These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Zedrik Cayne
Standards and Practices
#461 - 2012-07-20 20:30:37 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
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.


Yup. But it is more descriptive of 'why' you are getting the flag. Rather neatly covers most of the surprise aggression the suspect/vigilante flag system would have involved. (You really want to shoot at that buttinski you buttinski?) And removes the proliferation of aggression timers that is the real reason they have been wanting to change the system in the first place so their servers can be happier.

That and you could call folks 'buttinski' in game. Because they would be buttinski.

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

Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#462 - 2012-07-20 20:31:01 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.

For this to work the game still needs to maintain a list of pilot vs pilot rights. That is it needs to have a list of which pilots can shoot which other pilots without getting the flag.

The entire idea of the new system is to eliminate the need to track pilot vs pilot rights of any sort. That's not to say its a bad idea, it may be to get a workable system a list of pilot vs pilot rights of some sort is needed.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

Pipa Porto
#463 - 2012-07-20 20:39:25 UTC
Zedrik Cayne wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
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.


Yup. But it is more descriptive of 'why' you are getting the flag. Rather neatly covers most of the surprise aggression the suspect/vigilante flag system would have involved. (You really want to shoot at that buttinski you buttinski?) And removes the proliferation of aggression timers that is the real reason they have been wanting to change the system in the first place so their servers can be happier.

That and you could call folks 'buttinski' in game. Because they would be buttinski.


The problem with the suspect flag is that there really isn't a sensible reason for everyone to be able to shoot someone to steal something.

In addition there are several bad trail on effects that'll come from it. Suicide Ganking Freighters will take a giant nerf, since all it takes is a bump to get a free freighter kill from the Freighter coming around to loot the wreck.

If they need to fix something on the server's side, optimization is the place to go. Mucking with mechanics without considering the effects (they weren't bothered about the idea of invulnerable logis until we made a fuss) is not the way to fix server-side issues.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Zedrik Cayne
Standards and Practices
#464 - 2012-07-20 20:49:24 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
For this to work the game still needs to maintain a list of pilot vs pilot rights. That is it needs to have a list of which pilots can shoot which other pilots without getting the flag.

The entire idea of the new system is to eliminate the need to track pilot vs pilot rights of any sort. That's not to say its a bad idea, it may be to get a workable system a list of pilot vs pilot rights of some sort is needed.


They have already stated that they want some folks to be able to shoot at suspects without getting flags themselves. So there has to be some sort of pilot vs pilot rights. But they don't want the pilot timers transferable which is what the actual problem is (the whole chaining of timers means replicating timers everywhere and updating a whole lot of stuff on multiple pilots all the time)

Examples that have been given include can flipping. They don't want the people who were stolen from to get omgsurpriseexploded if they steal their stuff back or shoot the buttinski. At the same time the buttinski should be able to defend himself. So they need the pilot vs pilot rights. As well as corp vs pilot timers. (If you stole from a corporation can, my whole corp should be able to shoot at you without being considered 'buttinskis')

At the same time... Anyone who does butt in; the white knight, the 'paid security', or even another pirate-y player, runs a very real risk of getting shot into pieces by other white knights, paid security or pirate-y players.

At the very least it can add the whole new profession of 'private security' in highsec. As well as 'the guy who wanders around flagged all the time with backup following 2 jumps behind' in an attempt to get some cheap ganks going. As well as making stealing from cans and wrecks on a gate way more dangerous.

Risk is more balanced. Sure, stealing from a can is dangerous. But not much more dangerous than it was before. Chances are folks aren't going to white knight for fear of the guy can flipping having friends. Unless they think they have enough friends to deal with the situation.

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

Gogela
Krigmakt Elite
Safety.
#465 - 2012-07-20 20:53:30 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Zedrik Cayne wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
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.


Yup. But it is more descriptive of 'why' you are getting the flag. Rather neatly covers most of the surprise aggression the suspect/vigilante flag system would have involved. (You really want to shoot at that buttinski you buttinski?) And removes the proliferation of aggression timers that is the real reason they have been wanting to change the system in the first place so their servers can be happier.

That and you could call folks 'buttinski' in game. Because they would be buttinski.


