These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#441 - 2012-07-19 01:37:40 UTC
Gogela wrote:
How would your system work?
I still propose limited engagements — temporary wardecs between ad-hoc groups added and subtracted from on the fly.

· I commit a crime against you — you are now now allowed to initiate an engagement with me.
· If you do, two teams are set up, with a RoE copy-pasted from wardecs, just to keep things consistent.

· Anyone supporting either side will be added to that side for the duration of the engagement (someone who aids a character that is involved in multiple engagements will be added to all those engagements… so choose carefully).
· “Implicit” members (e.g. corp members in case of theft) will have the team pre-selected for them, but will not actually be a part of the engagement until they personally initiate hostilities and/or support acts.
· Team assignment follows the old aggression timer logic: keeping up aggressive and/or support acts keeps the timer from counting down (or perhaps more accurately, repeated acts resets the team assignment timer).
· The engagement as a whole ends when one team runs out of assigned members.
· For the individual member, the engagement is over when their personal assignment timer runs out.

· The only graphs required is a single “can fight” between the teams; the teams themselves are just a list of characters with individual assignment timers. No inheritance is needed — what was a messy graph of inheritance spaghetti now becomes “add name to team A in engagement Y” and “if in team A, anyone in the list of B-team members is a legit target (and vice versa)”.

· Bonus feature: closed limited engagements — the same thing except support acts trigger the suspect flag proposed by CCP (same as for interfering with wardecs — hell, wardecs could just be that with everyone pre-added to the team lists). Can be initiated through a contract between pre-determined parties… Blink

…aaand I'm sure there are roughly a bajillion immediate bugs and exploits.
Pipa Porto
#442 - 2012-07-19 01:41:38 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Gogela wrote:
How would your system work?
I still propose limited engagements — temporary wardecs between ad-hoc groups added and subtracted from on the fly.

· I commit a crime against you — you are now now allowed to initiate an engagement with me.
· If you do, two teams are set up, with a RoE copy-pasted from wardecs, just to keep things consistent.

· Anyone supporting either side will be added to that side for the duration of the engagement (someone who aids a character that is involved in multiple engagements will be added to all those engagements… so choose carefully).
· “Implicit” members (e.g. corp members in case of theft) will have the team pre-selected for them, but will not actually be a part of the engagement until they personally initiate hostilities and/or support acts.
· Team assignment follows the old aggression timer logic: keeping up aggressive and/or support acts keeps the timer from counting down (or perhaps more accurately, repeated acts resets the team assignment timer).
· The engagement as a whole ends when one team runs out of assigned members.
· For the individual member, the engagement is over when their personal assignment timer runs out.

· The only graphs required is a single “can fight” between the teams; the teams themselves are just a list of characters with individual assignment timers. No inheritance is needed — what was a messy graph of inheritance spaghetti now becomes “add name to team A in engagement Y” and “if in team A, anyone in the list of B-team members is a legit target (and vice versa)”.

· Bonus feature: closed limited engagements — the same thing except support acts trigger the suspect flag proposed by CCP (same as for interfering with wardecs — hell, wardecs could just be that with everyone pre-added to the team lists). Can be initiated through a contract between pre-determined parties… Blink

…aaand I'm sure there are roughly a bajillion immediate bugs and exploits.


I like it, and I don't see anything immediately bad.

Well, what happens if you steal from someone on a team? Are you put on the other team, or is it a new engagement?

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#443 - 2012-07-19 01:48:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Pipa Porto wrote:
Well, what happens if you steal from someone on a team? Are you put on the other team, or is it a new engagement?
Purely instinctively, I'd say new (potential) engagement that the victim can choose to initiate. That's a good point, though: one kind-of-1-to-1 flagging that is needed is to track all the potential engagements you can start. Still, since they're not inherited, it shouldn't be too messy… I think… maybe…

The only “reuse” that I envision of existing engagements, and creating cross-over between teams like that, is if you choose to rep members of both teams… in which case you are added to both teams. Congrats — you are now free-for-all to everyone in the field. Twisted
Pipa Porto
#444 - 2012-07-19 01:49:41 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Well, what happens if you steal from someone on a team? Are you put on the other team, or is it a new engagement?
Purely instinctively, I'd say new (potential) engagement that the victim can choose to initiate.

