These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
steave435
Perkone
Caldari State
#701 - 2012-10-05 15:28:19 UTC
Tychus Von wrote:
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...

Which is why the subsystem skills are rank 1 while BS skills are rank 8.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#702 - 2012-10-05 15:33:19 UTC
OT Smithers wrote:
Proddy Scun wrote:
Suspect flag for assistance to good guy is foul idea.
You do not get a suspect flag for helping the good guy. You get a weapons flag (and depending upon the situation a PvP flag).
Yes you do. Helping the good guy (who is flagged as engaged in an LE) means you're butting in on the LE, and flags you as suspect. Helping the bad guy (who is flagged as suspect) means you're aiding and abetting, and flags you as suspect.

If you want to help the good guy, attack the bad guy.

Quote:
Quote:
Why not just copy the flags from the ship assisted?
That's basically what they are doing.
Not in the case of LEs. They copy weapons and PvP flags for most assist acts, yes, but for trying to interfere with an on-going conflict, they also hand out brand new flags.
BOLEVINE
STEEL UNLIMITED
#703 - 2012-10-05 15:58:19 UTC
OT Smithers wrote:
Bart Starr wrote:
What I don't understand is this:

Why is it illegal to board a new ship for 60 seconds with a weapons timer?

Suppose a ninja in a frigate is attacked by a mission runner.

Ninja is able to survive the new NPC AI - and no outside help arrives for the mission runner.

Ninja is capable of holding the mission runner - but not breaking the tank. (a common situation)

Boarding a new ship (with more DPS) is key to breaking the mission runner.
What happens to the bait ship is largely unimportant.

Lets go pre-Orca oldschool:
Suppose an alt brings a Typhoon to the mission space, and ejects.
Under CW 2.0, the ninja is not allowed to board the Typhoon.
Why is this?

Even in the context of Crimewatch, this restriction makes no sense.

-Ninja's bait ship isn't leaving the field of battle or evading the consequences of combat. (locked = not scoopable)
-His Typhoon clearly isn't going anywhere until the battle is over.
-There is no 'hiding and escaping' going on, just bringing more firepower to the table to kill the carebear.

Its a simple matter of the carebear starting a fight that didn't end up being the fight intended.

Yet, for some reason - its now illegal.

I see a lot of smokescreens about T3's and 'evading consequences with Orcas.'
But none of this justifies arbitrarily preventing a player from boarding a new ship for 60 seconds.

But it seems that this is really about completely defanging ninjas (those who bait mission runners into shooting.)

Because forcing a ninja to turn off his guns for 60 seconds before being allowed to bring more DPS to the fight - well, the mission runner is going to dock up.

Is this really about providing consequences for 'criminals'? Or really - just coddling carebears?



It's about removing a whole bunch of really lame asshatery folks have been using to exploit the current system. In high-sec in particular, games like you are talking about are penalized in two obvious ways:

1. Your prey will be better able to evaluate the threat. If you arrived in a Rifter that's what you will have to stay in.
2. It will now be possible for mission runners in high sec mission-hubs to have anti-ninja protection on stand-by. White Hat corporations will be able to set up shop in mission hubs offering protection (for a fee of course) to mission runners. If you flag suspect on one of their protected corps, they will then be able to warp in and kill you.

You will be able to recieve remote assistance from anyone you like as well, but anyone providing that assistance will inherit your suspect tag.



Yes lets make the game super safe for all you cute and cuddley little care bears so no bad people can bother you and steal your loot. These rules will simply kill this game as there will no more pvp in high sec. Low sec pvp will suck even worse then it does now. All that will be left is to join the "Borg like" environment in null where it take 0 skill to follow around a blob and press the button when told. 3 yrs invested in this game and now the care bears will finally completely ruin it. Game over...
Axium Cog
Grand Solar Trinity
Grand Inquisitors Federation
#704 - 2012-10-05 16:03:45 UTC
If this has been addressed already i apologize, i skimmed the rest of the thread simply because there was an inordinate amount of non related commentary and conversation.

My concern is with Strategic Cruiser (Strats) and the "You will not be able to eject."

