These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

C&P, this pertains to YOU

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#61 - 2012-08-03 17:59:02 UTC
Ristlin Wakefield wrote:
I call that an additional layer of strategy. No matter how much tank someone brings, its possible the camp has that extra bit of DPS to break it.


I'll put it this way: their only hope of killing the ship I have in mind would be a hot drop with enough gank to alpha me before I could deaggress and get back through the gate.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Tetsel
House Amamake
#62 - 2012-08-03 17:59:17 UTC
Ristlin Wakefield wrote:
I think this is a step toward the right direction by encouraging more people to venture into low-sec thereby giving pirates more possible targets. I expect more fights to occur at belts, anons, and exploration sites this way.

Hell, I've spent the majority of my time in low-sec when I explore. Why? Because most low-sec pirates don't seem to bother probing lol.



Yeah cause piracy is only about having good fight in top belt...

Loyal servent to Mother Amamake. @EVE_Tetsel

Another Bittervet Please Ignore
Tetsel
House Amamake
#63 - 2012-08-03 18:00:39 UTC
Emma Royd wrote:
Smee1 wrote:
Ristlin Wakefield wrote:
HAHA, I thought carebear tears were great but pirate tears are even better!



CCP listens to carebear tears tho.



So the tier 3 BC benefited carebears how?........



Nope it was made for CFC to burn Jita C/D ?

Loyal servent to Mother Amamake. @EVE_Tetsel

Another Bittervet Please Ignore
Eternal Error
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#64 - 2012-08-03 18:06:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternal Error
CCP Greyscale wrote:


Eternal Error wrote:

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Sentries aren't perfect, but they are currently working just fine. CCP has already made one serious mistake with this philosophy (unified inventory) and is rapidly headed towards another (crimewatch revamp). Radical change for the sake of radical change is always a terrible idea.


I'm sorry but I can't subscribe to that philosophy. The idea that once something is "good enough" it should never be touched again is a complete creative capitulation.

That's not what I said at all. What I'm saying is that once something is "good enough" it should be given far lower priority than real issues, of which there are many. Additionally, change for change's sake in Eve Online has a pattern of making things worse in the eyes of the playerbase. Obviously there aren't many things that could use no improvement or never be touched again, but there is a long list of things that should happen ahead of changes to those things (many of which were covered elsewhere in the CSM minutes).


CCP Greyscale wrote:
Tetsel wrote:
So you're explaining that there is no other motivation behind those ideas than "just for the lulz" ? in fact you point no major issues about sentries ? o_O (I might misunderstood this point tbh)


The motivation behind them is "can we find new ways to make EVE better?". That's kind of our job.

Exactly. Far too often, your proposed changes fail at their intended purpose of making eve better, or at the very least marginally improve it while far more major issues are ignored.
Smee1
Safety Set To Red
Train Wreck.
#65 - 2012-08-03 18:07:28 UTC
Emma Royd wrote:
Smee1 wrote:
Ristlin Wakefield wrote:
HAHA, I thought carebear tears were great but pirate tears are even better!



CCP listens to carebear tears tho.



So the tier 3 BC benefited carebears how?........




They didnt benefit gatecampers either in case u missed the memo.
Frosi
Just another awsome corp...
#66 - 2012-08-03 18:10:47 UTC
If anything is needed to be fixed about sentry guns in low sec it is shooting of my drones. Why am i not allowed to use drones for more then 10 seconds while i have senty aggro. For me that is basicly making all my sp in drones useless. CCP just keeps nerfing piracy more and more. Grayscale why dont you start working on a bounty system that makes sense or works and give me my drones back.

Removing low sec will be the next big CCP improvement?
Ristlin Wakefield
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#67 - 2012-08-03 18:35:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Ristlin Wakefield
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Ristlin Wakefield wrote:
I call that an additional layer of strategy. No matter how much tank someone brings, its possible the camp has that extra bit of DPS to break it.


I'll put it this way: their only hope of killing the ship I have in mind would be a hot drop with enough gank to alpha me before I could deaggress and get back through the gate.


Challenge accepted (by someone else).

I have a lover, her name is EVE. I see her every night and all she asks in return is that I have a pilot's license.
GreenSeed
#68 - 2012-08-03 18:38:00 UTC
Psychotic Monk wrote:
The real issue isn't the way the damage is applied, which is cute and probably okay, it's that sentry guns will automatically shoot people under a certain sec status, whether they've done anything or not. This is problematic and a huge nerf to lowsec. You're just taking the people that actually *do* generate content in lowsec and ******* them.

