These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Crimewatch: Is this just Vaporware or what?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#1 - 2012-06-19 18:08:59 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Spitfire
Any updates? Is this still being worked on CCP? Is it coming in winter or 2021? Any updates on what it's actually going to look like?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Edit: Please use thread title that correctly reflects topic content - ISD Stensson

Please do not discuss moderation on the forums. CCP Spitfire

Signatures should be used responsibly...
Morganta
The Greater Goon
#2 - 2012-06-19 18:11:47 UTC
Gogela wrote:
Just kidding.

Any updates? Is this still being worked on CCP? Is it coming in winter or 2021? Any updates on what it's actually going to look like?

Inquiring minds want to know!



in before the ban for rumor mongering
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#3 - 2012-06-19 18:17:28 UTC
Morganta wrote:
Gogela wrote:
Just kidding.

Any updates? Is this still being worked on CCP? Is it coming in winter or 2021? Any updates on what it's actually going to look like?

Inquiring minds want to know!



in before the ban for rumor mongering

I'm not rumor mongering. CCP Greyscale said it was coming... Crimewatch is being worked on. There's a lot to it and it's a fundamental component of the game that has gone untouched since the games creation... and my sec status is all over the place. Last month -10 today I can go into empire so it's something that affects me very directly. I was just looking for an update. I actually thought it was going into Inferno 1.0 but Greyscale said 'nay' (or was it "nie"?). I just want to know if it's vaporware now.

CCP Soundwave just pointed out that ring mining is getting back-shelved for POS's, which is fine with since I don't care about mining but do care about POS's.... but there was a lot of talk about ring mining leading up to that. Now it's vaporware.

Is the Crimewatch update vaporware is my question... I guess.

Signatures should be used responsibly...
Noriko Mai
#4 - 2012-06-19 18:27:31 UTC
The funny thing is that it still shows "Crimewatch: Coming Inferno 1.1!!!" in my browser tab.

"Meh.." - Albert Einstein
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#5 - 2012-06-19 18:33:04 UTC
Noriko Mai wrote:
The funny thing is that it still shows "Crimewatch: Coming Inferno 1.1!!!" in my browser tab.

You need to clear the cache. Hit F5 and it'll go away. Blink

Signatures should be used responsibly...
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#6 - 2012-06-19 18:37:35 UTC
They probably got snagged on the whole “limited formal engagement” mechanism, which was kind of key to make the whole thing work without being ridiculously unfair and/or ensuring that a fight wouldn't spread like crazy to anyone who accidentally entered the same system as a criminal…
Vicky Somers
Rusty Anchor
#7 - 2012-06-19 18:50:51 UTC
From what I understand it will enable people to shoot people in high sec without Concord involvement as long as the "victim" isn't killed. I don't really know what to think of this. I'm guessing I just misunderstood this and it won't be implemented like that. Because that would do two things.

1) It would make high sec the most interesting space in Eve.
2) Everyone playing Eve would die (IRL) in the RAGE aftermath.
Marconus Orion
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#8 - 2012-06-19 18:52:04 UTC
There is still too many 'content creators' with outlawish sec status. Once they are able to rat their sec status back up, you will see this feature materialize.
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#9 - 2012-06-19 19:28:51 UTC
Tippia wrote:
They probably got snagged on the whole “limited formal engagement” mechanism, which was kind of key to make the whole thing work without being ridiculously unfair and/or ensuring that a fight wouldn't spread like crazy to anyone who accidentally entered the same system as a criminal…

Got link?

Signatures should be used responsibly...
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#10 - 2012-06-19 19:58:25 UTC
Gogela wrote:
Tippia wrote:
They probably got snagged on the whole “limited formal engagement” mechanism, which was kind of key to make the whole thing work without being ridiculously unfair and/or ensuring that a fight wouldn't spread like crazy to anyone who accidentally entered the same system as a criminal…

Got link?

Not really. It was part of the roundtable discussion that took place at fanfest, where we were throwing around ideas for how to make a (semi)legal fight not be completely one-sided.