One key feature of flying Strats is that when you lose your ship you lose SP in the related skills. This was mitigated by the pilot being able to abandon the ship in order to prevent loss of SP. A good fleet can identify when this happens and cease fire and loot the strat rather than destroy it, which was always a nice lump of isk.

However if the pilot cant eject anymore, fleets cant steal the strats, and the pilot is forced to lose SP.

I believe this is unacceptable, and not unreasonably so.

Other than that, i love the new flag system, just dont want to see a significant part of flying strats be taken away because of it.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#705 - 2012-10-05 16:15:06 UTC
BOLEVINE wrote:
Yes lets make the game super safe for all you cute and cuddley little care bears so no bad people can bother you and steal your loot. These rules will simply kill this game as there will no more pvp in high sec. Low sec pvp will suck even worse then it does now. All that will be left is to join the "Borg like" environment in null where it take 0 skill to follow around a blob and press the button when told. 3 yrs invested in this game and now the care bears will finally completely ruin it. Game over...


The sky is falling. Eve is dying.

Stop drinking Dinsdale Pirannha's kool-aid.

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.
Jarin Arenos
Card Shark Industries
#706 - 2012-10-05 16:34:16 UTC
Solstice Project wrote:
And you are one of those plenty people who ignore that this statistic is only a momentarily snapshot
and also isn't about PLAYERS (aka users, as you say) but only looks at characters.

You're also ignoring that plenty of these characters are nullsec alts or alts from PvPers to fund themselves.

My fault, tbh, because i didn't distinguish between carebears and players who actually matter.

I really don't understand this deep-seated hatred that people like you have for "carebears" in this game. What arrogance to say that you have the only right way to play the game. I don't claim that piracy/PvP/whatever is a bad way to play the game. EVE is about playing the way you want to. Why do you have to dictate that PvE players play the way you want them to?

But I'm not CCP Soundwave, so what do I know?
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#707 - 2012-10-05 16:36:42 UTC
Aiden Mourn wrote:

...
Conversely, the new Crimewatch 2.0 in some ways actually makes being a fresh new player even harder. Lets look at can-flipping, which has been pretty much every budding PvPers first foray into fighting other players. In the past, feisty new guy steals from a can and either A.) kills the common-sense-deprived retriever that actually shoots back or B.) retriever runs off and comes back in a PvP ship to stomp on him. Anybody with an IQ north of 70 would typically go with B and either go get a PvP ship or more commonly, request help from another corpmate nearby. Whatever the outcome though, our feisty new guy learned a lot about fighting a real person, got his adrenaline pumping, and went out looking for more.

That, it seems, all goes out the window with CW2, because now when you steal from a can that isn't yours, everybody pretty much anywhere can now shoot at you. In our brave new world, when our new guy grabs a can, he no longer gets a 1v1 and a valuable lesson, he gets a 1v30 and says "**** this". The lesson learned here now is that large blob mentality wins, and he should probably go off and join one of the biggest null alliances in the game and join rank with thousands of others who now realize that doing anything without at least a fleet behind them is a waste of their time and ship. So much for encouraging solo and small gang work.



+1. This goes too far in penalizing the flipper ('suspect'). A more reasonable approach would be a) only those in view of the theft can join in and aggress the theif (he's a suspect right, not a proven criminal...only those who 'saw' the theft should be free to engage). or b) the 'gang bang' flag should only live for 1min, not 15. Giving everyone in system and nearby time to refit in an uber spank pvp ship and go after the suspect (who they didn't personally witness stealing anything) is overkill and again stacks the deck too far vs. the flipper

Also, in the matrix -- what about stealing from a *wreck* in someones mission pocket? Stealing from a can triggers a suspect flag and 15mins of gang bang pwnage...but what about stealing from a wreck?

Would you like to know more?
Mogden Lordsmith
Doomheim
#708 - 2012-10-05 16:40:09 UTC
Do I understand correctly, that neutral assistance in legal engagements (for example war decs) is still risk free?

According to the chart from the devblog a neutral assistor will
receive a weapons flag if the assistee has a weapons flag
receive a pvp flag if the assistee has a pvp flag
receive a criminal flag when assisting a criminal
receive a suspect flag when assisting a suspect or outlaw
receive a suspect flag if the assistee is in a limited engagement

Now the first two flags (pvp and weapons) as far as I can tell don't allow anyone to attack the assistor. So the only way of a an assistor to becone attackable is by receiving a suspect flag because of interfering in a limited engagement or by assisting a crimina, a suspect or an outlaw.

