EVE General Discussion

This post is probably the single most ignorant thing I've ever read on these forums, it's literally the opposite of reality.

As it is right now you can always shoot neutral reps that someone you're fighting is using unless they happen to be in the same corporation as you. If you don't believe me go and find someone, shoot at them and have a third party rep them, you'll be amazed to learn that you can shoot the third party with impunity. To reiterate, with the current aggression system you can always shoot at anyone who is remotely assisting someone that is shooting at you, nobody is "safe behind concord".

However as CCP Greyscale just said what he wants to do is make it so that you can be shooting someone who is suspect flagged and be receiving neutral RR and the suspect won't be able to shoot the neutral RR.

It is literally a step backwards from what you just said you wanted. Also there's no such thing as neutral jams in highsec.


The main thing that will result in people being suspect flagged is stealing, and there already is a consequence for that. What suspect flagging is on a basic level is an expansion of the negative consequences without any attempt to balance it out by adding some better opportunities for criminality.

It wouldn't really be a huge issue if it was just going to be the case that everyone can shoot you, but you can shoot back just like normal and if you bring logi they can shoot your logi, but if they bring logi you can shoot it too, but that's not what is happening, it's clearly being designed so that the entire system massively stacks any engagement in highsec against the person who instigated it. Even if there are dedicated highsec PVPers who can deal with that and even us it to their advantage at it's core that type of design is anti-PVP and will only serve to reduce the amount of PVP in highsec, which is not something that the game is in need of.

On top of all that RR crap it was also noted that you'd lose sec status if you destroyed a ship while suspect flagged. So someone who starts any kind of non-war PVP event will be able to be shot at by everyone in system, won't be able to shoot the logi of the people attacking them and if he wins he will lose sec status for his effort.

I don't think that is going to "fix" highsec PVP for anyone other than carebears who want highsec PVP to simply not exist.

Hi. I've never had anything useful to contribute to the production of this game, but for the love of God, hear me out on this one CCP Greyscale. I promise it's simpler than what you may be trying to do.

Please give players the option to flag themselves as suspects without committing crimes, so they can bait fights if they want.

Please flag players who shoot suspects as vigilantes. Anyone who assists a suspect becomes a suspect, and anyone who assists a vigilante becomes a vigilante.

There - you have a neat, two-sided high-sec fighting mechanic in which a player is either a suspect, vigilante, or neither. If they are neither, they have the ability to join either side in the fight, but otherwise are not involved. This system has few caveats with regards to remote assistance that are easy to iron out. Don't allow a vigilante to activate remote assistance on a suspect, and vice versa. Alternatively allow players to receive both flags and be shot by both. A player who flags as a suspect and then reps his vigilante friends shouldn't be immune to blapping from suspects.

This system is significantly better than a "Suspect vs everyone else" system where everyone has their own individual aggro timers on suspects. If you wish to engage a suspect, you should gain a flag that effectively separates you from "everyone else" and puts you with those who are shooting suspects. This polarizes engagements and simplifies aggression maps. Furthermore, vigilantes will always have the upper hand, as they can decide when (and when not) to flag themselves by engaging a suspect and initiating the fight. From a lore/whatever point of view, they are undercover and can watch suspects, ready to pounce with as many or few of their friends at any time.

You're no longer creating chains of aggression, you're sorting people into teams. The more people start assisting, then more people get put on either team. They will shoot each other. Stuff will die.

If you're lucky, you will see groups of players flying around as vigilantes, and others flying around as suspects. They will fight each other - possibly not on station, because they may be roaming. That will create high-sec PvP that is a good lead-in to low-sec and 0.0 PvP for new players. It's entirely optional, encourages players to work together, and is much more simple than the current system. It is also 100% compatible with low-sec changes. People who shoot neutrals in low-sec become suspects, and anyone who shoots them become vigilantes. It's super simple stuff.


Edit: Since I didn't clarify how this should accommodate war-decs, I will:

The suspect system should be separate from the war-dec system, but they should work together where needed.

Neutral RR should not get flagged as suspects. They should get flagged to the hostile corp, and (in my opinion) be given a 1 minute aggro timer to prevent them from playing docking games. I see no reason for allowing everyone in EVE to shoot your neutral logistics, as that makes no sense. However, if the members of the corp are flagged as suspects, assisting them should result in a suspect flag. That corp's war-targets will not become flagged as vigilantes for aggressing, as war-dec shootability should override Suspect/Vigilante flags.

Keep war decs and suspect flags completely separate. Corporations should be able to duke it out (even with neutral logi) without intervention from everyone and their mother on the undock. I know people aren't fond of neutral logi, but having them get volleyed by unaffiliated Tornados on the undock is simply strange and unrealistic.

i don't like the third party logi immunity (for obvious reasons).

Having a global "vigilante" flag doesn't seem like a good option to us, because it allows you to then undock your thirty suspect-flagged associates and gank them, which is not the effect we're looking for here, and allowing transitive individual kill rights takes us back to square one.

As to "invicible logis", in the current design yes, that is the case, but only in the scenario where you've already done something to become a suspect. There's a point at which we have to say "look, you've done something 'illegal', this fight isn't going to be fair, sorry" if we want to avoid the complexity of the current system.

With the things that will get you into this state in the first place (such as neutrals repping war targets), we're deliberately giving you the ability to do the "bad thing" and take a hit for it rather than simply mechanically banning it, because that's the way we like to do things round here. There does however come a point where we're bending so far over backwards to make the consequences of doing the "bad thing" fair that we have to either stand up or fall over, and in these cases we're currently leaning towards saying "if you don't enjoy it, maybe you should consider not getting into that situation so often in the first place".

It's nice to have a straight up admission that you are literally trying to discourage highsec PVP.

You know, shooting at people in highsec. In this context specifically when the people being shot at aren't at war with you.

Great plan. Really, wonderful idea to have ships taking part in a fight without the other participants being able to legally shoot them. That's not going to get abused at all.

But on the other hand, you're looking to allow players to participate in a fight in a very meaningful way without risk or consequence. That's great!

The proposed crimewatch feels a lot less like iteration, and a lot more like a total rewrite. It's a shame they won't JUST fix the ability of logis to jump/dock with aggression, and THEN reconsider the whole aggression mechanic (which can be tweaked before being completely thrown out).

You're dumb, concord will kill them.