These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Is CrimeWatch vaporware?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#381 - 2012-07-17 18:16:39 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Suddenly, BUMP!
Well, yes. Hence the “jump” part — add in an emergency cyno and fuel cost to that 21bn commitment. Blink

Gogela wrote:
Ah... I see how your deal works. I was thinking about freighter volumes of loot though. your primary "loot runner" would be the orca in that case... but yah I guess a handoff would work. Probably don't need an orca for that.

The corp hanger in an orca doesn't drop anything?
No. Nothing in the Orca's special hangars drop on destruction. The other advantage is that the Orca can be largely passive in the whole deal since the thief can access the hangar on his own, which significantly simplifies (and secures) the hand-off: open Orca, open loot can, drag-drop-warp-failbecauseofscrams-die-beer. But yes, it's limited in what you can scoop up with that kind of setup.

Hay... that would work!

Also did not know that about corp hangers on orcas. Learning is occurring...

Signatures should be used responsibly...
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#382 - 2012-07-17 18:18:24 UTC
The real question is what happens to NEUTRAL LOGISTICS Repping WAR TARGETS??


That is the only question that matters.

Neutral Logis repping someone that you committed a "Crime" against. Fine, whatever. I'll deal with it.


But WAR TARGET Neutral Logi's MUST have aggression transfer, OR be set as criminals for assisting in a WAR that they are not legitimately a part of, and this are fair game for everyone.

Where I am.
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#383 - 2012-07-17 18:21:23 UTC
Bloodpetal wrote:
The real question is what happens to NEUTRAL LOGISTICS Repping WAR TARGETS??

That is the only question that matters.

Neutral Logis repping someone that you committed a "Crime" against. Fine, whatever. I'll deal with it.

But WAR TARGET Neutral Logi's MUST have aggression transfer, OR be set as criminals for assisting in a WAR that they are not legitimately a part of, and this are fair game for everyone.

I think nobody has answered this question because nobody but the devs know the answer. I sure don't know...

Signatures should be used responsibly...
Suddenly Forums ForumKings
Doomheim
#384 - 2012-07-17 18:22:07 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:


We allow one-time mappings but we don't make them transitive, ie if you're a suspect and someone shoots you then you can always fire back, but if that person has a third party repping them, you can't shoot the logi because we don't allow aggression transfer like that (for obvious reasons).


Excuse me?

My god CCP, just remove all hi sec pvp and be done with it. That's clearly what you want to do.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#385 - 2012-07-17 18:23:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Bloodpetal wrote:
The real question is what happens to NEUTRAL LOGISTICS Repping WAR TARGETS??
“Illegal intervention in CONCORD-sanction corporate dispute RP RP yaddayadda…”
In other words: suspect flag + docking timer = free for all and nowhere to run.

The only issue is the one Ohh Yeah raised about mixed fleets sharing the same war target: will they be able to rep each other, or is each corp/alliance limited to what they can bring to support themselves?

Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:
Excuse me?
Keep reading. In one of his later posts, he mentions that they're considering just flagging all neutral reps as suspect — no exceptions.
Pipa Porto
#386 - 2012-07-17 18:24:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
Tippia wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Suddenly, BUMP!
Well, yes. Hence the “jump” part — add in an emergency cyno and fuel cost to that 21bn commitment. Blink


Fair enough, but unless the Cyno's already lit, and the JF is really on the ball about jumping out, it's getting tackled by the insta-lock support (insta-lock for a JF is what, 0 SEBOs on a Frig?), and now we have a situation where that Frig escorting the freighter has to be suicided (or, for poops and giggles, the instalock Damnation). Who wants to try to Suicide a 720k EHP Damnation before he can shout "Free JF Kill" in Local?