Say what you want about The United, but they are making content erryday. They're killing ****, depriving people of their frigs and pods, and making people ask themselves if it's worth it to take that shortcut through lowsec. This is a decision that's going to be taken away throughout lowsec.

I am all for interesting **** going on, and this will cause the opposite. :(

no, not true. just because concord doesnt show up doesnt mean you HAVE to shoot other people. this change is going in a good direction. if people want to be a pirate, they should act like pirates and hit and run.

the content is not created by the people shooting, it is created by the people they shoot at.
Ristlin Wakefield
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#69 - 2012-08-03 18:40:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Ristlin Wakefield
GreenSeed wrote:
Psychotic Monk wrote:
The real issue isn't the way the damage is applied, which is cute and probably okay, it's that sentry guns will automatically shoot people under a certain sec status, whether they've done anything or not. This is problematic and a huge nerf to lowsec. You're just taking the people that actually *do* generate content in lowsec and ******* them.

Say what you want about The United, but they are making content erryday. They're killing ****, depriving people of their frigs and pods, and making people ask themselves if it's worth it to take that shortcut through lowsec. This is a decision that's going to be taken away throughout lowsec.

I am all for interesting **** going on, and this will cause the opposite. :(

no, not true. just because concord doesnt show up doesnt mean you HAVE to shoot other people. this change is going in a good direction. if people want to be a pirate, they should act like pirates and hit and run.

the content is not created by the people shooting, it is created by the people they shoot at.


LOL I love how these dense pirates have been touting "just change your fit bro!" to miners and now that some change is required on THEIR part they cry like a bunch of babies. Hell, I prefer more carebears in low because that means there is more to do with my scanning skills. Some pirates need to get tossed into a WH to see some real PVP.

I have a lover, her name is EVE. I see her every night and all she asks in return is that I have a pilot's license.
Bubanni
Corus Aerospace
#70 - 2012-08-03 18:51:10 UTC
Greyscale is a huge carebear :3

Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934
Smee1
Safety Set To Red
Train Wreck.
#71 - 2012-08-03 18:58:24 UTC
Ristlin Wakefield wrote:
GreenSeed wrote:
Psychotic Monk wrote:
The real issue isn't the way the damage is applied, which is cute and probably okay, it's that sentry guns will automatically shoot people under a certain sec status, whether they've done anything or not. This is problematic and a huge nerf to lowsec. You're just taking the people that actually *do* generate content in lowsec and ******* them.

Say what you want about The United, but they are making content erryday. They're killing ****, depriving people of their frigs and pods, and making people ask themselves if it's worth it to take that shortcut through lowsec. This is a decision that's going to be taken away throughout lowsec.

I am all for interesting **** going on, and this will cause the opposite. :(

no, not true. just because concord doesnt show up doesnt mean you HAVE to shoot other people. this change is going in a good direction. if people want to be a pirate, they should act like pirates and hit and run.

the content is not created by the people shooting, it is created by the people they shoot at.


LOL I love how these dense pirates have been touting "just change your fit bro!" to miners and now that some change is required on THEIR part they cry like a bunch of babies. Hell, I prefer more carebears in low because that means there is more to do with my scanning skills. Some pirates need to get tossed into a WH to see some real PVP.


Your missing the point you tard. This discussion is about piracy and gatecamping not eve on easy mode bubbles and no sentrys that is 0.0 and WH space. Also pirates been changing thier fits to negate sentrys for nearly 10 years
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#72 - 2012-08-03 19:02:55 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Ok, so here's the process behind what happened here:

  • We knew there was a hole in the design currently regarding sentry guns, ie we hadn't figured out how they'd interact with the new system
  • We came up with some basic rules (which as far as I can tell nobody's having a violent reaction to?) regarding *when* they shoot people
  • We also tossed in a few "this might be interesting" ideas, because whenever we're doing major programming work on a system, we often have the opportunity to make design changes "for free", and as designers we're always looking for adjustments we can make to our designs to make them *more interesting* for players
  • We pitched some of them to the CSM to get some *early* feedback on those ideas, to see if they flagged anything up as "this is never going to work"
  • This then got written into the CSM minutes
  • Several months pass
  • CSM minutes get released, lots of people apparently are under the misapprehension that something being mentioned in the minutes is equivalent to a "this is what we are going to do" devblog
  • Another month or two passes, this takes us into "the future"
  • We start approaching the point where this design has to be locked down and we do forum posts etc to get community feedback on ideas prior to deciding whether or not we want to do them


