These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Suspect timers for stealing loot
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Avaelica Kuershin
Paper Cats
#41 - 2015-03-03 09:45:32 UTC
Elana Apgar wrote:

The frigates went suspect but the pilot of the DST and the Charon did not. The frigates were able to dump the loot instantly so while we killed them too, there were no real repercussions for them (the gankers) because they never lost the loot at all.

So if ..., bumping without aggression is allowed, .


Perhaps the answer was there all the time.
Elana Apgar
Allspark Industries
#42 - 2015-03-03 17:02:05 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
I wasn't aware the bumping machariels and loot scooping haulers were -10.


You don't need to shoot those in the first place. Use a webbing alt and you've gotten past them.

Now, if you're actually willing to shoot things, you might as well shoot the freighter wrecks for better effect.


The problem with shooting wrecks is that it makes you criminal and the owner of the wreck gets a killright on you- something that doesn't happen if you steal the wreck. Something else kinda broken when you think about it...
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2015-03-03 17:34:23 UTC
OP has silly whine, if someone is looting a wreck that was freighter ganked by a fleet (CODE for example) then one could just as well turn off the safety, assemble your own fleet, wait for the wreck to disseapper, wait for the freighter to align and gank the freighter that was carrying the loot from the first freighter.

Basicly

1. Freighter AFK in
2. Gank fleet shows up
3. Pilots use disposable ships to loot, carry to another freighter
4. ????
5. PROFIT! You now repeat step 2 and 3 by warping your own fleet in on top of the gank fleet, bump the freighter with your own mach, loot with your own disposable ships, and loot with another freighter there by giving the first fleet the chance to show back up unless you are very quick.

To much to understand?

tldr: When in Rome, do as the EVE do. Neut Mach Bump, Gank, Neut loot, Move to Neut Freighter, and do what they did while losing your own sec status. Sandbox is a poor term to describe a game, when basically you can only be the bad guy to win. Forget about losing to CONCORD, EVE is just a poor simulator of combat with the safety turned off and a case study of seeing how much people are willing to risk to win.
Paranoid Loyd
#44 - 2015-03-03 17:39:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Paranoid Loyd
Elana Apgar wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
I wasn't aware the bumping machariels and loot scooping haulers were -10.


You don't need to shoot those in the first place. Use a webbing alt and you've gotten past them.

Now, if you're actually willing to shoot things, you might as well shoot the freighter wrecks for better effect.


The problem with shooting wrecks is that it makes you criminal and the owner of the wreck gets a killright on you- something that doesn't happen if you steal the wreck. Something else kinda broken when you think about it...

If you don't want to get dirty, don't play in the dirt.

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!
Talos Antilles
Doomheim
#45 - 2015-03-04 08:21:27 UTC
Chenguang Hucel-Ge wrote:
Talos Antilles wrote:
Futt Isimazu wrote:
OP's idea, assuming no LEGACYCODE problems, is simple.

Stolen items have a 'stolen' tag until the ship containing them docks in a station. Anyone who picks up an item with a 'stolen' tag is rendered suspect.




How do you differentiate between a stolen item and a legally-owned item in the same container (cargo hold, fleet hangar, station bay, freight container) when they have the same item id, and that is the only identifier they have?

Not so simple.

In terms of spaceships, we can easily pass these flags to ALL items of the same id, nullifying them as fast as any suspect gets killed, timer running out or reaching safety (Either POS shield or station). It worked in Morrowind, kinda, but there was problem that ownership flags were permanent.

Also, the problem with someone else's fleet hangar is that there is no even small delay between steal and safety. You just throw stolen directly in fleet hangar, not holding it even for 1 ms. Add 2 seconds to it - and you've got something that remotely looks like fair game.


I have a widget, then stole a widget, so now they're both stolen. Oh. Kay.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#46 - 2015-03-04 10:33:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Well might as well talk about it here.

So I thought lets join in on the fun, so I am sitting next to a freighter wreck thinking yay I can shoot whoever sccops the loot, I am next to a transport ship and a freighter, in comes noob ship goes suspect, I ignore it as I think diversion, all the loot from the wreck disappears and I sit there going WTF. So when I came across this thread the penny dropped, Consequences indeed, Eve is such a cold hard difficult place, are you kidding me?

OK as mechanics go I have to accept that this one cannot be changed, the ways it can be used to grief mean you cannot do it any other way and service fleet mates, but there you go, not so hard and dark is it for Mr Gankers scooping alts is it.

So while a friend and I were chewing this over we started talking about Kaarous and his thing about bling fitted mission ships running around in total safety in hisec comment that he loves to throw around and we saw a loss by a mission killer in Osmon where the person involved had his safety set to red instead of orange. Scratch one pimp fitted Stratios, what is amusing is that it was a bling fitted mission killer that was totally safe because you know mission boats in the main do not have points, so there you go Kaarous a bling fitted ship that is normally sate in hisec. If only he had set his safety to orange...