(Oh, and as if the JF kill weren't enough, you get all the Logi trying to save it)

[Damnation, HS Ganker Trolling] (You lose about 100k EHP by dropping to T2, but that's still plenty)

Damage Control II
Corelum C-Type Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane
Corelum C-Type Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane
1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I

Domination Warp Disruptor (720k EHP, why not pimp?)
Shadow Serpentis Sensor Booster, Scan Resolution Script (Ditto)
Shadow Serpentis Sensor Booster, Scan Resolution Script
Shadow Serpentis Sensor Booster, Scan Resolution Script

Armored Warfare Link - Damage Control II
Armored Warfare Link - Passive Defense II
[Empty High slot]
[Empty High slot]
[Empty High slot]
[Empty High slot]
[Empty High slot]

Medium Trimark Armor Pump II
Medium Trimark Armor Pump II

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#387 - 2012-07-17 18:25:26 UTC
Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:


We allow one-time mappings but we don't make them transitive, ie if you're a suspect and someone shoots you then you can always fire back, but if that person has a third party repping them, you can't shoot the logi because we don't allow aggression transfer like that (for obvious reasons).


Excuse me?

My god CCP, just remove all hi sec pvp and be done with it. That's clearly what you want to do.


CCP Greyscale wrote:
We had a discussion this morning about the specific case of people RRing vigilantes. We're currently considering treating it like all other "neutral RR" situations under the new system, ie suspect-flagging you if you RR a vigilante, as this seems to iron out a lot of the wrinkles here and makes it more consistent with the rest of the design.


RTFT

Signatures should be used responsibly...
Suddenly Forums ForumKings
Doomheim
#388 - 2012-07-17 18:29:47 UTC
Gogela wrote:
Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:


We allow one-time mappings but we don't make them transitive, ie if you're a suspect and someone shoots you then you can always fire back, but if that person has a third party repping them, you can't shoot the logi because we don't allow aggression transfer like that (for obvious reasons).


Excuse me?

My god CCP, just remove all hi sec pvp and be done with it. That's clearly what you want to do.


CCP Greyscale wrote:
We had a discussion this morning about the specific case of people RRing vigilantes. We're currently considering treating it like all other "neutral RR" situations under the new system, ie suspect-flagging you if you RR a vigilante, as this seems to iron out a lot of the wrinkles here and makes it more consistent with the rest of the design.


RTFT


That dev post means nothing.

It's all vague ideas and was posted to calm you guys down.
Price Check Aisle3
#389 - 2012-07-17 18:30:08 UTC
Gogela wrote:
Yah... me too... but we'll loose more ships. Lowsec is better for ninja looting because you loot player ships, which are way better than NPCs. I don't even know why people loot missions and stuff... not very good isk for the effort even under the current mechanics. I've tried it and was too bored and too broke. ...but yes the Crimewatch mechanic is very important in lowsec too...

I'll have to try looting player wrecks in low-sec sometime. I'm no stranger to low-sec, that just never occured to me, lol. High-sec mission thieving is definitely hit-or-miss. The fun comes from the reactions you get.

Gogela wrote:
Everyone I know who actually ganks for fun in highsec is pretty rich, imho. They are a minority of gankers. You may play with a bunch of people that do it for fun, but I'll wager all of your friends are doing pretty well in ISK terms too. Most of the people I know who gank in general are doing it for profit. Yah they have fun, but that's not their main objective. The loot is the imperative goal.

Good point, I missed (ignored, maybe?) the "for profit" part.
  • Karl Hobb IATS
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#390 - 2012-07-17 18:30:46 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
[Fair enough, but unless the Cyno's already lit, and the JF is really on the ball about jumping out, it's getting tackled by the insta-lock support (insta-lock for a JF is what, 0 SEBOs on a Frig?), and now we have a situation where that Frig escorting the freighter has to be suicided (or, for poops and giggles, the instalock Damnation). Who wants to try to Suicide a 720k EHP Damnation before he can shout "Free JF Kill" in Local?

(Oh, and as if the JF kill weren't enough, you get all the Logi trying to save it)
Yes, it's a bit OTT for what should be a simple gank. I suppose that, if it's rich enough, you could just try a sacrifice-freighter kind of tactic.

Freighter 1 scoops everything, gets flaggad and (possibly) blown up. Freighter 2 swoops in, has legal rights to take the loot (being in the same corp or using high enough standing, should they retain that mechanic) and flies off without any flags. It brings the investment down from 21bn to just 1–2, if that's any consolation.