The only “reuse” that I envision of existing engagements, and creating cross-over between teams like that, is if you choose to rep members of both teams… in which case you are added to both teams. Congrats — you are now free-for-all to everyone in the field. Twisted


And the whole field is an FFA to you... Pirate

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#445 - 2012-07-19 01:50:14 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:

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


Isn't there plans for mining ships with bigger buffer tanks in exchange for lower yields? And it's not like mission ships etc are often the target for suicide gankers.

No, judging by their actions and plans, (and when I say plans I mean the actual details of what is planned not the hype) the goal is to transform Highsec into a PvE Themepark effectively free of non consensual PvP.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#446 - 2012-07-19 01:51:53 UTC
Cleaned up the thread. Try to refrain from personal attacks and keep it on topic. Thank you.

-ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Senior Lead

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#447 - 2012-07-19 01:55:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Pipa Porto wrote:
And the whole field is an FFA to you... Pirate
I suppose… and some would doubtlessly try to have fun with that, but then I'd imagine (or at least hope) that both sides would simply say “ok, screw this guy — let's blast him and then get back to fighting among ourselves”.

…still, I can see one issue arising from that idea. Instigator #1 warps in and gets collects as many targets/teams as he likes and instantly gtfo:s; instigator #2–#97 meet up with #1 at ze sekrit rendez-vous spot, tag him with their small remote reps, and then warp back to the main fight to blow everyone up.

So yes… some kind if limitation on the ability to add yourself might be in order. Or maybe that kind of double-teaming should just remove you from both teams and set a suspect flag instead.
Pipa Porto
#448 - 2012-07-19 02:05:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
Tippia wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
And the whole field is an FFA to you... Pirate
I suppose… and some would doubtlessly try to have fun with that, but then I'd imagine (or at least hope) that both sides would simply say “ok, screw this guy — let's blast him and then get back to fighting among ourselves”.

…still, I can see one issue arising from that idea. Instigator #1 warps in and gets collects as many targets/teams as he likes and instantly gtfo:s; instigator #2–#97 meet up with #1 at ze sekrit rendez-vous spot, tag him with their small remote reps, and then warp back to the main fight to blow everyone up.

So yes… some kind if limitation on the ability to add yourself might be in order. Or maybe that kind of double-teaming should just remove you from both teams and set a suspect flag instead.


Or maybe repping gets you added to the team without letting you shoot anyone else until you get shot at (but then we're back at roughly current mechanics).

I think that the biggest problem with trying to do teams is that you want to avoid letting joining a team give you free targets (or people will abuse it. A Lot.). At the same time, trying to go with a Global tag is bad because it's disproportionate, and seems silly.

You steal My Stuff > Now I can shoot you. Makes perfect sense to me in the context of EvE.
You steal My Stuff > Now that random guy over in the corner (well, him too, but I meant that guy over there, yeah, him in the hat) can shoot you. Doesn't make sense to me, especially in the light of another form of "stealing" that's explicitly allowed and unpunished; salvaging yellow wrecks.

The biggest problem with the team aggro suggestions (both yours and Oh Yeah's) that I can see is:
You helped My Enemy > Now I can shoot you. Makes sense.
You helped My Enemy > Now You can shoot me... uhmmm

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#449 - 2012-07-19 02:10:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Pipa Porto wrote:
Or maybe repping gets you added to the team without letting you shoot anyone else until you get shot at (but then we're back at roughly current mechanics).