As to the broader picture, we will absolutely continue to consider these sorts of "crazy" changes, because we don't just want to keep making adjustments inside the current design frameworks if we have the chance to make bits of the game *significantly* better by moving outside the current box. A consequence of this is that sometimes we come up with things that, on closer analysis, are just plain dumb. We try to identify these and drop them as early as possible. Sometimes we miss some of them. We try to reduce the incidence of this happening, but the only way to prevent them completely is to be incredibly conservative with our designs, and we feel that there are enough areas of EVE design that could be *significantly* improved with more radical design changes that that's not a tradeoff we want to make.
Well, think of Faction Warfare when doing anything with gateguns. Many FW people are -5.0 and lower. Many FW fights happen on gates (deep in lowsec). These changes would adversely affect FW.

If you want to make gate gun changes, then allow yourselves the option of applying changes on a system by system basis ... areas deep in lowsec could be free of these changes, thus not affecting FW, while you could experiment with systems like Rancer and Amamake.
Ristlin Wakefield
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#73 - 2012-08-03 19:04:07 UTC
Smee1 wrote:
Ristlin Wakefield wrote:
GreenSeed wrote:
Psychotic Monk wrote:
The real issue isn't the way the damage is applied, which is cute and probably okay, it's that sentry guns will automatically shoot people under a certain sec status, whether they've done anything or not. This is problematic and a huge nerf to lowsec. You're just taking the people that actually *do* generate content in lowsec and ******* them.

Say what you want about The United, but they are making content erryday. They're killing ****, depriving people of their frigs and pods, and making people ask themselves if it's worth it to take that shortcut through lowsec. This is a decision that's going to be taken away throughout lowsec.

I am all for interesting **** going on, and this will cause the opposite. :(

no, not true. just because concord doesnt show up doesnt mean you HAVE to shoot other people. this change is going in a good direction. if people want to be a pirate, they should act like pirates and hit and run.

the content is not created by the people shooting, it is created by the people they shoot at.


LOL I love how these dense pirates have been touting "just change your fit bro!" to miners and now that some change is required on THEIR part they cry like a bunch of babies. Hell, I prefer more carebears in low because that means there is more to do with my scanning skills. Some pirates need to get tossed into a WH to see some real PVP.


Your missing the point you tard. This discussion is about piracy and gatecamping not eve on easy mode bubbles and no sentrys that is 0.0 and WH space. Also pirates been changing thier fits to negate sentrys for nearly 10 years


Your response is just sad. Shocked

I have a lover, her name is EVE. I see her every night and all she asks in return is that I have a pilot's license.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#74 - 2012-08-03 19:14:34 UTC
Especially to all you low sec residents - GET IN TOUCH WITH ME ABOUT THESE ISSUES.

As Greyscale said, this is on the table for discussion, nothing is final. I understand many are rightfully concerned about the gate changes, and personally I think there's some outstanding player proposals surrounding GCC and sentry guns that are worthy of consideration.

I'll be taking point on this stuff myself, along with Alekseyev Karrde, no doubt. It matters too much to me not to monitor the progress here with a magnifying glass. Don't be afraid to throw us some walls of text in an email if you have something on your mind!

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#75 - 2012-08-03 19:54:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Gizznitt Malikite
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Especially to all you low sec residents - GET IN TOUCH WITH ME ABOUT THESE ISSUES.

As Greyscale said, this is on the table for discussion, nothing is final. I understand many are rightfully concerned about the gate changes, and personally I think there's some outstanding player proposals surrounding GCC and sentry guns that are worthy of consideration.

I'll be taking point on this stuff myself, along with Alekseyev Karrde, no doubt. It matters too much to me not to monitor the progress here with a magnifying glass. Don't be afraid to throw us some walls of text in an email if you have something on your mind!


As has already been mentioned:

Gate guns should fire on criminals, not suspects.
Gate camps in lowsec are fine, and anything that really limits fights on gates is really limiting PvP. Most fights happen on a gate, and so limiting the battles there is potentially very harmful.