But then we're looking at someone hauling 8bn+ just to break even (2bn in ship losses, requires 4bn to drop from the thief freighter, requires 8bn to drop from the gank target, and I probably underestimated that loss cost).
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#391 - 2012-07-17 18:31:01 UTC
Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:
Gogela wrote:
Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:


We allow one-time mappings but we don't make them transitive, ie if you're a suspect and someone shoots you then you can always fire back, but if that person has a third party repping them, you can't shoot the logi because we don't allow aggression transfer like that (for obvious reasons).


Excuse me?

My god CCP, just remove all hi sec pvp and be done with it. That's clearly what you want to do.


CCP Greyscale wrote:
We had a discussion this morning about the specific case of people RRing vigilantes. We're currently considering treating it like all other "neutral RR" situations under the new system, ie suspect-flagging you if you RR a vigilante, as this seems to iron out a lot of the wrinkles here and makes it more consistent with the rest of the design.


RTFT


That dev post means nothing.

It's all vague ideas and was posted to calm you guys down.

From what I've gathered all of Crimewatch is pretty much vague ideas... hence the title of this thread.

Signatures should be used responsibly...
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#392 - 2012-07-17 18:35:49 UTC
Price Check Aisle3 wrote:
Gogela wrote:
Yah... me too... but we'll loose more ships. Lowsec is better for ninja looting because you loot player ships, which are way better than NPCs. I don't even know why people loot missions and stuff... not very good isk for the effort even under the current mechanics. I've tried it and was too bored and too broke. ...but yes the Crimewatch mechanic is very important in lowsec too...

I'll have to try looting player wrecks in low-sec sometime. I'm no stranger to low-sec, that just never occured to me, lol. High-sec mission thieving is definitely hit-or-miss. The fun comes from the reactions you get.


Try hanging out at the Nour gate in Tama sometime. I usually sit of the gate cloaked in a destroyer w/ a bunch of salvagers and stabs fit at about 200km... then when fights start I swoop in and out in half a heartbeat. Good times Big smile

Signatures should be used responsibly...
Pere Madeleine
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#393 - 2012-07-17 19:12:18 UTC
Final nail in the coffin for me, I'm afraid. With the recent wardec changes, and these highsec aggro changes, combined with zero real effort to make lowsec PVP good, it seems CCP are going down the road of making Eve as close as they can to every other MMO out there, with PVP zones and non PVP zones.

I don't WANT to be a pawn in big nullsec empire building exercises so some MMO pseudocelebrity everyone's heard of can have a bigger e-peen, I don't WANT to have to have 3 accounts just so I can financially support lowsec PVP, and I don't WANT to have to inform some bears in highsec that I intend to shoot at them so they can hide all their valuables and inform their bigger friends to come and blob me.

These seemt o be the only PVP options CCP want to leave open, so Eve is no longer for me. My 3 accounts are now unsubbed. I suggest everyone else who is disappointed in the directiont hey're taking this stuff do likewise. I used to love this game....

(PS, Dust is going to flop too, good luck getting the COD kiddies to plan 3 month skill queues)
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#394 - 2012-07-17 19:33:38 UTC
Pere Madeleine wrote:
Final nail in the coffin for me, I'm afraid. With the recent wardec changes, and these highsec aggro changes, combined with zero real effort to make lowsec PVP good, it seems CCP are going down the road of making Eve as close as they can to every other MMO out there, with PVP zones and non PVP zones.

I don't WANT to be a pawn in big nullsec empire building exercises so some MMO pseudocelebrity everyone's heard of can have a bigger e-peen, I don't WANT to have to have 3 accounts just so I can financially support lowsec PVP, and I don't WANT to have to inform some bears in highsec that I intend to shoot at them so they can hide all their valuables and inform their bigger friends to come and blob me.

These seemt o be the only PVP options CCP want to leave open, so Eve is no longer for me. My 3 accounts are now unsubbed. I suggest everyone else who is disappointed in the directiont hey're taking this stuff do likewise. I used to love this game....