I think that the biggest problem with trying to do teams is that you want to avoid letting joining a team give you free targets (or people will abuse it. A Lot.).
Yes. I also realised another thing: suspect flagging would simply be a blanket right for anyone and everyone to initiate an engagement against the perp. This could still be used by the co-instigators above, but at least others would have to actively choose to get involved, knowing the risks, rather than the instigators auto-inviting themselves to any fight they see.

That raises another issue, though (and not just in the suspect-flagging case but for normal engagments as well): multiple overlapping engagements where people with the same opponent start supporting each other could potentially create a huge amount of duplicate engagements that need to be tracked. It would be nice if (and even be necessary that) such situations could be detected and have those engagements collapse into one.

A team-based solution would get rid of a lot of the flagging kudzu, but the self-inclusion is indeed tricky to control. On the other hand, that's just your average bar brawl, which kind of goes nicely with the kind of wild-west style law-making that permeates EVE. P
Price Check Aisle3
#450 - 2012-07-19 02:29:30 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Gogela wrote:
How would your system work?
I still propose limited engagements — temporary wardecs between ad-hoc groups added and subtracted from on the fly.

snip

This is far better than the system currently on the table.
  • Karl Hobb IATS
Gogela
Krigmakt Elite
Safety.
#451 - 2012-07-19 02:34:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Gogela
Tippia wrote:
Gogela wrote:
How would your system work?
I still propose limited engagements — temporary wardecs between ad-hoc groups added and subtracted from on the fly.

· I commit a crime against you — you are now now allowed to initiate an engagement with me.
· If you do, two teams are set up, with a RoE copy-pasted from wardecs, just to keep things consistent.

· Anyone supporting either side will be added to that side for the duration of the engagement (someone who aids a character that is involved in multiple engagements will be added to all those engagements… so choose carefully).
· “Implicit” members (e.g. corp members in case of theft) will have the team pre-selected for them, but will not actually be a part of the engagement until they personally initiate hostilities and/or support acts.
· Team assignment follows the old aggression timer logic: keeping up aggressive and/or support acts keeps the timer from counting down (or perhaps more accurately, repeated acts resets the team assignment timer).
· The engagement as a whole ends when one team runs out of assigned members.
· For the individual member, the engagement is over when their personal assignment timer runs out.

· The only graphs required is a single “can fight” between the teams; the teams themselves are just a list of characters with individual assignment timers. No inheritance is needed — what was a messy graph of inheritance spaghetti now becomes “add name to team A in engagement Y” and “if in team A, anyone in the list of B-team members is a legit target (and vice versa)”.

· Bonus feature: closed limited engagements — the same thing except support acts trigger the suspect flag proposed by CCP (same as for interfering with wardecs — hell, wardecs could just be that with everyone pre-added to the team lists). Can be initiated through a contract between pre-determined parties… Blink

…aaand I'm sure there are roughly a bajillion immediate bugs and exploits.

Now we're getting somewhere... hell yah Tippia.

So let's say this happens... there are two sides of this limited engagement, and just for the sake of argument let's call them "criminal team 1" and "vigilante team 2". So 2 new unaffiliated players come into the system... they both can flip someone, and then one of them engages w/ vigilante team 2 and the other w/ criminal team 1. Are both teams now criminals and able to be attacked by the randoms in local? What if a member of vigilante team one commits a criminal act like flipping a can, does everyone inherit the criminal flag? What if a member of either party pulls a GCC?

It's these random instances that keep sinking anything I come up with. If we can find a better solution I'm sure CCP would listen... I just keep finding loopholes in everything else I consider.
Price Check Aisle3 wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Gogela wrote:
How would your system work?
I still propose limited engagements — temporary wardecs between ad-hoc groups added and subtracted from on the fly.

snip

This is far better than the system currently on the table.

Lets refrain from massaging crotches until we iron it out. One f*** up and the whole mechanic crumbles.

Signatures should be used responsibly...

