These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Introducing the new and improved Crimewatch

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Maraner
The Executioners
#661 - 2012-10-05 11:56:03 UTC
I have to say I like what I see for the most part.

The logi aggro makes me nervous tbh but I think I can live with it (as an almost daily logi pilot), I've been expecting this for a while and been flying my scimi's off gate routinely. They're going to be everyone's favourite primary, in small gang warfare ships that can web and hold down off gate logi are going to be vital. As for the guardians and basi's - could be in deep trouble, have to see how it goes.

Hopefully both will be up for a buff pretty soon. I suspect that I may chose to fly t1 logi for a week or two post winter expansion to see how they roll.

as to the other high points, the NPC aggro - fantastic. Thanks CCP for that one. Also liking the T3 no eject option. and thank **** finally those ass-holes swapping their agressed ships into Orca's and carriers.... the fire is coming for you.

All in all an exciting change up, more than willing to see how this rolls.

Cheers CCP Masterplan. It looks like it is.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#662 - 2012-10-05 12:06:26 UTC
Naibasak wrote:
Will this mean no way of getting 1v1 frigate fights outside stations in highsec while waiting for trade orders to go through unless you’re in the same corp?

If so, that's kinda dull.



lol high sec pvp

lol
Sturmwolke
#663 - 2012-10-05 12:12:24 UTC
Generally nice changes, but the NPC timer at 15mins is probably too long. I can understand why this was implemented, but seriously, if someone's hunting a PVE fitted ship, 5 mins is more than plenty to drop combat probes (scan within 1mil km) and tag the ship with a PVP flag. The longer period penalizes legit disconnects, increasing the likelyhood bad things happening to your ship while you struggle to get back online (if at all possible).
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#664 - 2012-10-05 12:12:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
CCP Masterplan wrote:

This is not just oddly intentional, it is very intentional. If we didn't want to penalise T3 death, we simply wouldn't have the skillpoint-loss mechanic in the first place


I have no issue with loosing skill point but i do not like the idea of not being able to eject to save your pod no matter what ship you are in.

With T3's why not make it to where if you eject from a T3 and that T3 gets destroyed while the pilot has a pvp flag, that pilot automatically loses skill points?

The are many engagements in eve where one player will almost certainly lose their ship and their pod if they don't perform specific actions...

For example, a hauler may get tackled by a combat ship and the only option he has available is to attempt to ecm jam the aggressor, and if that doesn't work, eject to save their pod. With your proposed change, that hauler would be an fool to attempt to escape using ecm as he will gain a weapons flag and be unable to eject for 60 seconds. You have just reduced that pilots options to - sit there and take it or lose everything.

How is that an improvement?

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Proddy Scun
Doomheim
#665 - 2012-10-05 12:16:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Proddy Scun
Naibasak wrote:
Will this mean no way of getting 1v1 frigate fights outside stations in highsec while waiting for trade orders to go through unless you’re in the same corp?

If so, that's kinda dull.


Naw that is one of the points they said that they are working on at end of blog - and its nickname is already Dueling system. Apparently they are thinking of LE flags mutually set by players through chat option. -- like trade option.

LE flags apparently just mark you as legal target for specific pilot and carry no penalties themselves.

I think it should work as long well as long as they copy LE flags to any neutral assistance ships. Neutral repper becomes legal target for whatever ships have LE flags on the ship its tries to assist. ( I am thinking LE flag includes identity of ships that can legally attack the target ship - no supsect or criminal flags as long as target has LE flag matching attacker - copy to indirect assisting ships).

But maybe they will do it different.
Maraner
The Executioners
#666 - 2012-10-05 12:23:21 UTC
As someone who has shot up a few ships over the years people very rarely seem to eject. I notice it on the T3's ofc but apart from them it's a reasonably infrequent event. Haulers in 0.0 have no chance usually.

Given how bloody hard it is to tackle most T3's and that the majority are cloaky with nullifiers then I can't but agree with this change. I fly the T3's myself, so....

Oh and as to the people complaining about the NPC aggro I am sure you will be able to adapt your Bots quite quickly around it, at least the rest of us will get half a chance to nail you for a little while.
Proddy Scun
Doomheim
#667 - 2012-10-05 12:26:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Proddy Scun
Rek Seven wrote:
CCP Masterplan wrote:

This is not just oddly intentional, it is very intentional. If we didn't want to penalise T3 death, we simply wouldn't have the skillpoint-loss mechanic in the first place


I have no issue with loosing skill point but i do not like the idea of not being able to eject to save your pod no matter what ship you are in.