(PS, Dust is going to flop too, good luck getting the COD kiddies to plan 3 month skill queues)


So really the pvp gameplay you enjoyed was the equivalent of hunting penned up cattle, not anything really challenging or dangerous, just picking off the slowest and weakest while the rest of the herd had to stand by and watch? And it took you 3 accounts to do it anyway?

At least in the CW2.0 future the rest of the herd can stampede your ass if they get up the urge.

(P.S. your stereotypes are overriding your imagination - there's more than one way to get pvp in null or lowsec)

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Price Check Aisle3
#395 - 2012-07-17 20:03:09 UTC
Eh, the way I see it crime is getting punished far more than it should in order to make programming easier, when what CCP should be doing is examining what could be considered a crime and what the appropriate punishment should be, and then fielding the proposal to the players who can poke enormous holes in it until something satisfactory is reached. As Gogela points out the changes currently on the table are far wider-reaching than we're currently imagining, affecting gate-gun aggro mechanics (amirite?) in low-sec for looters, for instance. Who knows what else will get munged up.

Unfortunately it seems CCP just thinks "oh, that's an edge case" is a valid answer.
  • Karl Hobb IATS
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#396 - 2012-07-17 20:14:21 UTC
Pere Madeleine wrote:
Final nail in the coffin for me, I'm afraid. With the recent wardec changes, and these highsec aggro changes, combined with zero real effort to make lowsec PVP good, it seems CCP are going down the road of making Eve as close as they can to every other MMO out there, with PVP zones and non PVP zones.
Good thing, then, that PvP will still be readily available all over EVE.
Tyranis Marcus
Bloody Heathens
#397 - 2012-07-17 20:29:47 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Ok, so.

Here is the presentation from Fanfest, which you should watch if you're curious about this stuff and you haven't seen it already.

We had a discussion this morning about the specific case of people RRing vigilantes. We're currently considering treating it like all other "neutral RR" situations under the new system, ie suspect-flagging you if you RR a vigilante, as this seems to iron out a lot of the wrinkles here and makes it more consistent with the rest of the design.

We want to be clear at the same time, though, that getting a suspect flag is a punishment for doing something "bad". As with the current system of killrights etc, it's not intended as a tool that you can abuse to do further "bad" things with impunity, and while we're generally OK with people abusing some of the loopholes in the design and/or UI presentation to use such systems for unintended purposes, the design intent is for suspect flagging to be something that you want to avoid or at the very least treat as a drawback, not an opportunity. If you find yourself saying "but then if I get a suspect flag, I'm at a disadvantage!", you should consider that this is likely intentional. This is EVE: we permit you to do whatever you please, but we mandate negative consequences for some actions, to encourage a generally healthy player ecosystem.

As to can-flipping in particular, this is something that we assume will become largely ineffective with the "safeties" system, which should hopefully lessen the usability issues which are at the root of this gimmick. People losing out because they made a bad decision is great. People losing out because they didn't fully understand the decision they were making is not ideal. We realize that, for people who've dedicated a portion of their careers to "hisec PvP" of this particular stripe, this will be disruptive to their play experience, but given that there are plenty of other forms of PvP available (many of which incidentally end up generating a much stronger net contribution to the game), we're confident that such players are more than capable of transitioning rapidly to other, more robustly-supported occupations.


Meh. Why not let vigilantes have safe remote reps? It's worth it for the griefer tears, alone. There's a difference between having a dangerous game world, and just plain coddling bullies and griefers. Also, anyone who left Eve over that would undoubtedly be improving the community by doing so.

Don't get me wrong, I've done a little can flipping and ganking here and there, but if you're going to break the law you shouldn't expect the result to be a fair fight. You should be expect to be out-manned, out-gunned and on the run, just like a real life criminal. Well, for 24 hours or so, at least.

The people crying here just want to shoot fish in a barrel. Well, they should be the fish...

Do not run. We are your friends.
Ohh Yeah
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
Sedition.
#398 - 2012-07-17 20:37:08 UTC
Tyranis Marcus wrote:

Meh. Why not let vigilantes have safe remote reps? It's worth it for the griefer tears, alone..