Now a limited engagement is as defined in the devblog:
An engagement where character A attacks character B, and where B is globally-attackable due to being a Suspect, Criminal or Outlaw.

Now in a legal engagement such as in an engagement sanctioned by a wardec or by killrights none of the participants have a criminal flag, a suspect flag or are outlaws. Neither is a wardec sanctioned engagement a limited engagement as defined in the devblog. I can only draw the following conclusion:

Players A and B can legally attack each other due to being part of a wardec. Player C is not involved directly in the wardec, but is a friend of player A.
Player A engages player B and player B shoots back.
Both players receive pvp and weapons flags. However the engagement is not a limited engagement (because none of the players is globally attackable due to being Suspect, Criminal or Outlaw).
Player C starts repairing player A and consequently receives pvp and weapons flags. However as far as I can tell player C does not become attackable by player B. He is not assisting a player with a suspect, criminal or outlaw flag, nor is he assisting someone in a limited engagement.

It seems to be that neutral repping in legal engagements just got a huge boost with no possible consequences.

Did I understand something completely wrong?
Reticle
Sight Picture
#709 - 2012-10-05 16:48:34 UTC
If the sec status hit is "front loaded" so that the penalty applies whether or not the target is killed, that implies that the sec status hit is going to be changed. Right now you get a lesser penalty for aggression and a heavier penalty for the kill. If you get a front loaded hit, then crimewatch will not be distinguishing between aggression and kills. Since kill rights are being given for criminal actions whether or not a kill results, a single shot at a target in high sec that resulted in you getting Concorded will get you a significant sec status hit, kill rights for the player you aggressed, and 3 flags (maybe more). Please note that this is for a single shot... like say a noob with hot weapons who hasn't turned off the Auto Target Back function.

It's good to have consequences, but there should be a valid path for becoming a high sec villain. Full penalties for a failed gank is a bit much. Kill rights for every criminal flag is a step too far. It should be kill rights for kills only.
Raging Beaver
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#710 - 2012-10-05 17:08:01 UTC
It's probably been mentioned more than once in this thread (didn't read it all, certainly won't do it now) but let me just voice my opinion on 2 changes mentioned in the Devblog.

1. I approve of the change to logi aggression mechanics but the way you propose to do it makes no sense to me. What I'm expecting if this ghoes live is a sudden decrease in logi numbers, also the current tactic of jumping the combat ships out first and then logi will no longer be valid - Don't do it or at least rethink it....twice.
2. Cannot eject from a ship when under attack - I will try to put this in as civilized way as humanly possible - THIS IS THE MOST F....D UP AND ******** IDEA I've seen from CCP for a VERY long time. Why the hell shouldn't the pilot be able to eject in combat? I thought this option was PRECISELY for that usage! To save one's ass(implants, skills) while sacrificing the ship. I take it CCP would like to see T3 pilots to lose skill every time their ship is destroyed. I ain't going to threaten you to cancel my subscription, I'll only say that the day this change goes live on TQ will be the last time I ever fly a T3.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#711 - 2012-10-05 17:31:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Jarin Arenos wrote:

I really don't understand this deep-seated hatred that people like you have for "carebears" in this game. What arrogance to say that you have the only right way to play the game. I don't claim that piracy/PvP/whatever is a bad way to play the game. EVE is about playing the way you want to. Why do you have to dictate that PvE players play the way you want them to?


Its not carebears themselves per se', its the nerfing of the sandbox that makes EVE great they continually call for that we hate.

So you have it backwards, PVP players don't have issues with passive carebears doing their thing and dealing with EVE life as it comes (although I agree life in hisec shouldn't be as profitable as it is today as more incentive to move to lo and null....but I digress...)

Its actually the activist carebears who's lobbying for nerfdom is futzing with enforcing THEIR vision on PVP players that is fail...

