02-24 04:37:21 UTC  |  Edited by: sabre906
icutwood wrote:
Jalequin wrote:
The idea is to make fights between a victim and a Concord criminal have different rules than if it were just any other LE fight.

... (trimmed for brevity)

I'm not sure of how else to explain it. Those of you gank advocates that still insist on miners just having better control of their drones, favoring harsher anti-afk features: Consider this:
If a miner decides to go afk and you gank them, there will be no one at the keyboard to save the pod.
From a gankers' point of view, afk mining is good; you're guaranteed a pod kill.


I think you're on the right track, it's the least convoluted idea at any rate.

Alternatively you can describe your idea in terms of flag precedence, a GCC on a player should invalidate all LE's on that player for the duration of the GCC. Just in case there is confusion that means if the length of the LE is greater than the GCC you would still be able to fight said player after reshipping. This avoids all that nasty neut RR stuff too.

There is no logical reason why RR'ing a victim should be treated differently to helping the victim by blastin' said criminal, arguments regarding how possible implementations could be abused is a separate issue completely.

Edit: For clarity, LE invalidation occurs at both ends.


There's no need to give ganker who's already trigged GCC LE on anyone. Concord is already on the way, and he's gonna die. He can already shoot anyone and anything he wants meanwhile as concord is on the way, including anyone who may or may not be attacking him. He doesn't need the "permission" to defend himself. GCC is GCC, LE shouldn't be involved when there's GCC.Roll
Frost 3
Sub--Zero
#74 - 2013-02-24 04:53:26 UTC
ok so here an argument that cant be countered....

a mining fleet... otherwise known as low EHP ships sitting still ready to be ganked that rarely move until the belt is gone or they are done.

Concord is flagging someone as criminal not suspect. there should be no response legal interchange between them and another player that puts them into a limited engagement. because of the law putting them into a situation that they caused themselves. meaning assisting against someone who has a Criminal tag should not take on any penalty for doing a good deed. this isn't consensual pvp this is law abiding citizen versus deliberate Explicit word choice pirate. I spend most fo my time in mining fleets aiding against problems. I honestly think pulling a criminal tag in high sec means you area legal target for all and a non legal return target after you fire on them. they are on the wrong side of the law not you. You should not be penalized with an engagement against a criminal. you should be rewarded to assisting.

This will also help curb the bullshit ganking that goes on near and in trade hubs. Simply put fleets are there for a reason, IF im flying 80 billion worth of salvage around with a logi fleet on each gate There should be no penalty for those assisting me the law abiding capsuleer against criminal action. and it also should not pull any tags against a criminal for doing so because it is again NOT CONSENSUAL PVP, It is the rescue of a friend from a troubled situation.

For instance....

You walk into a shop that is being held up at gun point, you choose to give medical aid to a person on the floor during the robbery, yes they can shoot at you but their time is limited to the response of the police. aiding your friend is not an aggressive action to your criminal tagged enemy. This kind of behavior should be encouraged to curb high sec ganking.
sabre906
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#75 - 2013-02-24 04:57:56 UTC
Frost 3 wrote:
ok so here an argument that cant be countered....

a mining fleet... otherwise known as low EHP ships sitting still ready to be ganked that rarely move until the belt is gone or they are done.

Concord is flagging someone as criminal not suspect. there should be no response legal interchange between them and another player that puts them into a limited engagement. because of the law putting them into a situation that they caused themselves. meaning assisting against someone who has a Criminal tag should not take on any penalty for doing a good deed. this isn't consensual pvp this is law abiding citizen versus deliberate Explicit word choice pirate. I spend most fo my time in mining fleets aiding against problems. I honestly think pulling a criminal tag in high sec means you area legal target for all and a non legal return target after you fire on them. they are on the wrong side of the law not you. You should not be penalized with an engagement against a criminal. you should be rewarded to assisting.

This will also help curb the bullshit ganking that goes on near and in trade hubs. Simply put fleets are there for a reason, IF im flying 80 billion worth of salvage around with a logi fleet on each gate There should be no penalty for those assisting me the law abiding capsuleer against criminal action. and it also should not pull any tags against a criminal for doing so because it is again NOT CONSENSUAL PVP, It is the rescue of a friend from a troubled situation.

For instance....

You walk into a shop that is being held up at gun point, you choose to give medical aid to a person on the floor during the robbery, yes they can shoot at you but their time is limited to the response of the police. aiding your friend is not an aggressive action to your criminal tagged enemy. This kind of behavior should be encouraged to curb high sec ganking.


You got that backwards. It's not that the ganker who's already triggered GCC doesn't deserve the "permission" to defend himself, it's that he doesn't need it. Concord is on the way. He has nothing more to lose. He can just shoot anyone and anything he wants, include anyone attacking him.
Frost 3
Sub--Zero
#76 - 2013-02-24 06:17:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Frost 3
sabre906 wrote:
Frost 3 wrote:
ok so here an argument that cant be countered....

a mining fleet... otherwise known as low EHP ships sitting still ready to be ganked that rarely move until the belt is gone or they are done.