With T3's why not make it to where if you eject from a T3 and that T3 gets destroyed while the pilot has a pvp flag, that pilot automatically loses skill points?

The are many engagements in eve where one player will almost certainly lose their ship and their pod if they don't perform specific actions...

For example, a hauler may get tackled by a combat ship and the only option he has available is to attempt to ecm jam the aggressor, and if that doesn't work, eject to save their pod. With your proposed change, that hauler would be an fool to attempt to escape using ecm as he will gain a weapons flag and be unable to eject for 60 seconds. You have just reduced that pilots options to - sit there and take it or lose everything.

How is that an improvement?


I suppose you can argue it expedites the outcome of combat with obvious outcomes - and that those pilots should eject early and don't spoil a perfect ambush by petty revenge using drones to kill their drones or tackler.

PVP bait situations are even worse. Pilot goes after lone intruder and once he fires on it he gets tackled, can't eject and a ton of reinforcments begin arriving. if he could eject as soon as tackled or as first reinforcements show on directional...he could escape most bait tacklers that only have one warp jammer.
Dierdra Vaal
Interstellar Stargate Syndicate
#668 - 2012-10-05 12:29:50 UTC
Proddy Scun wrote:
Dierdra Vaal wrote:
Question:

At fanfest you guys said that ship killing (but not pod killing) in low sec would only drop your sec status to -5, not -10, and that you'd change high sec so that you can still go anywhere at -5, unlike the gradual system of exclusion that currently exists. Essentially, this would allow people to be low sec pirates without locking themselves out of high sec, provided they don't podkill.

Is this still happening? (please say yes!)


Wow! Did that mean a -5 cap on how far sec status could drop no matter how many ships you killed? That would be huge change. For some reason I was thinking ships kills dropped you a fixed amount (-3?) but were cumulative and that was to remain true.


This was my understanding. But I'd like to hear from CCP if they're still planning this. Keep in mind that ship killing in high sec would still drop you below -5.

Veto #205

Director Emeritus at EVE University

CSM1 delegate, CSM3 chairman and CSM5 vice-chairman

Evesterdam organiser and CSM Vote Match founder

Co-Author of the Galactic Party Planning Guide
Reicine Ceer
State War Academy
Caldari State
#669 - 2012-10-05 12:32:53 UTC
But what if i want to lock two people fighting off a station/gate/etc, just to see how the fight is balancing up? I got bored reading at page 13 so have not seen this answered yet.... would it give me a criminal/suspect flag just because i want to watch two randoms fight?
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#670 - 2012-10-05 12:35:20 UTC
Reicine Ceer wrote:
But what if i want to lock two people fighting off a station/gate/etc, just to see how the fight is balancing up? I got bored reading at page 13 so have not seen this answered yet.... would it give me a criminal/suspect flag just because i want to watch two randoms fight?


Merely locking someone has never given any kind of aggression or flag. That shouldn't change.

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.
Myra Rodan
Borderlands corp
True Reign
#671 - 2012-10-05 12:35:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Myra Rodan
so...

For T3 cruisers, if you are piloting the ship when it explodes, you lose a related skill level.

You used to be able to eject to avoid the loss of SP in any situation, but now that will not work if engaged in pvp? Is that intentional?

In my experience, most people prefer to go down fighting, and not eject for the pride factor, but still.

/edit
I did not read any of the thread, so this may well have been answered before
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#672 - 2012-10-05 12:36:16 UTC
Sturmwolke wrote:
Generally nice changes, but the NPC timer at 15mins is probably too long. I can understand why this was implemented, but seriously, if someone's hunting a PVE fitted ship, 5 mins is more than plenty to drop combat probes (scan within 1mil km) and tag the ship with a PVP flag. The longer period penalizes legit disconnects, increasing the likelyhood bad things happening to your ship while you struggle to get back online (if at all possible).


Problem is, CCP Masterplan says that you can't apply any new flags if the target is logged off.

So you can't apply the PvP flag after you probe them out - you have to probe them and kill them all in one 15min NPC flag timer.

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.
Za'kerak
#673 - 2012-10-05 12:36:54 UTC
If you replace usage of loot-theft as a way to initiate consensual 1v1s, it could be another way to do "friendly PVPs" for example with friends from alliance or friendly alliances.

Otherwise great job. bd
Tychus Von
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#674 - 2012-10-05 12:37:30 UTC
TheBlueMonkey wrote:
SunTsu Rae wrote:
Hint to CCP , drop the non-eject clause . . . . . Attention



but retraining the same skills everytime you lose a ship is fun Roll


I don't see you loosing BS 5 each time you get killed in navy apoc...
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#675 - 2012-10-05 12:38:24 UTC
Myra Rodan wrote:
so...

For T3 cruisers, if you are piloting the ship when it explodes, you lose a related skill level.

You used to be able to eject to avoid the loss of SP in any situation, but now that will not work if engaged in pvp? Is that intentional?

In my experience, most people prefer to go down fighting, and not eject for the pride factor, but still.

/edit
I did not read any of the thread, so this may well have been answered before


Yes, they confirmed that was very intentional, back in the first few pages of CCP replies.

The best way to catch up, at least on CCP replies, in a thread like this is to go click on all the blue bars underneath the CCP portraits and read all the CCP replies.

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.
Proddy Scun
Doomheim
#676 - 2012-10-05 12:40:40 UTC
Dierdra Vaal wrote:
Proddy Scun wrote:
Dierdra Vaal wrote:
Question:

At fanfest you guys said that ship killing (but not pod killing) in low sec would only drop your sec status to -5, not -10, and that you'd change high sec so that you can still go anywhere at -5, unlike the gradual system of exclusion that currently exists. Essentially, this would allow people to be low sec pirates without locking themselves out of high sec, provided they don't podkill.

Is this still happening? (please say yes!)


Wow! Did that mean a -5 cap on how far sec status could drop no matter how many ships you killed? That would be huge change. For some reason I was thinking ships kills dropped you a fixed amount (-3?) but were cumulative and that was to remain true.


This was my understanding. But I'd like to hear from CCP if they're still planning this. Keep in mind that ship killing in high sec would still drop you below -5.



Heh! that would make all their work on the wardec system fairly useless anywhere but hi sec. Not sure I see much use for hi sec only wardec system as that probably means only baby corps in general. mature corps would prefer lo sec for semi-surprise attacks. But I guess getting everyone to move PVP to lo sec is the CCP objective.
Tychus Von
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#677 - 2012-10-05 12:40:42 UTC
Sedilis wrote:
Thank you thank you thank you.

No more capitals logging off in sites when a new wormhole opens up to the system.

<3 you CCP


Pretty much what I thought too Big smile
Caps and wrecks on d, dropping combats, someone is dying.

Great change...
Proddy Scun
Doomheim
#678 - 2012-10-05 12:45:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Proddy Scun
crazy idea - if you are throwing suspect flags on any one assisting LE combatants...how about warping anyone bumping ships with PVP flags to random point in system off grid? Bumpers provide lots of assistance in ganking large ships at zero risk. Too much accidental bumping at stations and busy gates to put suspect or criminal flags on. But safety system emergency warp would limit bumper fleet action.
OMGFRIGATES WARPOUT
Perkone
Caldari State
#679 - 2012-10-05 12:51:44 UTC  |  Edited by: OMGFRIGATES WARPOUT
I would l ike to vote for skill loss to be involved in each ship type loss. If you are flying a rifter, lose Mini Frigate skill. Seems ledgit.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#680 - 2012-10-05 12:53:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Proddy Scun wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
CCP Masterplan wrote:

This is not just oddly intentional, it is very intentional. If we didn't want to penalise T3 death, we simply wouldn't have the skillpoint-loss mechanic in the first place


I have no issue with loosing skill point but i do not like the idea of not being able to eject to save your pod no matter what ship you are in.

With T3's why not make it to where if you eject from a T3 and that T3 gets destroyed while the pilot has a pvp flag, that pilot automatically loses skill points?

The are many engagements in eve where one player will almost certainly lose their ship and their pod if they don't perform specific actions...

For example, a hauler may get tackled by a combat ship and the only option he has available is to attempt to ecm jam the aggressor, and if that doesn't work, eject to save their pod. With your proposed change, that hauler would be an fool to attempt to escape using ecm as he will gain a weapons flag and be unable to eject for 60 seconds. You have just reduced that pilots options to - sit there and take it or lose everything.

How is that an improvement?


I suppose you can argue it expedites the outcome of combat with obvious outcomes - and that those pilots should eject early and don't spoil a perfect ambush by petty revenge using drones to kill their drones or tackler.

PVP bait situations are even worse. Pilot goes after lone intruder and once he fires on it he gets tackled, can't eject and a ton of reinforcments begin arriving. if he could eject as soon as tackled or as first reinforcements show on directional...he could escape most bait tacklers that only have one warp jammer.


I don't know, i considered the eject function to be an emergency escape option... Was i wrong?

Why would my own ship not allow me to eject when i wanted to?

The wishlist is pretty much complete...