As I look at crimewatch changes that protect carebears from can/mission flippers now with global 'suspect' flagging and blob pwnage of flippers...it becomes more clear the road to nerfdom is being pursued by CCP, while pretending its still a 'sandbox'. i.e. They let you steal, but make it a non viable activity in practice by the pwnage that will come your way if you do it; illusion, form over function....we are a sandbox, but not REALLY...welcome to WoW behind the looking glass...

Might as well make theft impossible and be done with it, don't tease me with an illusion of freedom and give me piracy blue balls never to be fulfilled. Seems more and more like Hisec is becoming the 'non pvp/safe' shard, and losec/null the 'pvp' shard; two sandboxes, not one...

Would you like to know more?
Jarin Arenos
Card Shark Industries
#712 - 2012-10-05 17:37:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Jarin Arenos
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Its not carebears themselves per se', its the nerfing of the sandbox that makes EVE great they continually call for that we hate.

So you have it backwards, PVP players don't have issues with passive carebears doing their thing and dealing with EVE life as it comes; although I agree life in hisec shouldn't be as profitable as it is today as more incentive to move to lo and null....but I digress...

Its actually the activist carebears who's lobbying for nerfdom is futzing with enforcing THEIR vision on PVP players that is fail...

As I look at crimewatch changes that protect carebears from can/mission flippers now with global 'suspect' flagging and blob pwnage of flippers...it becomes more clear the road to nerfdom is being pursued by CCP, while pretending its still a 'sandbox'. i.e. They let you steal, but make it conceptually a non viable activity by the pwnage that will come your way if you do it; illusion, form over function....we are a sandbox, but not REALLY...welcome to WoW behind the looking glass...

Just make theft impossible and be done with it, dont give tease me with an illusion and give me piracy blue balls never to be fulfilled; I can go to WoW for that....

They DID say that they're looking at making personal theft an LE flag, not a Suspect flag, which would fix most of your complaints, and is the path I hope they follow. Likewise, making neutral RR get Suspect is a questionable choice... how do you join a LE engagement, then? Make the logi fit civvy turrets and shoot at the hostiles before repping?

I'd like to comment on your digression there, actually, as this is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of highsec players. For the vast majority of highseccers, the incentive doesn't matter. Making life difficult enough in highsec won't drive them to low/null, it will drive them to other games. Nothing I've seen mentioned by CCP has pushed much in this direction, though, so it's mostly a misunderstanding from low/null players, not the devs.

But I'm not CCP Soundwave, so what do I know?
ThisIsntMyMain
Doomheim
#713 - 2012-10-05 17:37:33 UTC  |  Edited by: ThisIsntMyMain
CCP Masterplan wrote:
Absocold wrote:
Giving light interdictors a 'W' flag just for activating an interdiction sphere launcher will make them unable to jump through a gate after doing so. Dics are supposed to be able to jump after launching a bubble as long as no one tries to warp in it, this was broken for a while and was only recently fixed, you're about to break it again.

Nope. It was always intended to work this way, but never did. Then it got fixed so that it would prevent you from jumping after launching. Then it got broken again recently.


Sorry Masterplan, but you are not correct.

There was EXTENSIVE discussion at the time that the dictor ship class was introduced. The final decision agreed to by the players and the CCP design team was that dictor bubbles DO NOT CAUSE AGRESSION UNLESS SOMEONE ATTEMPTS TO WARP.

Please lets not go through this whole discussion yet again, but if we must .....

The original discussion around the design of the dictor bubble was whether dictor pilots would get on the kill mail. arguments for and against were made by players and CCP alike. The final decision was that the dictor pilot only gets on the kill mail if the target tries to warp inside the bubble but is killed instead. If the target dies but does not attempt to warp, the dictor pilot gets no part of the kill.

This was implemented by making the launching of a dictor bubble a NON AGRESSIVE act. Any player attempting to warp while inside the bubble triggers the agression flag.

Sorry, but CCP clearly BROKE dictor agression mechanics last year and have only just fixed them. Please do not break them yet again.

Edit : Other than this reall big ugly thing. I LOVE that youre fixing crimewatch .
Brunaburh
Ever Vigilant Fountain Defenders
#714 - 2012-10-05 18:04:25 UTC
CCP Masterplan wrote:
Rayemmi B'tes wrote:
Masterplan, any comment on our bit about offgrid boosters getting agression?