Pipa Porto
#452 - 2012-07-19 02:50:53 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Or maybe repping gets you added to the team without letting you shoot anyone else until you get shot at (but then we're back at roughly current mechanics).

I think that the biggest problem with trying to do teams is that you want to avoid letting joining a team give you free targets (or people will abuse it. A Lot.).
Yes. I also realised another thing: suspect flagging would simply be a blanket right for anyone and everyone to initiate an engagement against the perp. This could still be used by the co-instigators above, but at least others would have to actively choose to get involved, knowing the risks, rather than the instigators auto-inviting themselves to any fight they see.

That raises another issue, though (and not just in the suspect-flagging case but for normal engagments as well): multiple overlapping engagements where people with the same opponent start supporting each other could potentially create a huge amount of duplicate engagements that need to be tracked. It would be nice if (and even be necessary that) such situations could be detected and have those engagements collapse into one.

A team-based solution would get rid of a lot of the flagging kudzu, but the self-inclusion is indeed tricky to control. On the other hand, that's just your average bar brawl, which kind of goes nicely with the kind of wild-west style law-making that permeates EVE. P


TBH, I don't really mind a lot of the adverse consequences of the self inclusion into team engagements. It lets people can flip and ninja in groups. It's Incursions for HS PvPers P.

The thing is that I think that CCP's suspect flagging is overbroad (and the fact that they keep having to add exceptions [or strange flagging] to avoid weirdness like invulnerable logi is evidence of that).

CCP doesn't seem to like teams (at least Greyscale doesn't) because of the problem of self inclusion into the conflict.


I don't think that Individual Flagging really isn't as hard for players to understand as people make it out to be.

The following principles are pretty simple and reasonably comprehensive (I think):

If you shoot someone, they can shoot you and your stuff.
If you steal from someone, they can shoot you and your stuff.
If you help your friend whom someone else can shoot, the people who can shoot your friend can shoot you and your stuff.

(If I'm forgetting something, please tell me)

And yeah, keeping track of who can shoot whom is going to make some ugly charts on the server. Laws are like that, unfortunately.


Figuring out how long a timer lasts used to be harder because of the "and your stuff part." Now, instead, we have Suddenly CONCORD, which is a silly mechanic.

Here's an idea for fixing the timer issue. Make it like Logoffs. If you have legally shot an object in the last 15m, you can legally shoot it (but not necessarily its owner). Maybe make that work for pilots too. Would put a 15m damper on dropping corp to escape a station camp.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#453 - 2012-07-19 02:57:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Gogela wrote:
So let's say this happens... there are two sides of this limited engagement, and just for the sake of argument let's call them "criminal team 1" and "vigilante team 2". So 2 new unaffiliated players come into the system... they both can flip someone, and then one of them engages w/ vigilante team 2 and the other w/ criminal team 1.
Depends on what you mean by “engage with”… if they attack them, CONCORD comes and sorts them out because they aren't party to that first fight — they only have outstanding engagements with whomever they canflipped, and only those who got canflipped can actually initiate those separate engagements.

If you by “engage with” you mean “remote-rep”, then they'd be added to the respective teams (at least as described above…), and the outstanding engagement with the canflip victims is still a separate engagement.

The whole idea is that under this scheme, it's not about any global “vigilante” or “criminal” teams — it's about very specific teams built around a single transgression. Each transgression creates a new set of teams.

Quote:
What if a member of vigilante team one commits a criminal act like flipping a can, does everyone inherit the criminal flag?
No, because there is no engagement yet. If the canflippee (yes, that's a word now… so there!) decides to act on the crime, then a new engagement is initiated, and only then can people assisting that vigilante be added to the (new) team in this separate engagement.

Quote:
What if a member of either party pulls a GCC?
Then CONCORD blows them up. Other people will inherit the felon flag as per CCP's plan and gets blown up as well (or, more likely, they will not since they've set their safeties to not allow them to perform any felonious acts). This is really no different than pulling a GCC in an Incursion fleet or some such.