The problem with the suspect flag is that there really isn't a sensible reason for everyone to be able to shoot someone to steal something.

In addition there are several bad trail on effects that'll come from it. Suicide Ganking Freighters will take a giant nerf, since all it takes is a bump to get a free freighter kill from the Freighter coming around to loot the wreck.

If they need to fix something on the server's side, optimization is the place to go. Mucking with mechanics without considering the effects (they weren't bothered about the idea of invulnerable logis until we made a fuss) is not the way to fix server-side issues.

Back to square one, eh? It seems like options are being exhausted. I still haven't seen anything not riddled with loopholes. I just think now that empire is going to be SO safe that there will be no reason not to faction or officer fit everything, because nobody can do anything about it. The rewards will be good in empire and the safety will increase... kinda makes me mad. Empire needs a value nerf stat. I'm over it.

~fin

Signatures should be used responsibly...

Zedrik Cayne
Standards and Practices
#466 - 2012-07-20 21:39:55 UTC
Gogela wrote:
Back to square one, eh? It seems like options are being exhausted. I still haven't seen anything not riddled with loopholes. I just think now that empire is going to be SO safe that there will be no reason not to faction or officer fit everything, because nobody can do anything about it. The rewards will be good in empire and the safety will increase... kinda makes me mad. Empire needs a value nerf stat. I'm over it.

~fin


Thing is, we're not back to square one. We have some...interesting side effects already of the changes they are making to crimewatch. The refactoring is introducing subtle changes to the mechanics already. It is just stuff you don't normally see because you don't ride the edges of the game mechanics hard enough during normal play.

I've seen enough odd stuff that I will probably try out on SiSi later now. Just to see if the changes I think they are making are in the same ball park.

They are trying to untie the gordian knot by using scissors and glue to cut a piece out..and glue the ends back together in a more convenient spot. Creating something under a new system that works like the old one. Stuff they don't announce in patch notes suddenly acting subtly differently. (Have you noticed that you can no longer keep looking at objects over 100km away?) Now, I doubt that is because of the crimewatch refactoring. But who knows why it suddenly started to behave as it probably should have for years with nary a peep about the fix.

We're well beyond where we could even think about going back to square one. Now to see if we cannot get CCP to implement something reasonably good that also satisfies their stated goals.

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

War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#467 - 2012-07-21 11:09:43 UTC
Gogela wrote:
Back to square one, eh? It seems like options are being exhausted. I still haven't seen anything not riddled with loopholes. I just think now that empire is going to be SO safe that there will be no reason not to faction or officer fit everything, because nobody can do anything about it. The rewards will be good in empire and the safety will increase... kinda makes me mad. Empire needs a value nerf stat. I'm over it.

~fin


What are the loopholes and problems with the "buttinski" flag? (I like your name better Zedrik, run with it. My "I give up my concord protection flag" was way too wordy :) )

How is safety increased if joining the fight uninvited makes you open to be shot by everyone?

What makes officer fitted ships in hisec safer with this idea, or CW2.0 than currently? The mark always has to make the mistake of choosing to engage (or get ganked).

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.

Pipa Porto
#468 - 2012-07-21 19:51:19 UTC
War Kitten wrote:
Gogela wrote:
Back to square one, eh? It seems like options are being exhausted. I still haven't seen anything not riddled with loopholes. I just think now that empire is going to be SO safe that there will be no reason not to faction or officer fit everything, because nobody can do anything about it. The rewards will be good in empire and the safety will increase... kinda makes me mad. Empire needs a value nerf stat. I'm over it.

~fin


What are the loopholes and problems with the "buttinski" flag? (I like your name better Zedrik, run with it. My "I give up my concord protection flag" was way too wordy :) )

How is safety increased if joining the fight uninvited makes you open to be shot by everyone?

What makes officer fitted ships in hisec safer with this idea, or CW2.0 than currently? The mark always has to make the mistake of choosing to engage (or get ganked).


A global flag upon theft makes Suicide Ganking Freighters prohibitively dangerous (especially if you wrap your cargo up in something bigger than anything a non-freighter can carry). The looting freighter will almost certainly get tackled and killed. (So the new Freighter safe cargo limit would be something like 5-8b to compensate for the risk of freighter loss).