We thought you would like the irony on that loss, just check Osmon for it. This is not to have a go at the player concerned, we all make mistakes, but I love it that the safety feature is important when it comes to criminal activities...

Especially funny as we had the main CODE player in Osmon teling him to set his safety to orange next time.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
#47 - 2015-03-04 11:22:08 UTC
Aqriue wrote:
OP has silly whine, if someone is looting a wreck that was freighter ganked by a fleet (CODE for example) then one could just as well turn off the safety, assemble your own fleet, wait for the wreck to disseapper, wait for the freighter to align and gank the freighter that was carrying the loot from the first freighter.

Basicly

1. Freighter AFK in
2. Gank fleet shows up
3. Pilots use disposable ships to loot, carry to another freighter
4. ????
5. PROFIT! You now repeat step 2 and 3 by warping your own fleet in on top of the gank fleet, bump the freighter with your own mach, loot with your own disposable ships, and loot with another freighter there by giving the first fleet the chance to show back up unless you are very quick.

To much to understand?

tldr: When in Rome, do as the EVE do. Neut Mach Bump, Gank, Neut loot, Move to Neut Freighter, and do what they did while losing your own sec status. Sandbox is a poor term to describe a game, when basically you can only be the bad guy to win. Forget about losing to CONCORD, EVE is just a poor simulator of combat with the safety turned off and a case study of seeing how much people are willing to risk to win.

Don't buy it. You are asking anti-criminals to become criminals to counter criminals. CONCORD should not be penalizing players that are attempting to halt thieves carrying stolen loot. Anti-piracy is a legitimate play style. Game mechanics should support it.

The intent of the suspect mechanic is an important consideration here. It flags your ship for open combat to add risk to the process of thievery. Swapping out that risk for the sacrifice of a cheap T1 hauler expels the purpose behind the suspect flag - giving players the ability to stop thieves through legally sanctioned combat.

There are all our dominion

Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#48 - 2015-03-04 11:26:59 UTC
The idea is entirely untenable from a coding perspective anyway. And even if by some miracle it was implemented and properly worked, despite the thousands of various considerations that would have to be accounted for, it would merely force gankers to use even more alts than they do today. Now, ganking operations will also need to have protection ships on standby in case anyone wants to aggro the final carrier, and they'll have enough of them present to deter any form of interference. This will, of course, require increased PLEX expenditures in order to fuel the extra accounts, which will in turn make gankers gank more in order to compensate for the increased costs. So at the end of the day, the intended change will have the exact opposite effect of the intended one, as is par for the course for every "anti-sociopath" idea ever proposed by carebears and/or implemented by CCP.

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
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
#49 - 2015-03-04 11:49:56 UTC  |  Edited by: McChicken Combo HalfMayo
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
The idea is entirely untenable from a coding perspective anyway.

I imagine this to be the case.

Quote:
And even if by some miracle it was implemented and properly worked, despite the thousands of various considerations that would have to be accounted for, it would merely force gankers to use even more alts than they do today.

Why would it force them to do that? It's trivially easy to get away with stolen loot if you understand how to fit and pilot a Deep Space Transport. Only a well piloted HIC can stop you.

It would serve as more of a litmus test. The looters that die will be like the anti-tanked Retriever in a 0.5. Smart looters and smart miners don't die unless faced with very competent pilots. Dumb ones do and should.

I also think you are over estimating how many pilots are willing to roll with an army of alts. Gankers would have more target availability if they rolled with many alts yet most have only 1 or 2 gank characters.

Quote:
Now, ganking operations will also need to have protection ships on standby in case anyone wants to aggro the final carrier, and they'll have enough of them present to deter any form of interference.

They would have to be gank ships. Only the suspect in the industrial has a limited engagement. Gankers would need to muster up enough gank ships to kill buffer tanked combat vessels at a time when all the pilots involved in the freighter gank are already criminally flagged. They may land a kill or two on pilots with bad spacial awareness but not enough to stop a group of anti-pirates.

If talking logi keep in mind the logi would turn suspect and could be alpha'd off the field. I for one would look forward to the battle of logistics ships trying to keep a suspect looter alive while anti-pirates try to alpha them off grid. I am not sure why anyone would think of this as a bad thing.

Quote:
This will, of course, require increased PLEX expenditures in order to fuel the extra accounts, which will in turn make gankers gank more in order to compensate for the increased costs.

I don't think that will happen but if so, more ganking and more revenue for CCP. Sounds good.

Quote:
So at the end of the day, the intended change will have the exact opposite effect of the intended one

The intended change is to allow players to shoot at anyone who is in possession of the stolen loot until the loot is docked up. How will this have the opposite effect?