As for the self-invite problem… idea #2:

What if supporting a team member did not automatically add you to the team. Instead, you get a “invite” flag (for the lack of a better term) for the team you picked and it's up to the other team to act on this and choose whether or not to officially add you to the brawl by attacking you. Thus we have an RR parallel to how the victim of the crime is the one who has to respond to the engagement proposal (hah!) to begin with and start the actual engagement. Thus, while you can still choose to warp in and RR people, this does not give you any free targets — the (potential) targets themselves have to choose to actually fully draw you into the fight before you're allowed to shoot anyone.

…of course, new exploit: a mole joins the “vigilante” team, and when the “criminal” support (suspiciously still consisting of gank battleships with small RR mods) warps in, he juuuust so happens to be a trigger-happy newbie who “accidentally” pulls those guys into the fight. It's not quite self-invite any more, but it's still very easy to work around to get free targets.

I'm beginning to think that, yes, any kind of group solution will inevitably have this problem, but on the other hand, I can't quite see how to get rid of the inheritance mess without doing a group or global-based solution. Straight
Price Check Aisle3
#454 - 2012-07-19 03:14:06 UTC
Gogela wrote:
Price Check Aisle3 wrote:
This is far better than the system currently on the table.

Lets refrain from massaging crotches until we iron it out. One f*** up and the whole mechanic crumbles.

Any system that deals with limited engagements is far preferable to something like "If you steal something everyone can shoot you". No one's sucking anyone's **** quite yet.
  • Karl Hobb IATS
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#455 - 2012-07-19 11:49:26 UTC
I like where that idea is going too, Tippia. I'd started to think along those lines, but read somewhere (or heard in the presentation maybe?) where Greyscale said he wanted to avoid temporary wars where you're constantly adding and removing people.

However, it does seem a better solution both than what we've got now and where we're headed. Perhaps Greyscale will reconsider?

I think there will always be some way to work around the system with plants on the other side or through deception. As long as the rules and implementation are reasonably straight forward and easy to understand, it stands a chance.

Alternately:

What would be the drawbacks of simplifying the system even further... instead of calling it a suspect flag, just make it a "I give up my concord protection" flag?

- If you steal from someone, you get the flag you can be attacked by anyone.
- If anyone attacks you, they get the flag and they can be attacked by anyone.
- If another person shoots or reps either of you, they get the same flag.

A PVP-bar brawl. You can choose to stay out of it entirely, or just cut loose and everyone runs the risk of there being too much to handle.

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.

Zedrik Cayne
Standards and Practices
#456 - 2012-07-20 19:08:17 UTC
I'm pretty sure we can simply rename the 'suspect' flag to the 'buttinski' flag and have a really simple set of rules.

1) Am I interfering with someone upon whom I don't have some sort of timer? (War declaration or aggression for example) Then I get the buttinski flag.
2) Actively helping anyone with the buttinski flag gives you the buttinski flag.
3) Shooting someone with a buttinski will get you a buttinski unless you have another reason (corporate aggresssion timer, personal aggression timer, war declaration)
4) RRing or otherwise supporting a pilot engaged with a buttinski will get you the flag unless you have some other timer with the buttinski. (So, if you were in the corporation that a pilot stole from, you have a corporate wide aggression timer you may act on, so your RR activities are not butting in. You will still get an individual aggression flag to the buttinski'd pilot, but no global buttinski)

So, two different corporations at war with a third corporation may rr each other since neither side is 'butting in'. At least if no other third party is involved. (ie: If corporation a and corp b are at war with corp c... and corp a guy is shooting corp c...then corp b can rr corp a and not get a buttinski. If corp a guy is shooting a suspect and corp b RR's him...he is butting into something he has no timer with and gets a buttinski.)

How does this sound? (Other than the stupid name of 'buttinski') Individual aggression does not extend beyond one level of pilots. It still allows corpmates to help their stricken bretheren (Even if the 15 minute corporation timer for a can theft has expired) at the expense of having 'butted in' to a fight.