A global flag essentially kills canflipping as a mini-profession (If CCP wants to do this, they should come out and say it), since canflipping is all about getting into a limited engagement.

A global flag kills HS 1v1s, since now everybody can come shoot you because you stole.

A global flag makes HS safer for carebears.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Zedrik Cayne
Standards and Practices
#469 - 2012-07-21 22:57:24 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
A global flag upon theft makes Suicide Ganking Freighters prohibitively dangerous (especially if you wrap your cargo up in something bigger than anything a non-freighter can carry). The looting freighter will almost certainly get tackled and killed. (So the new Freighter safe cargo limit would be something like 5-8b to compensate for the risk of freighter loss).

A global flag essentially kills canflipping as a mini-profession (If CCP wants to do this, they should come out and say it), since canflipping is all about getting into a limited engagement.

A global flag kills HS 1v1s, since now everybody can come shoot you because you stole.

A global flag makes HS safer for carebears.


Heh.. I'd say HTFU. Whatever CCP decides to do. I'll take a look at the rules. And then decide what to do with myself. Right now I'm just making a suggestion. The best I can come up with given the limited resources of stated design goals. And some assumptions about what they think is easy/best to implement (aka: The suspect flag) and just change it enough to make it usable and less unbalanced towards the 'victims' (ie: The buttinski flag)

Yes, it makes you folks suicide ganking freighters have to think twice about it. But then again, you can have enough falcons/blackbirds handy to get your freighter off the hook.

This isn't going to kill the canflipper.. It is going to kill the *solo* canflipper. Who is me. That doesn't mean I won't be able to bend whatever new system is into a pretzel should I need it. I'm just not going to be able to do it the same way I used to.

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

Pipa Porto
#470 - 2012-07-21 23:43:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
Zedrik Cayne wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
A global flag upon theft makes Suicide Ganking Freighters prohibitively dangerous (especially if you wrap your cargo up in something bigger than anything a non-freighter can carry). The looting freighter will almost certainly get tackled and killed. (So the new Freighter safe cargo limit would be something like 5-8b to compensate for the risk of freighter loss).

A global flag essentially kills canflipping as a mini-profession (If CCP wants to do this, they should come out and say it), since canflipping is all about getting into a limited engagement.

A global flag kills HS 1v1s, since now everybody can come shoot you because you stole.

A global flag makes HS safer for carebears.


Heh.. I'd say HTFU. Whatever CCP decides to do. I'll take a look at the rules. And then decide what to do with myself. Right now I'm just making a suggestion. The best I can come up with given the limited resources of stated design goals. And some assumptions about what they think is easy/best to implement (aka: The suspect flag) and just change it enough to make it usable and less unbalanced towards the 'victims' (ie: The buttinski flag)

Yes, it makes you folks suicide ganking freighters have to think twice about it. But then again, you can have enough falcons/blackbirds handy to get your freighter off the hook.

This isn't going to kill the canflipper.. It is going to kill the *solo* canflipper. Who is me. That doesn't mean I won't be able to bend whatever new system is into a pretzel should I need it. I'm just not going to be able to do it the same way I used to.


So now we've changed Freighter ganking from something hard but doable (25ish people in Nados, 1 alt in a freighter) to something that takes that plus a ton of BBs/Falcons who're also going to die because they've been flagged to everyone, plus the freighter who's still going to die, because EVERYONE can shoot at him. Maybe in the backwaters, there might be few enough people for you to get a freighter into warp, but in the main trade lanes, Suicide Ganking will die an ignominious death. Jamming, after all, doesn't do much against a bump ship.

Here's a thought, let the wreck of a dead PC ship be owned by whoever struck the killing blow, and give someone who's can is flipped a choice between a 1v1 flag and a Global flag (or No flag vs a Global flag). Downside is that people looting their own wrecks after whatever embarrassing NPC loss will get a buttinski flag, but hey, HTFU, right?

