EVE General Discussion

Yeah especially when you blow them up using in mission mechanics, they come after you in a billion isk fit ship thinking they have kill rights and CONCORD reminds them they dont. THOSE reactions are

...priceless...

this and I want to know how this micro issue can get an endless thread of 22+ pages.

Just a minor FYI... I had a carrier SD on me yesterday that did not generate a killmail, so the KM-on-SD thing seems spotty, either applying to just certain classes of ships (supers, it may seem) or has been removed/disabled on the servers since we first saw it happening last week.

/T

why us lords of eve mock the cattle of eve as risk averse ninnies is that they cannot face the prospect of loss

to a highsec miner, the idea that something would be taken away from them is soul-wrenching and among the worst experiences of their life

the idea they could lose their ship is terrifying; being told they will lose their ship would not cause them to say "oh well then there's no risk" it would cause them to soil themselves in terror and sit in the corner gibbering about the bad man

My in-game occupation notwithstanding, how do you justify involving a third party into a simple theft dispute between thief and victim? What justifies the right for another pilot to open fire if they have not been wronged in any way?

Your argument deals in absolutes. My point is there should be no absolute right or absolute wrong in context of the game universe.

Silly argument. 1) This future society is not "a" society but many, with varying laws (high/low/null & local faction or alliance) and norms. Just ask a minmatar slave on amarr. 2) If you were in the middle of the pacific and a ship w/ an Indian flag claiming to be a Japanese ship fired on you, and in the ensuing battle you sunk it, would you have salvage rights when Iceland claimed it was stolen from them? Not so easy now. Who you are, who has your back, the law of the sea, the world court, every pacific nation, and who hates you would all be factors. Not telling what would happen or what would be "legal"...

1) We're only talking about hisec, and Concord's universal "Empire" laws that apply across all factions and alliances.

2) If I were in the middle of Amarr space and a ship with anyone's flag fired on me, Concord would sink it before I could, and I believe anyone would have loot and salvage rights on it since the wreck would be blue.

1) Amarr is in empire. What did the minmatar slave say when you asked him/her?

2) Nobody is talking about ganking. What about people who have dec'ed you? You don't get salvage rights when you kill them, regardless of who agressed, do you? What if you take from someone's can, they agress you, and you kill them? Do you have salvage rights to their wreck then? Nope. If the can defender wins the brawl... he won't have salvage rights to the flipper's wreck either. What if the Amarr navy (not concord) killed a ship? What if someone kills an Amarr navy ship, who gets to salvage that wreck?

CCP plan to fix wardecs:

Aggressor gets: Massively increased wardec costs, reduced flexibility in ending a war, plus some fluff.
Defender gets: 'Unlimited' allies, retains the ability to instantly corp-switch at no cost. And the fluff.

---Net result: Large defender buff.

Plan to 'fix' petty crime:
Aggressor gets: nothing.
Defender gets 'unlimited' DPS and possibly 'invincible RR'. (Greyscale stated criminal flag for RR would be 'considered'. Sure.)

---Net result: Large defender buff.

And then people scratch their heads and wonder why there are so many suicide gankers these days.

Crimewatch will only further add to our ganking numbers.
Traditional organized 'carebear baiting' professions die off, either due to 'safeties' - or getting dogpiled/jammed out.
If the penalty for petty crime is eventual blob death anyway, criminals might as well just go for broke and go on a shooting spree.

Props to Ohh Yeah, for submitting a well thought out concept that would lead to some interesting fights. Pretty sad that it is simply dismissed out of hand....but that was quite predictable.

From the outset, it was pretty clear that Greyscale had two goals.
1) Simplify the system.
2) Punish 'suspect' - style play.
...and not necessarily in that order. One-to one flag 'complexity' is A-OK if it is there to limit the options of the suspect.

If CCP truly made simplicity a priority, they would make the 'suspect status' sticky.
IE; you interact with a suspect, you become a suspect. You want to be a vigilante, you bring friends and accept the risk.

But in Grayscales' eyes, creating a dual flag system doesn't sufficiently punish 'suspects' enough - as it provides them with alternative PVP opportunities, especially if they are working as a team. To be a suspect means you must consent to the gangbang, as every neutral in the system flocks to get onto the KM.

TLDR; Crimewatch = more suicide ganking, as 'suspect' players take the path of least resistance.

Lotta flames, nottalotta ideas in this thread.



Maybe we should talk about avatar tattoos.

So how can we make a high sec brawl escalate a little better, not allow for neutral support to get off the hook, keep the escalation of hostilities in favor of the defender, but not pu55ify it so much that anyone w/ a suspect flag in instapoped for something as silly as flipping a can, without creating a complex set of aggression rules that get attached to each and every involved character that in turn needs to be updated globally anytime anyone else enters the frey or creates some other relative 'flag change', or someones status changes from vigilante to criminal relative to someone else? I'm all frickin ears. How would such a system work? I'm not a programmer, but I see the problem with maintaining complex dynamic relationships between objects that need to be constantly updated. It could be like getting into a fight while doing 100 market transactions, creating 50 bookmarks, and getting your whole inventory updated every second. Think it would cause lag?

I don't know. I was thinking maybe there could be more types of flags, and one flag control DB in each system all the clients access at some interval in HS but not in null. Maybe in that way you could create complex rules that interact relative to the other flag rules instead of each client, so that you stack flags... flag 1 + flag 2 = flag xyz where xyz is only true in the isolated context of that conflict and a criminal flag or GCC trumps all. Maybe that's a dumb idea because maybe there are too many possible combinations to code all of that... I don't know. I just see jita's node catching on fire.

How would your system work?