Fleet boosters and ganglinks won't be getting touched by any of this. It's not that we don't want to do something about them (we do) it is just that there is only so many things we can commit to changing at once. Revamping ganglinks is a larger issue that needs some dedicated attention.


This seems like too simplistic a solution (and probably bad), but what if Aggression Flags run up the chain of command in a fleet?

So the applicable Squad/Wing/Fleet Commander gets aggression if someone down the chain aggresses. I'm not sure boosters have to be in command positions, but that rule + this seems to provide the requested off-grid aggression flag for boosters.
Brunaburh
Ever Vigilant Fountain Defenders
#715 - 2012-10-05 18:11:44 UTC
Raging Beaver wrote:
It's probably been mentioned more than once in this thread (didn't read it all, certainly won't do it now) but let me just voice my opinion on 2 changes mentioned in the Devblog.

Cannot eject from a ship when under attack - I will try to put this in as civilized way as humanly possible - THIS IS THE MOST F....D UP AND ******** IDEA I've seen from CCP for a VERY long time. Why the hell shouldn't the pilot be able to eject in combat? I thought this option was PRECISELY for that usage! To save one's ass(implants, skills) while sacrificing the ship. I take it CCP would like to see T3 pilots to lose skill every time their ship is destroyed. I ain't going to threaten you to cancel my subscription, I'll only say that the day this change goes live on TQ will be the last time I ever fly a T3.


You didn't read enough. The ejection lock only occurs when you aggress, according to masterplan
Idris Helion
Doomheim
#716 - 2012-10-05 18:38:46 UTC
BOLEVINE wrote:
OT Smithers wrote:
Bart Starr wrote:
What I don't understand is this:

Why is it illegal to board a new ship for 60 seconds with a weapons timer?

Suppose a ninja in a frigate is attacked by a mission runner.

Ninja is able to survive the new NPC AI - and no outside help arrives for the mission runner.

Ninja is capable of holding the mission runner - but not breaking the tank. (a common situation)

Boarding a new ship (with more DPS) is key to breaking the mission runner.
What happens to the bait ship is largely unimportant.

Lets go pre-Orca oldschool:
Suppose an alt brings a Typhoon to the mission space, and ejects.
Under CW 2.0, the ninja is not allowed to board the Typhoon.
Why is this?

Even in the context of Crimewatch, this restriction makes no sense.

-Ninja's bait ship isn't leaving the field of battle or evading the consequences of combat. (locked = not scoopable)
-His Typhoon clearly isn't going anywhere until the battle is over.
-There is no 'hiding and escaping' going on, just bringing more firepower to the table to kill the carebear.

Its a simple matter of the carebear starting a fight that didn't end up being the fight intended.

Yet, for some reason - its now illegal.

I see a lot of smokescreens about T3's and 'evading consequences with Orcas.'
But none of this justifies arbitrarily preventing a player from boarding a new ship for 60 seconds.

But it seems that this is really about completely defanging ninjas (those who bait mission runners into shooting.)

Because forcing a ninja to turn off his guns for 60 seconds before being allowed to bring more DPS to the fight - well, the mission runner is going to dock up.

Is this really about providing consequences for 'criminals'? Or really - just coddling carebears?



It's about removing a whole bunch of really lame asshatery folks have been using to exploit the current system. In high-sec in particular, games like you are talking about are penalized in two obvious ways:

1. Your prey will be better able to evaluate the threat. If you arrived in a Rifter that's what you will have to stay in.
2. It will now be possible for mission runners in high sec mission-hubs to have anti-ninja protection on stand-by. White Hat corporations will be able to set up shop in mission hubs offering protection (for a fee of course) to mission runners. If you flag suspect on one of their protected corps, they will then be able to warp in and kill you.

You will be able to recieve remote assistance from anyone you like as well, but anyone providing that assistance will inherit your suspect tag.



Yes lets make the game super safe for all you cute and cuddley little care bears so no bad people can bother you and steal your loot. These rules will simply kill this game as there will no more pvp in high sec. Low sec pvp will suck even worse then it does now. All that will be left is to join the "Borg like" environment in null where it take 0 skill to follow around a blob and press the button when told. 3 yrs invested in this game and now the care bears will finally completely ruin it. Game over...