Arguing against a stupid and massive rule change (with a bunch of repercussions that CCP clearly hasn't thought about*) isn't something that implies that I need to HTFU. Of course people will adapt to this if it happens. And then the carebears will whine more, just like they did after the Insurance nerf to suicide ganking (hailed as the end of Suicide ganking by most carebear circles at the time). A five to eightfold increase in the cost of Suicide ganking a freighter is the biggest increase that we've seen since CONCORD stopped being tankable, and that's just the first thing that came to mind when I sat down to figure out what the global flag would break.

*They were going to let people use Logi without being shootable by the opposing side until it was pointed out in this thread tht that would be stupid.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Lady Spank
Get Out Nasty Face
#471 - 2012-07-22 00:18:37 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
The inevitable end result will be that the new system will be more difficult to understand than the old system, even if what is happening serverside is simpler.

Yes, Eve is far too hard. Please make it so simpletons can join in.

(ಠ_ృ) ~ It Takes a Million Years to Become Diamonds So Lets Just Burn Like Coal Until the Sky's Black ~ (ಠ_ృ)

Zedrik Cayne
Standards and Practices
#472 - 2012-07-23 14:16:53 UTC
Lady Spank wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
The inevitable end result will be that the new system will be more difficult to understand than the old system, even if what is happening serverside is simpler.

Yes, Eve is far too hard. Please make it so simpletons can join in.


Simpletons with fat wallets and bad senses of judgement?

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

Tetsel
House Amamake
#473 - 2012-07-23 15:33:51 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Ok, so.

[...]BLA BLA BLA[...]

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.


I thought there were a pop-up message when you try to steal item from a can that's not yours... Why high-sec people should be protected from being stupid and do not read messages ? You could just make the message crystal clear that the pilot will be a criminal if he grab those items, instead of assuming people need assistance for being ********...
And I'm sure changing a simple text is easier and less time consuming than remove a flag mechanic....

Loyal servent to Mother Amamake. @EVE_Tetsel

Another Bittervet Please Ignore

Gogela
Krigmakt Elite
Safety.
#474 - 2012-09-21 00:43:41 UTC
Wonder how Crimewatch is looking now... been a while since we got an update... Big smile

Signatures should be used responsibly...

Buck Futz
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#475 - 2012-09-21 00:55:37 UTC
Zedrik Cayne wrote:
Lady Spank wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
The inevitable end result will be that the new system will be more difficult to understand than the old system, even if what is happening serverside is simpler.

Yes, Eve is far too hard. Please make it so simpletons can join in.


Simpletons with fat wallets and bad senses of judgement?


I think there are already plenty of these around.

I hope Crimewatch dies a lonely death and is buried at sea.

Of course, I rarely get what I want - so it will likely be implemented 3x as stupid, sooner than I expect.
Pipa Porto
#476 - 2012-09-21 03:16:27 UTC
Gogela wrote:
Wonder how Crimewatch is looking now... been a while since we got an update... Big smile


Seriously, enough with the necrotrolling.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Denidil
Cascades Mountain Operatives
#477 - 2012-09-21 03:28:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Denidil
*edit*

nevermind, didn't notice dates.. damn necrothread

Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design.

Caviar Liberta
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#478 - 2012-09-21 04:00:07 UTC
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:


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


Why the hell arent we doing this? This sounds great

Like an ever expanding mini war

That sounds like itd be fun... cause you could recruit military types into it... you know, warriors for hire... oh crap theres a word for them...


What you are thinking of is mercenaries.
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#479 - 2012-09-21 09:34:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Barrogh Habalu
Wild guessing:

Probably CCP wanted to make crime watch player-driven to an extent too, and so the idea of CW2.0 was born. Then things like Burn Jita happened and so the idea was set to be massively thought out and improved before any attempts of implementation/testing.
Crunchie Attuxors
Always Another Corporate Venture
#480 - 2012-09-24 04:33:36 UTC
Barrogh Habalu wrote:
Wild guessing:

Probably CCP wanted to make crime watch player-driven to an extent too, and so the idea of CW2.0 was born. Then things like Burn Jita happened and so the idea was set to be massively thought out and improved before any attempts of implementation/testing.


Why is this thread still alive?
Eve forums official anthem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pudOFG5X6uA Real men tank hull. Fake women shield-tank Gallente.