As for flags:
Neutral
Suspect
Criminal

perhaps add a Samaritan Flag too.... Samaritan flag has a short timer (2 min), is earned by shooting a Suspect, and allows ALL suspects to legally shoot you (much in the way ALL players can legally shoot a suspect) . Make it transfer to ships providing aid to the Samaritan (i.e. logis).
Zagdul
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#76 - 2012-08-03 19:58:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Zagdul
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Just to clarify a few points, given that this thread seems to be the only one that's not gone off the deep end already:

  • First and foremost, this is an idea we were spitballing at the time and ran past the CSM just to see what their reaction was. It's still "in the design" right now, but that part of the design isn't going to get implemented for a while, and there will be further discussion with the CSM and the community before that happens. The CSM minutes are *NOT* a devblog, please don't treat them as such Smile
  • "Suspect" is an aggression flag, and has nothing to do with sec status
  • The general thinking behind this potential change (and again, it's just general thinking, we've not seriously reviewed it yet) is to try and break up "static" gatecamps a little and generally *discourage* hanging around on a gate all day.
  • Yes, we know people are just going to yo-yo back in, and if they're dedicated enough to do that for a couple of hours then more power to them, they get to camp the gate for a few hours.
  • The thinking specifically with carriers was that it'd be an interesting dynamic that you had to essentially "pre-commit" with a triage carrier, by dropping into triage, waiting 30-40s (times obviously subject to some actual balancing work) and then starting to rep, so you've still got the window to get out again before the damage becomes high enough to kill you. This lets you use carriers on lowsec gates but gives the other side a bit of time to go "oh crap, that carrier's gone into triage, we'd better either double down or start running".
  • Damage ramping as currently envisioned would be strictly per-ship, per-engagement - as soon as you warp off, it resets back to base. This could of course be redesigned in many ways to get it to do other interesting things - or as should hopefully be clear by now, dropped entirely if we decide it's a rubbish idea after all.


Drop the design. It's a horrible idea.

Also, quit and stop ruining the game. You don't understand it and shouldn't have any say in it's direction. Especially aspects you clearly have no clue about (pretty much all of it except carebearing in empire).

Just about every idea you've ever tried to implement has been hit with a 'wtf is this dude thinking' and I can only imagine that it's why CSM didn't say anything. They were dumbfounded by stupidity from your remarks on this completely bad idea.

Please do us all a favor and get out of the 'ideas department' of CCP. Furthermore, do not participate in public speeches and you should strongly consider not logging on to forums to respond to the community as you give your company a bad image and name.

You made a fool out of yourself at Fanfest (really... death rays?)
You made a fool out of yourself when you attempted to suggest titan fixes.
You are making a fool out of yourself right now for even suggesting that this is a good idea.


Hint: It's not. Scrap it.

Dual Pane idea: Click!

CCP Please Implement
Ristlin Wakefield
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#77 - 2012-08-03 20:22:45 UTC
Zagdul wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Just to clarify a few points, given that this thread seems to be the only one that's not gone off the deep end already:

  • First and foremost, this is an idea we were spitballing at the time and ran past the CSM just to see what their reaction was. It's still "in the design" right now, but that part of the design isn't going to get implemented for a while, and there will be further discussion with the CSM and the community before that happens. The CSM minutes are *NOT* a devblog, please don't treat them as such Smile
  • "Suspect" is an aggression flag, and has nothing to do with sec status
  • The general thinking behind this potential change (and again, it's just general thinking, we've not seriously reviewed it yet) is to try and break up "static" gatecamps a little and generally *discourage* hanging around on a gate all day.
  • Yes, we know people are just going to yo-yo back in, and if they're dedicated enough to do that for a couple of hours then more power to them, they get to camp the gate for a few hours.
  • The thinking specifically with carriers was that it'd be an interesting dynamic that you had to essentially "pre-commit" with a triage carrier, by dropping into triage, waiting 30-40s (times obviously subject to some actual balancing work) and then starting to rep, so you've still got the window to get out again before the damage becomes high enough to kill you. This lets you use carriers on lowsec gates but gives the other side a bit of time to go "oh crap, that carrier's gone into triage, we'd better either double down or start running".
  • Damage ramping as currently envisioned would be strictly per-ship, per-engagement - as soon as you warp off, it resets back to base. This could of course be redesigned in many ways to get it to do other interesting things - or as should hopefully be clear by now, dropped entirely if we decide it's a rubbish idea after all.


Drop the design. It's a horrible idea.

Also, quit and stop ruining the game. You don't understand it and shouldn't have any say in it's direction. Especially aspects you clearly have no clue about (pretty much all of it except carebearing in empire).

Just about every idea you've ever tried to implement has been hit with a 'wtf is this dude thinking' and I can only imagine that it's why CSM didn't say anything. They were dumbfounded by stupidity from your remarks on this completely bad idea.

Please do us all a favor and get out of the 'ideas department' of CCP. Furthermore, do not participate in public speeches and you should strongly consider not logging on to forums to respond to the community as you give your company a bad image and name.