There are all our dominion

Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin
Chenguang Hucel-Ge
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2015-03-04 11:53:39 UTC
Talos Antilles wrote:
I have a widget, then stole a widget, so now they're both stolen. Oh. Kay.

Yes, game mechanics sound stupid sometimes, but that's how it worked in TESIII. And, in fact, that how every law enforcement work.
But then you just ignored full list of terms under which these flags are voided. I repeat: Time lapse, reaching station, reaching POS shield, surviving a ship going pop.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#51 - 2015-03-04 13:04:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:
Why would it force them to do that? It's trivially easy to get away with stolen loot if you understand how to fit and pilot a Deep Space Transport. Only a well piloted HIC can stop you.

It would serve as more of a litmus test. The looters that die will be like the anti-tanked Retriever in a 0.5. Smart looters and smart miners don't die unless faced with very competent pilots. Dumb ones do and should.

I also think you are over estimating how many pilots are willing to roll with an army of alts. Gankers would have more target availability if they rolled with many alts yet most have only 1 or 2 gank characters.

To ensure that the loot doesn't get counter-scooped while it's being worked on, if necessary.

McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:
They would have to be gank ships. Only the suspect in the industrial has a limited engagement. Gankers would need to muster up enough gank ships to kill buffer tanked combat vessels at a time when all the pilots involved in the freighter gank are already criminally flagged. They may land a kill or two on pilots with bad spacial awareness but not enough to stop a group of anti-pirates.

If talking logi keep in mind the logi would turn suspect and could be alpha'd off the field. I for one would look forward to the battle of logistics ships trying to keep a suspect looter alive while anti-pirates try to alpha them off grid. I am not sure why anyone would think of this as a bad thing.

If there's interference, it could result in an expanded chain of suspect flags and limited engagements. Suppose one player repairs the hauler being attacked by the "anti-pirate" (these don't exist, by the way). Now the anti-pirate has to take out that player in order to damage the hauler. If he attacks him, that player will in turn be repaired by a team of friendly Guardians or something. Now the anti-pirate will need to deal with the Guardians as well. There could also be extra bumpers, suicide ECM boats, and other stuff.

It would all work out similarly to the way that suspect flag-baiting works out today, and trust me, it almost never works out in favor of the white knights.

McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:
I don't think that will happen but if so, more ganking and more revenue for CCP. Sounds good.

Even if we're going to consider the proliferation of alt usage (as opposed to an increasing amount of unique players) as a good thing, there's also the matter of placing all of that burden on one specific player demographic, which leads to:

McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:
Quote:
So at the end of the day, the intended change will have the exact opposite effect of the intended one

The intended change is to allow players to shoot at anyone who is in possession of the stolen loot until the loot is docked up. How will this have the opposite effect?

Because gankers will need to gank more in order to compensate for the newly-increased costs of ganking. Gankers ganking more is the opposite of the effect sought by the OP as a consequence of the idea being proposed. The OP wants less ganking, not more; if the OP's idea is implemented, the opposite will happen.

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
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2015-03-04 15:53:24 UTC

What is the problem we are trying to solve? People not shooting the wreck or failing to shoot the first looter on the scene?

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
Paranoid Loyd
#53 - 2015-03-04 16:28:38 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:

What is the problem we are trying to solve? People not shooting the wreck or failing to shoot the first looter on the scene?


White knights are mad they can't easily kill people when they are scooping the loot. The obvious solution is to use the same tactics the "bad" people use but they are above that so they want the mechanics changed.

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!
Zealous Miner
Doomheim
#54 - 2015-03-04 16:37:47 UTC
If you want to beat the "bad guys" then you're going to have to put in just as much work as they do. Also, as anti-gankers in this game you are essentially vigilantes. Vigilantes carry out their own efforts without legal authority and aren't exactly famous for doing so in the exact manner the law prescribes. Just something to keep in mind.

So, either be quicker on the draw or be prepared to fight dirty if it comes down to it. Just like real vigilante groups.

Fedo. Fedo? Fedo!
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#55 - 2015-03-04 17:22:24 UTC
All kidding aside, having a suspect flag transfer from a ship scooping the loot to a ship with a fleet hangar storing it is a monumentally horrible idea from the standpoint of the miner/hauler/anti-ganking community.

Why?

Well, imagine that you're someone who enjoys a good AWOX and has infiltrated a mining corp. The corp has friendly fire off, so they feel pretty safe in space with the new guy. Assuming that the OP's proposal were implemented, the easiest Orca AWOXes in the world could be achieved by:

1. Get into a mining fleet with an Orca that is allowing you access to their fleet hangar.
2. Have an out-of-corp alt warp to you and drop something next to you.
3. Scoop this loot, suspect flagging yourself, and deposit the loot into the Orca's fleet hangar, suspect flagging the Orca.
4. The alt kills the Orca dead while you warp to safety.


All because the Orca got suspect flagged for something you did, not them.


Suspect flags should not be earned for actions that you did not commit. The potential for abuse is far too great. And I say this as someone who generally runs with their sec status negative.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#56 - 2015-03-04 19:19:51 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
All kidding aside, having a suspect flag transfer from a ship scooping the loot to a ship with a fleet hangar storing it is a monumentally horrible idea from the standpoint of the miner/hauler/anti-ganking community.

Why?

Well, imagine that you're someone who enjoys a good AWOX and has infiltrated a mining corp. The corp has friendly fire off, so they feel pretty safe in space with the new guy. Assuming that the OP's proposal were implemented, the easiest Orca AWOXes in the world could be achieved by:

1. Get into a mining fleet with an Orca that is allowing you access to their fleet hangar.
2. Have an out-of-corp alt warp to you and drop something next to you.
3. Scoop this loot, suspect flagging yourself, and deposit the loot into the Orca's fleet hangar, suspect flagging the Orca.
4. The alt kills the Orca dead while you warp to safety.


All because the Orca got suspect flagged for something you did, not them.

Suspect flags should not be earned for actions that you did not commit. The potential for abuse is far too great. And I say this as someone who generally runs with their sec status negative.


That's the point I made above, its also why I laugh when people get upset about bumping and think it should cause aggression. Anyway it is what it is, the only option that the AG's have is to blow up the wreck before it can be scooped and just accept it as another mechanic that aids certain people, but I have to sneer each time they tell me how hard it is to be a ganker and this just adds to it!

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#57 - 2015-03-04 19:54:07 UTC
Zealous Miner wrote:
If you want to beat the "bad guys" then you're going to have to put in just as much work as they do. Also, as anti-gankers in this game you are essentially vigilantes. Vigilantes carry out their own efforts without legal authority and aren't exactly famous for doing so in the exact manner the law prescribes. Just something to keep in mind.

So, either be quicker on the draw or be prepared to fight dirty if it comes down to it. Just like real vigilante groups.
If you want to space lawyer this, I'm not sure that a citizen who attempts to stop a crime in progress is considered a vigilante. And the term loses all meaning anyway when law enforcement utterly fails in it's responsibilities.

Anti-piracy should be a valid playstyle in highsec and the game of alts so adeptly practiced by the bored bittervets doing most of the ganking renders it hopelessly futile.

The best anti-code organization would be a mirror image with more alts. It's kind of sad.
Steppa Musana
Doomheim
#58 - 2015-03-04 23:17:49 UTC
Oh lookie here. Another thread where the gankers defend a bad mechanic because they are self serving like the carebears. I mean God forbid the game be made to be fun for everyone. Heavens forbid we give the other side any tools to use against us. Oh right, they have the tools, I forgot, they can just be gankers themselves! Roll

More proof that the highsec gank community are just carebears in disguise. Risk averse and self serving.
Kiryen O'Bannon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#59 - 2015-03-04 23:20:02 UTC
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:
Sinc you're stealing the loot from the rats in the first place, I see no reason why other players shpuld be penalized for stealing it first. Ostensibly rats are pirates and bad, but capsuleers are essentially amoral and when you warp into a mission the rats are justsitting there not bothering anyone until you show up to kick their ass and take their loot.

No one is talking about stealing rat loot. They are talking about gank loot.


Ah. I misunderstood then. Nevertheless I see no reason the same principle should not apply.

Eternal Father, King of birth, /Who didst create the heaven and earth, /And bid the planets and the sun/ Their own appointed orbits run; /O hear us when we seek thy grace /For those who soar through outer space.
Zealous Miner
Doomheim
#60 - 2015-03-04 23:34:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Zealous Miner
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
If you want to space lawyer this, I'm not sure that a citizen who attempts to stop a crime in progress is considered a vigilante.

Anything that causes a suspect timer is not a crime. It just means CONCORD isn't coming to avenge you if you mess with someone.

Anything that causes a criminal timer, surprise, surprise, is a crime.

To put it simply: New Eden's laws don't care about can flipping or loot stealing. CONCORD doesn't care about can flipping or loot stealing. They allow us capsuleers to settle those petty matters amongst ourselves. You were outwitted and weren't able to adequately deal with said situation in a lawful manner so, as I said: Be prepared to fight dirty and go against the laws in pursuit of your own agenda. You seeing the law as being inadequate or too lenient and the police force responsible in upholding it ineffective, well, brings me to my next point...

Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
And the term loses all meaning anyway when law enforcement utterly fails in it's responsibilities.

The terminology: You've literally described a portion of the definition of the word "Vigilante." So, I would say its meaning is still quite accurate.

/spacelawyer

Fedo. Fedo? Fedo!