You seem to believe the notion that only suspects will be griefers. If you're looking to grief, being a vigilante and abusing invincible logi seems like the way to go.

They have since stated that they will resolve this problem by flagging anyone assisting a vigilante as a criminal. You helped a crimefighter fight crime? You're a criminal, enjoy getting shot by the rest of EVE.
Disregard That
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#399 - 2012-07-17 20:39:37 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD TYPE40
Tyranis Marcus wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Ok, so.

Here is the presentation from Fanfest, which you should watch if you're curious about this stuff and you haven't seen it already.

We had a discussion this morning about the specific case of people RRing vigilantes. We're currently considering treating it like all other "neutral RR" situations under the new system, ie suspect-flagging you if you RR a vigilante, as this seems to iron out a lot of the wrinkles here and makes it more consistent with the rest of the design.

We want to be clear at the same time, though, that getting a suspect flag is a punishment for doing something "bad". As with the current system of killrights etc, it's not intended as a tool that you can abuse to do further "bad" things with impunity, and while we're generally OK with people abusing some of the loopholes in the design and/or UI presentation to use such systems for unintended purposes, the design intent is for suspect flagging to be something that you want to avoid or at the very least treat as a drawback, not an opportunity. If you find yourself saying "but then if I get a suspect flag, I'm at a disadvantage!", you should consider that this is likely intentional. This is EVE: we permit you to do whatever you please, but we mandate negative consequences for some actions, to encourage a generally healthy player ecosystem.

As to can-flipping in particular, this is something that we assume will become largely ineffective with the "safeties" system, which should hopefully lessen the usability issues which are at the root of this gimmick. People losing out because they made a bad decision is great. People losing out because they didn't fully understand the decision they were making is not ideal. We realize that, for people who've dedicated a portion of their careers to "hisec PvP" of this particular stripe, this will be disruptive to their play experience, but given that there are plenty of other forms of PvP available (many of which incidentally end up generating a much stronger net contribution to the game), we're confident that such players are more than capable of transitioning rapidly to other, more robustly-supported occupations.


Meh. Why not let vigilantes have safe remote reps? It's worth it for the griefer tears, alone. There's a difference between having a dangerous game world, and just plain coddling bullies and griefers. Also, anyone who left Eve over that would undoubtedly be improving the community by doing so.

Don't get me wrong, I've done a little can flipping and ganking here and there, but if you're going to break the law you shouldn't expect the result to be a fair fight. You should be expect to be out-manned, out-gunned and on the run, just like a real life criminal. Well, for 24 hours or so, at least.

The people crying here just want to shoot fish in a barrel. Well, they should be the fish...

Your arms are crossed smugly and only four people like you. Looks like you are the fish.

Also it kind of looks to me like you're qq'ing about a mean community and then posting how you, too, were a can-flipper and a ganker.

*snip*

Please refrain from personal insults, thank you.

EDIT: removed personal insults - ISD Type40
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#400 - 2012-07-17 21:03:01 UTC
Tyranis Marcus wrote:

Meh. Why not let vigilantes have safe remote reps? It's worth it for the griefer tears, alone. There's a difference between having a dangerous game world, and just plain coddling bullies and griefers. Also, anyone who left Eve over that would undoubtedly be improving the community by doing so.

Don't get me wrong, I've done a little can flipping and ganking here and there, but if you're going to break the law you shouldn't expect the result to be a fair fight. You should be expect to be out-manned, out-gunned and on the run, just like a real life criminal. Well, for 24 hours or so, at least.

The people crying here just want to shoot fish in a barrel. Well, they should be the fish...

Even with the flagging of neutral vigilante reppers as criminals, the balance is definitely against the criminals. Criminals will be outmanned and outgunned regardless since everyone can kill can flippers now. The only way it'll be fish in a barrel is if you are invincible as you lay down fire. Ganking is not fish in a barrel. I've floated nicely tanked ships loaded w/ goodies through empire only to have packs of BS blow up around me due to insufficient alpha. I don't think ganking is easy at all. I think the new crimewatch will make it a lot harder now.

Signatures should be used responsibly...