Concord is flagging someone as criminal not suspect. there should be no response legal interchange between them and another player that puts them into a limited engagement. because of the law putting them into a situation that they caused themselves. meaning assisting against someone who has a Criminal tag should not take on any penalty for doing a good deed. this isn't consensual pvp this is law abiding citizen versus deliberate Explicit word choice pirate. I spend most fo my time in mining fleets aiding against problems. I honestly think pulling a criminal tag in high sec means you area legal target for all and a non legal return target after you fire on them. they are on the wrong side of the law not you. You should not be penalized with an engagement against a criminal. you should be rewarded to assisting.

This will also help curb the bullshit ganking that goes on near and in trade hubs. Simply put fleets are there for a reason, IF im flying 80 billion worth of salvage around with a logi fleet on each gate There should be no penalty for those assisting me the law abiding capsuleer against criminal action. and it also should not pull any tags against a criminal for doing so because it is again NOT CONSENSUAL PVP, It is the rescue of a friend from a troubled situation.

For instance....

You walk into a shop that is being held up at gun point, you choose to give medical aid to a person on the floor during the robbery, yes they can shoot at you but their time is limited to the response of the police. aiding your friend is not an aggressive action to your criminal tagged enemy. This kind of behavior should be encouraged to curb high sec ganking.


You got that backwards. It's not that the ganker who's already triggered GCC doesn't deserve the "permission" to defend himself, it's that he doesn't need it. Concord is on the way. He has nothing more to lose. He can just shoot anyone and anything he wants, include anyone attacking him.


that's the purpose but he can undock afterwards and kill the logi because of limited engagement

basically remove limited engagement or any penalty for assisting someone under fire. Against a Criminal tag enemy

remove penalty for logi gaining limited engagement they are a medic aiding a legally abiding citizen against unlawful action.
icutwood
E404
#77 - 2013-02-24 08:21:34 UTC  |  Edited by: icutwood
sabre906 wrote:
icutwood wrote:
Jalequin wrote:
... (trimmed for brevity)


I think you're on the right track, it's the least convoluted idea at any rate.

Alternatively you can describe your idea in terms of flag precedence, a GCC on a player should invalidate all LE's on that player for the duration of the GCC. Just in case there is confusion that means if the length of the LE is greater than the GCC you would still be able to fight said player after reshipping. This avoids all that nasty neut RR stuff too.

There is no logical reason why RR'ing a victim should be treated differently to helping the victim by blastin' said criminal, arguments regarding how possible implementations could be abused is a separate issue completely.

Edit: For clarity, LE invalidation occurs at both ends.


There's no need to give ganker who's already trigged GCC LE on anyone. Concord is already on the way, and he's gonna die. He can already shoot anyone and anything he wants meanwhile as concord is on the way, including anyone who may or may not be attacking him. He doesn't need the "permission" to defend himself. GCC is GCC, LE shouldn't be involved when there's GCC.Roll


A LE is between two people (like I said, invalidate at both ends), yes in this case the flag on the criminal isn't important in a suicide gank. Removing the LE would make sense too, but I don't know if that impacts in lowsec? I guess most people who pod in LS don't come in HS.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#78 - 2013-02-24 09:43:25 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
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


I disagree. You're interfering with another limited engagement, you should become a suspect. If you want to and legally can start your own limited engagement, then do that. Don't interfere with another one.

Also, it'd hardly be "limited" if the LE flag started spreading around under all these conditions.

The current system actually seems fine to me.
Butting in on someone elses LE: Suspect.
Starting your own: Fine.
Frost 3
Sub--Zero
#79 - 2013-02-24 09:57:25 UTC
i think specifically we should look at the criminal tag for high and low sec for changes.

in high sec they can shoot anyone anyways so why make a engagement at all? regardless 12 seconds later they loose a ship and can be poded if caught. so why not make this a actual punishment force them to have to wait out the 15 minutes without a chance to actively kill anyone that aided or killed them afterwards. otherwise its loos a ship go out an kill whoever you have an engagement with. which could be specifically a mining barge that had remote rep drones on their buddy to dodge the gank. how fair is it that that barge for aiding a friend has to deal with anything when a player actively went against the Concord laws and agro'd a player in high sec. ... simply put yes its an anti pirate policy but its about damn time it was addressed. this wont eliminate ganks all together but will provide a frame work for logi use in protection of a mining fleet and realistically for general Fleets to work as intended in high sec.

low sec. A criminal is a criminal shooting them should not incur a penalty for who ever chooses to engage them, the criminal tag is an extension of concord to the player to put forward justice on their behalf. if they can't take them and can warp off then there should be no penalty (limited engagement) that can chase them into high sec.

All I'm suggesting is remove the Limited engagement from criminal tags. Suspects can still do whatever they want and its justified because they provide a more limited engagement and overall need consent from mutual aggression to start a fight.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#80 - 2013-02-24 13:39:04 UTC
The actual matter of LE propogation and generation and transmutation, and all the possibilities therein, is a little bit too murky for me so I'll refrain from addressing that.

However, I do wonder about something. What happens if you're already running RR on someone else (we'll say it's someone outside your fleet to stay relevant to topic) even without gankers present, presumably just in case (I've seen it done), and someone does attempt a gank on your RR target who then attempts to defend themselves? Do you now get a suspect flag even though you were already using RR modules before any flagging even happened?