Game over, man! Game over!

Cry some more. I almost have enough for some delicious pirate-tear tea.
Kristen Andelare
Night's Shadows
#717 - 2012-10-05 18:40:22 UTC
Rayemmi B'tes wrote:
Aiden Mourn wrote:
Rayemmi B'tes wrote:
Masterplan, any comment on our bit about offgrid boosters getting agression?


Shhhhh!!



The first rule of off-grid boosting club is....




Death to the offgrid boosters in pvp! Someone actually found a couple when we got wardec'd last time...our solution was alpha nados I believe :P can't find the killmail, but it would be nice to be able to kill our enemies' booster without a concordokken.

And MP, thanks for the response. However, boosting should be considered an 'assist module' in the same way that a repper is. They do just as much, if not more, harm to the enemy fleet by augmenting their own in a vast way.



My thought here is that there are some serious unintended consequences here, that we'd certainly want to be wary of.

Off-grid boosting is a fleet mechanic, and affects all members of the fleet hierarchy that are in system. And you don't know what they are doing, necessarily, as you don't even have to be able to see them. It is passive in nature. Unlike Repping, where you have to specifically target that recipient of your good will and activate the module only on them.

Think about incursions. A bunch of guys that don't necessarily know each other get together and form a 20-man fleet to run a site on an incursion in highsec. They bring along one who's flying an off-gird boosting Tengu, or even a vulture mixed in to their fleet. One guy is a plant, he's a griefer to the core and just wants to cause havoc. He (pick your poison) gains a ciminal flag during the course of existence of the fleet. CONCORD warps in and kills him. And ANY boosters that are applying boosts to him at that moment. Have a nice day. The end of boosting as a relevant use for incursions.

This would also affect people's decisions to allow anyone in to their mining fleets that they don't trust implicitly. Orca's popping because someone makes a mistake using aggressive drones makes for a very bad day, and also reduces the willingness for inter-corp cooperation and recruitment efforts.
Irregessa
Obfuscation and Reflections
#718 - 2012-10-05 18:50:22 UTC
So which, if any, of these flags are set by a Dread or destroyer performing an Orbital Bombardment in conjuction with Dust514?
Kristen Andelare
Night's Shadows
#719 - 2012-10-05 18:50:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Kristen Andelare
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).


I agree with this. 15 minutes is a ridiculously long time.
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#720 - 2012-10-05 19:09:34 UTC
Some interesting changes.

* I disagree tho that anything needs to be more 'simple' in EVE, this game has always been and should be advanced. Plus, by adding the 'suspect' flag you made something more complicated under the explanation you wanted things more 'simple'. Why can't you just say you disliked the low sec lag from constant sec updates and this was your solution?

* While you think the icons on top left might be fancy and all, first off they
- a) make it easier for poor, inexperienced and lazy players to survive, this is hands down a PvP nerf, no matter how you put it. How big it is, noone knows, but it's for fact a nerf.
- b) once again you make HUGE ICONS that blot out the sun. I'm already annoyed at the massive local name, travel route etc. The graphics itself is not an issue, but why the hell do you have to make everything MASSIVE in size? Always! Is Punkturis responsible for this crap (no offense meant, but seems she always do the MASSIVE whatever-UI-changes that makes you think someone at CCP is blind) as well? Please consider different sizes as we all run different PCs/setups, and some of us would like more EVE and less interface blocking our view.. It's that simple, the change/introduction is not wrong, the size/graphics is.

..and did you scrap the idea of making the scalable damage from sentry guns? That was one of my major concern for CrimeWatch, if you scrapped that for now (or indefinately), that's a major improvement on the base of the idea already.

It's worth having a change of the old system, for the low-sec sec update and remote repping (neutrals in highsec, and getting flagged in lowsec) alone, so all in all I think these changes have a positive potential. But you really need to consider to a) stop dumbing down the game, and b) please please please, I've been crying for years to stop making the MASSIVE UI changes, who the hell do I have to butt-kiss to have you guys stop making this? or at least making it scalable! Anything! Throw me a bone, please, this is horrible. Shocked

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.