I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon

Pipa Porto
#457 - 2012-07-20 19:30:13 UTC
Zedrik Cayne wrote:
I'm pretty sure we can simply rename the 'suspect' flag to the 'buttinski' flag and have a really simple set of rules.

1) Am I interfering with someone upon whom I don't have some sort of timer? (War declaration or aggression for example) Then I get the buttinski flag.
2) Actively helping anyone with the buttinski flag gives you the buttinski flag.
3) Shooting someone with a buttinski will get you a buttinski unless you have another reason (corporate aggresssion timer, personal aggression timer, war declaration)
4) RRing or otherwise supporting a pilot engaged with a buttinski will get you the flag unless you have some other timer with the buttinski. (So, if you were in the corporation that a pilot stole from, you have a corporate wide aggression timer you may act on, so your RR activities are not butting in. You will still get an individual aggression flag to the buttinski'd pilot, but no global buttinski)

So, two different corporations at war with a third corporation may rr each other since neither side is 'butting in'. At least if no other third party is involved. (ie: If corporation a and corp b are at war with corp c... and corp a guy is shooting corp c...then corp b can rr corp a and not get a buttinski. If corp a guy is shooting a suspect and corp b RR's him...he is butting into something he has no timer with and gets a buttinski.)

How does this sound? (Other than the stupid name of 'buttinski') Individual aggression does not extend beyond one level of pilots. It still allows corpmates to help their stricken bretheren (Even if the 15 minute corporation timer for a can theft has expired) at the expense of having 'butted in' to a fight.


Who's allowed to shoot those with the buttinski flag?

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Zedrik Cayne
Standards and Practices
#458 - 2012-07-20 20:06:25 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Zedrik Cayne wrote:
I'm pretty sure we can simply rename the 'suspect' flag to the 'buttinski' flag and have a really simple set of rules.

1) Am I interfering with someone upon whom I don't have some sort of timer? (War declaration or aggression for example) Then I get the buttinski flag.
2) Actively helping anyone with the buttinski flag gives you the buttinski flag.
3) Shooting someone with a buttinski will get you a buttinski unless you have another reason (corporate aggresssion timer, personal aggression timer, war declaration)
4) RRing or otherwise supporting a pilot engaged with a buttinski will get you the flag unless you have some other timer with the buttinski. (So, if you were in the corporation that a pilot stole from, you have a corporate wide aggression timer you may act on, so your RR activities are not butting in. You will still get an individual aggression flag to the buttinski'd pilot, but no global buttinski)

So, two different corporations at war with a third corporation may rr each other since neither side is 'butting in'. At least if no other third party is involved. (ie: If corporation a and corp b are at war with corp c... and corp a guy is shooting corp c...then corp b can rr corp a and not get a buttinski. If corp a guy is shooting a suspect and corp b RR's him...he is butting into something he has no timer with and gets a buttinski.)

How does this sound? (Other than the stupid name of 'buttinski') Individual aggression does not extend beyond one level of pilots. It still allows corpmates to help their stricken bretheren (Even if the 15 minute corporation timer for a can theft has expired) at the expense of having 'butted in' to a fight.


Who's allowed to shoot those with the buttinski flag?


Anybody. Whether or not they get a buttinski flag themselves depends on whether or not they have a good reason. Like 'Dude stole my milkshake!' or 'Dude is already at war with me' means that you aren't butting in. So no flag for you. If you wanna be a white knight and butt in...you get a buttinski flag.

I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon

Pipa Porto
#459 - 2012-07-20 20:09:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
Zedrik Cayne wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Zedrik Cayne wrote:
I'm pretty sure we can simply rename the 'suspect' flag to the 'buttinski' flag and have a really simple set of rules.