As the actual presentation showed, the whole idea is to get rid off player-to-player flagging, but this causes the side problem that, if I make myself a legal target by stealing your stuff, I won't be a legal target to you (because that would require the p2p-flagging they want to remove) but rather to everyone… But without the connection between the two of us, there is no way for the system to say that you are also a legal target to me when you attack me. As a result, I can't legally fight back. Without p2p-flagging, there are only really two options: either I can't shoot back as a criminal (which makes all illegal acts a death sentence, even if CONCORD isn't triggered, and that's maybe a bit too harsh), or attacking a criminally flagged player will itself confer a criminal flagging (which means that it's near-suicidal to defend yourself against criminals, so no-one will do it and crime becomes far too easy). Now add in things like neutral reps and it becomes a complete mess.

So the alternative that was spit-balled around was something along the lines of a “limited engagement” — basically an enclosed context where two sides are defined, and everyone on one side can shoot everyone on the other side. To this, people can be added or removed dynamically and with less difficulty than the old system. A temporary, non-corp-based wardec if you like. Under such a system, I steal your stuff and get one of those “suspect” flags that CW2.0 introduces. When you attack me back, the game creates a limited engagement context for the two of us so we can start shooting at each other. If someone else comes along to start shooting at me (because I have that suspect flag), they get added to the engagement on your side, and now I can shoot them too (without the need to set up complex networks of player-to-player aggression flags). A log comes to your aid and reps you? Added to the engagement on your side — now a legal target for me. I get logi support of my own? It gets added to my side and thus becomes a legal target for everyone on your side (yes, this could be used to add more combat ships to my side by flying in a gank-BS fleet, each equipped with a small remote rep, but they're still aiding a suspect, which according to CW2.0 makes them suspects as well, and thus flag them as free-for-all targets, so that's a gamble on their part).

…or some such. The same system could be used to set up those formal duel contracts people are (occasionally) clamouring for: two parties agree to fight, and enter a ready-made limited engagement. Anyone who interferes with this engagement is flagged “suspect” and gets blown up by your seconds.

Regardless of the actual solution, the fundamental problem of CW2.0 was that position of not being able to defend yourself against attackers if you had a suspect flag, and that this limitation would put too large a damper on criminal activity that they still want to see.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#11 - 2012-06-19 20:02:57 UTC
What happens if i rep both you and your enemy? You can both shoot me?

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Morganta
The Greater Goon
#12 - 2012-06-19 20:11:06 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
What happens if i rep both you and your enemy? You can both shoot me?


whenever you engage in unprotected repping you rep everyone that they have ever repped
CCP Spitfire
C C P
C C P Alliance
#13 - 2012-06-20 07:47:36 UTC
Yep, it's still being worked on. I'll ask someone from Game Design to chime in with a more detailed comment later today.

CCP Spitfire | Marketing & Sales Team @ccp_spitfire
Pak Narhoo
Splinter Foundation
#14 - 2012-06-20 10:00:35 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Gogela wrote:
Tippia wrote:
They probably got snagged on the whole “limited formal engagement” mechanism, which was kind of key to make the whole thing work without being ridiculously unfair and/or ensuring that a fight wouldn't spread like crazy to anyone who accidentally entered the same system as a criminal…

Got link?

Not really. It was part of the roundtable discussion that took place at fanfest, where we were throwing around ideas for how to make a (semi)legal fight not be completely one-sided.

As the actual presentation showed, the whole idea is to get rid off player-to-player flagging, but this causes the side problem that, if I make myself a legal target by stealing your stuff, I won't be a legal target to you (because that would require the p2p-flagging they want to remove) but rather to everyone… But without the connection between the two of us, there is no way for the system to say that you are also a legal target to me when you attack me. As a result, I can't legally fight back. Without p2p-flagging, there are only really two options: either I can't shoot back as a criminal (which makes all illegal acts a death sentence, even if CONCORD isn't triggered, and that's maybe a bit too harsh), or attacking a criminally flagged player will itself confer a criminal flagging (which means that it's near-suicidal to defend yourself against criminals, so no-one will do it and crime becomes far too easy). Now add in things like neutral reps and it becomes a complete mess.

So the alternative that was spit-balled around was something along the lines of a “limited engagement” — basically an enclosed context where two sides are defined, and everyone on one side can shoot everyone on the other side. To this, people can be added or removed dynamically and with less difficulty than the old system. A temporary, non-corp-based wardec if you like. Under such a system, I steal your stuff and get one of those “suspect” flags that CW2.0 introduces. When you attack me back, the game creates a limited engagement context for the two of us so we can start shooting at each other. If someone else comes along to start shooting at me (because I have that suspect flag), they get added to the engagement on your side, and now I can shoot them too (without the need to set up complex networks of player-to-player aggression flags). A log comes to your aid and reps you? Added to the engagement on your side — now a legal target for me. I get logi support of my own? It gets added to my side and thus becomes a legal target for everyone on your side (yes, this could be used to add more combat ships to my side by flying in a gank-BS fleet, each equipped with a small remote rep, but they're still aiding a suspect, which according to CW2.0 makes them suspects as well, and thus flag them as free-for-all targets, so that's a gamble on their part).

…or some such. The same system could be used to set up those formal duel contracts people are (occasionally) clamouring for: two parties agree to fight, and enter a ready-made limited engagement. Anyone who interferes with this engagement is flagged “suspect” and gets blown up by your seconds.

Regardless of the actual solution, the fundamental problem of CW2.0 was that position of not being able to defend yourself against attackers if you had a suspect flag, and that this limitation would put too large a damper on criminal activity that they still want to see.


Oh my poor head, why can things not be simple for once....
Cannibal Kane
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#15 - 2012-06-20 10:16:46 UTC
Pak Narhoo wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Gogela wrote:
Tippia wrote:
They probably got snagged on the whole “limited formal engagement” mechanism, which was kind of key to make the whole thing work without being ridiculously unfair and/or ensuring that a fight wouldn't spread like crazy to anyone who accidentally entered the same system as a criminal…

Got link?

Not really. It was part of the roundtable discussion that took place at fanfest, where we were throwing around ideas for how to make a (semi)legal fight not be completely one-sided.

As the actual presentation showed, the whole idea is to get rid off player-to-player flagging, but this causes the side problem that, if I make myself a legal target by stealing your stuff, I won't be a legal target to you (because that would require the p2p-flagging they want to remove) but rather to everyone… But without the connection between the two of us, there is no way for the system to say that you are also a legal target to me when you attack me. As a result, I can't legally fight back. Without p2p-flagging, there are only really two options: either I can't shoot back as a criminal (which makes all illegal acts a death sentence, even if CONCORD isn't triggered, and that's maybe a bit too harsh), or attacking a criminally flagged player will itself confer a criminal flagging (which means that it's near-suicidal to defend yourself against criminals, so no-one will do it and crime becomes far too easy). Now add in things like neutral reps and it becomes a complete mess.

So the alternative that was spit-balled around was something along the lines of a “limited engagement” — basically an enclosed context where two sides are defined, and everyone on one side can shoot everyone on the other side. To this, people can be added or removed dynamically and with less difficulty than the old system. A temporary, non-corp-based wardec if you like. Under such a system, I steal your stuff and get one of those “suspect” flags that CW2.0 introduces. When you attack me back, the game creates a limited engagement context for the two of us so we can start shooting at each other. If someone else comes along to start shooting at me (because I have that suspect flag), they get added to the engagement on your side, and now I can shoot them too (without the need to set up complex networks of player-to-player aggression flags). A log comes to your aid and reps you? Added to the engagement on your side — now a legal target for me. I get logi support of my own? It gets added to my side and thus becomes a legal target for everyone on your side (yes, this could be used to add more combat ships to my side by flying in a gank-BS fleet, each equipped with a small remote rep, but they're still aiding a suspect, which according to CW2.0 makes them suspects as well, and thus flag them as free-for-all targets, so that's a gamble on their part).

…or some such. The same system could be used to set up those formal duel contracts people are (occasionally) clamouring for: two parties agree to fight, and enter a ready-made limited engagement. Anyone who interferes with this engagement is flagged “suspect” and gets blown up by your seconds.

Regardless of the actual solution, the fundamental problem of CW2.0 was that position of not being able to defend yourself against attackers if you had a suspect flag, and that this limitation would put too large a damper on criminal activity that they still want to see.


Oh my poor head, why can things not be simple for once....


Man I wish I had the time or the willingness to spend the money to go to fanfest one day. Round tables like that just sounds awesome.

"Kane is the End Boss of Highsec." -Psychotic Monk
CCP Masterplan
C C P
C C P Alliance
#16 - 2012-06-20 10:36:00 UTC
Yes this is still being worked on. A lot of backend code went out in Escalation, there's some more in Inferno 1.0 and 1.1 (but this is mostly invisible stuff like GM tools, improved logging, optimisations etc) Current ETA of the major gameplay changes is winter release (but plans can change, and all that smallprint)
Tippia's summary above is a pretty good one regarding the flagging mechanics and the sorts of complexities we're working to solve. We discussed this a bit at the recent CSM summit, so there may or may not be some more details in the minutes when they are released.

"This one time, on patch day..."

@ccp_masterplan  |  Team Five-0: Rewriting the law
Rrama Ratamnim
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2012-06-20 11:07:27 UTC
Tippia's plan sound sdead on, and if CP can add the code for the limited engagement contracts as well... THATS JUST AMAZING and will make a good niche of people excited. No more ill steal from a can and you steal from my can and lets all steal from each others cans lol.

Wunder if this has anything also to do with the annoying continued delay of the treaty system we were promised eons ago
Har Harrison
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2012-06-20 11:11:09 UTC
CCP Masterplan wrote:
Yes this is still being worked on. A lot of backend code went out in Escalation, there's some more in Inferno 1.0 and 1.1 (but this is mostly invisible stuff like GM tools, improved logging, optimisations etc) Current ETA of the major gameplay changes is winter release (but plans can change, and all that smallprint)
Tippia's summary above is a pretty good one regarding the flagging mechanics and the sorts of complexities we're working to solve. We discussed this a bit at the recent CSM summit, so there may or may not be some more details in the minutes when they are released.

Some of the ideas from Fan Fest seemed to have a number of issues such as a person not being able to engage back the way they do at the moment without being a target to everyone else (if memory serves, the notion they could not move was suggested).

Is there an updated proposal on how this would work?
Rrama Ratamnim
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#19 - 2012-06-20 11:23:20 UTC
Har Harrison wrote:
CCP Masterplan wrote:
Yes this is still being worked on. A lot of backend code went out in Escalation, there's some more in Inferno 1.0 and 1.1 (but this is mostly invisible stuff like GM tools, improved logging, optimisations etc) Current ETA of the major gameplay changes is winter release (but plans can change, and all that smallprint)
Tippia's summary above is a pretty good one regarding the flagging mechanics and the sorts of complexities we're working to solve. We discussed this a bit at the recent CSM summit, so there may or may not be some more details in the minutes when they are released.

Some of the ideas from Fan Fest seemed to have a number of issues such as a person not being able to engage back the way they do at the moment without being a target to everyone else (if memory serves, the notion they could not move was suggested).

Is there an updated proposal on how this would work?


Did you read tippias whole post above? It sorta fixes that issue please read as masterplan said thats basically where there at
Skippermonkey
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#20 - 2012-06-20 11:39:38 UTC
The round tables on these issues were, to be honest, a travesty and not worth going to.

(And on the topic of the 'round-tables', next year maybe CCP will think of booking rooms that have space for more than 20 people...)

IMO they dont need to change the way hisec aggro works.

COME AT ME BRO

I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION
12Next page