You made a fool out of yourself at Fanfest (really... death rays?)
You made a fool out of yourself when you attempted to suggest titan fixes.
You are making a fool out of yourself right now for even suggesting that this is a good idea.


Hint: It's not. Scrap it.


So your strategy is attack the guy with the idea not the actual merits of the idea itself? That's going to work well. Hey, while you are at it, why don't you go back to kindergarden and learn a few basics in manners.

I have a lover, her name is EVE. I see her every night and all she asks in return is that I have a pilot's license.
Zagdul
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#78 - 2012-08-03 20:32:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Zagdul
Ristlin Wakefield wrote:


So your strategy is attack the guy with the idea not the actual merits of the idea itself? That's going to work well. Hey, while you are at it, why don't you go back to kindergarden and learn a few basics in manners.


Irony overload.


But for a serious answer: There are no merits to this idea as it's completely and utterly a bad one. There's nothing good to come from it. It fixes nothing, solves zero and doesn't bring anything good to the game.

The problem isn't gate camping. The problem is gates in general. They create choke points. Choke points will always be where fights happen.

This is in Real Life with wars. You cut off supply chains.
This happens in EVE, you focus on high traffic areas.


There's nothing, zilch, zero - good that will come from this idea. It will push pvp away from the game, not draw more of it in.

So, in conclusion: Greyscale, and just about every idea he's come up with (hence the attack on his cred.) is bad. Bad for this game and bad for the company we support.

Dual Pane idea: Click!

CCP Please Implement
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#79 - 2012-08-03 20:43:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
Zagdul wrote:

Drop the design. It's a horrible idea.

Also, quit and stop ruining the game. You don't understand it and shouldn't have any say in it's direction. Especially aspects you clearly have no clue about (pretty much all of it except carebearing in empire).

Just about every idea you've ever tried to implement has been hit with a 'wtf is this dude thinking' and I can only imagine that it's why CSM didn't say anything. They were dumbfounded by stupidity from your remarks on this completely bad idea.

Please do us all a favor and get out of the 'ideas department' of CCP. Furthermore, do not participate in public speeches and you should strongly consider not logging on to forums to respond to the community as you give your company a bad image and name.

You made a fool out of yourself at Fanfest (really... death rays?)
You made a fool out of yourself when you attempted to suggest titan fixes.
You are making a fool out of yourself right now for even suggesting that this is a good idea.


Hint: It's not. Scrap it.


And THIS, my friends, is how to make one's opinion irrelevent in CCP's eyes. Not sure if you're seriously interested in seeing the game fixed Zagdul, but this exactly the kind of dribble that CCP not only ignores completely, but makes them not want to log into the forums to begin with.

Edit - posting the text below alone is all you needed to do and is 1000% more effective, its the personal attacks that are counterproductive, devs tend to blow off those that just want to insult them.

Quote:
The problem isn't gate camping. The problem is gates in general. They create choke points. Choke points will always be where fights happen.

This is in Real Life with wars. You cut off supply chains.
This happens in EVE, you focus on high traffic areas.


There's nothing, zilch, zero - good that will come from this idea. It will push pvp away from the game, not draw more of it in.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Zagdul
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#80 - 2012-08-03 20:47:12 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Zagdul wrote:

Drop the design. It's a horrible idea.

Also, quit and stop ruining the game. You don't understand it and shouldn't have any say in it's direction. Especially aspects you clearly have no clue about (pretty much all of it except carebearing in empire).

Just about every idea you've ever tried to implement has been hit with a 'wtf is this dude thinking' and I can only imagine that it's why CSM didn't say anything. They were dumbfounded by stupidity from your remarks on this completely bad idea.

Please do us all a favor and get out of the 'ideas department' of CCP. Furthermore, do not participate in public speeches and you should strongly consider not logging on to forums to respond to the community as you give your company a bad image and name.

You made a fool out of yourself at Fanfest (really... death rays?)
You made a fool out of yourself when you attempted to suggest titan fixes.
You are making a fool out of yourself right now for even suggesting that this is a good idea.


Hint: It's not. Scrap it.


And THIS, my friends, is how to make one's opinion irrelevent in CCP's eyes. Not sure if you're seriously interested in seeing the game fixed Zagdul, but this exactly the kind of dribble that CCP not only ignores completely, but makes them not want to log into the forums to begin with.



If it's Greyscale, that would be an improvement.

Dual Pane idea: Click!

CCP Please Implement