1) Am I interfering with someone upon whom I don't have some sort of timer? (War declaration or aggression for example) Then I get the buttinski flag.
2) Actively helping anyone with the buttinski flag gives you the buttinski flag.
3) Shooting someone with a buttinski will get you a buttinski unless you have another reason (corporate aggresssion timer, personal aggression timer, war declaration)
4) RRing or otherwise supporting a pilot engaged with a buttinski will get you the flag unless you have some other timer with the buttinski. (So, if you were in the corporation that a pilot stole from, you have a corporate wide aggression timer you may act on, so your RR activities are not butting in. You will still get an individual aggression flag to the buttinski'd pilot, but no global buttinski)

So, two different corporations at war with a third corporation may rr each other since neither side is 'butting in'. At least if no other third party is involved. (ie: If corporation a and corp b are at war with corp c... and corp a guy is shooting corp c...then corp b can rr corp a and not get a buttinski. If corp a guy is shooting a suspect and corp b RR's him...he is butting into something he has no timer with and gets a buttinski.)

How does this sound? (Other than the stupid name of 'buttinski') Individual aggression does not extend beyond one level of pilots. It still allows corpmates to help their stricken bretheren (Even if the 15 minute corporation timer for a can theft has expired) at the expense of having 'butted in' to a fight.


Who's allowed to shoot those with the buttinski flag?


Anybody. Whether or not they get a buttinski flag themselves depends on whether or not they have a good reason. Like 'Dude stole my milkshake!' or 'Dude is already at war with me' means that you aren't butting in. So no flag for you. If you wanna be a white knight and butt in...you get a buttinski flag.


So it's the suspect flag. Except that shooting suspects will also make you a suspect.

EDIT: Did not notice the first line of your post where you said exactly that.

I think we've been over why the global flags aren't a great idea.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#460 - 2012-07-20 20:18:43 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Gogela wrote:
How would your system work?
I still propose limited engagements — temporary wardecs between ad-hoc groups added and subtracted from on the fly.

· I commit a crime against you — you are now now allowed to initiate an engagement with me.
· If you do, two teams are set up, with a RoE copy-pasted from wardecs, just to keep things consistent.

· Anyone supporting either side will be added to that side for the duration of the engagement (someone who aids a character that is involved in multiple engagements will be added to all those engagements… so choose carefully).
· “Implicit” members (e.g. corp members in case of theft) will have the team pre-selected for them, but will not actually be a part of the engagement until they personally initiate hostilities and/or support acts.
· Team assignment follows the old aggression timer logic: keeping up aggressive and/or support acts keeps the timer from counting down (or perhaps more accurately, repeated acts resets the team assignment timer).
· The engagement as a whole ends when one team runs out of assigned members.
· For the individual member, the engagement is over when their personal assignment timer runs out.

· The only graphs required is a single “can fight” between the teams; the teams themselves are just a list of characters with individual assignment timers. No inheritance is needed — what was a messy graph of inheritance spaghetti now becomes “add name to team A in engagement Y” and “if in team A, anyone in the list of B-team members is a legit target (and vice versa)”.

· Bonus feature: closed limited engagements — the same thing except support acts trigger the suspect flag proposed by CCP (same as for interfering with wardecs — hell, wardecs could just be that with everyone pre-added to the team lists). Can be initiated through a contract between pre-determined parties… Blink

…aaand I'm sure there are roughly a bajillion immediate bugs and exploits.


It initally sounds great, but there is a big issue, one of those exploits you mention.

A group of people who are working together can get individual members on both sides, and new new player joining in will not know this. Example:

A drops a can. B, C, D, and E steal from it. We have a limited engagement with 1 person on one side and 4 on the other.
B warps someplace where the Mark (the intended victim of the operation) is. The Mark shoots B. This adds him to the limited engagement on A's side.
C, D, E now have rights to shoot the Mark, even though the Mark never agressed C, D or E.

This, and other "edge cases" need be ironed out. Once that is all done, will we have a simpler system, and a better one, than what we have now?

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction