These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Cerulean Ice
Royal Amarr Reclamation
#721 - 2012-10-05 19:29:02 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
Cerulean Ice wrote:
Why do people equate ejecting with saving the pod? It's pretty easy to save your pod when your ship explodes if you know what you're doing, and it's pretty easy to lose your pod after ejecting if you don't know what you're doing. Or you'll just lose it either way, because bubbles <3


Yeah like when you're in your pod and someone puts an interdiction bubble on you, it's super easy to get away... Stupid Roll


How does ejecting help you escape from bubbles?


You can eject before the bubble goes up and warp?


The fun that happens when people don't read Lol My point was that ejecting and escaping are two different things, and they aren't dependent on one another. People should stop saying that ejecting saves your pod. All ejecting does is remove your pod from your ship without your ship exploding first.

And if you're in a field of pretty bubbles, your pod is not escaping either way, because bubbles are awesome like that Big smile
Reticle
Sight Picture
#722 - 2012-10-05 19:44:31 UTC
I haven't seen an answer to this yet:

Are in corp ganks still retribution-less?
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#723 - 2012-10-05 19:49:36 UTC
Reticle wrote:
I haven't seen an answer to this yet:

Are in corp ganks still retribution-less?


Give them a useless role so they can't drop corp and kill them?

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#724 - 2012-10-05 19:50:05 UTC
Misanth wrote:
* 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?
There's simple and there's simple. What they're doing is removing convoluted mechanics in favour of complex ones. This is indeed a simplification since it goes for the “easy to learn, hard to master” goal rather than “memorise these fifty-eleven exceptions to what should be a very straight-forward rule”.

The S-flag (and indeed, all the flags) simplify matters because they provide clear and concise categories of actions and consequences with no overlap in functionality or rule set. A numerical increase in the number of flags does not mean it's more complicated since it removes the actual complication of not having clear distinctions between what flags do what.

Quote:
- 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.
Making gameplay more approachable is not, “for fact” a nerf.

Quote:
- 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?
Eh… travel route was massively shrunk by the new display, and the reason to make these ones large is obvious: because they are life-and-death timers that you want to be able to spot and process out of the corner of your eye.
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
#725 - 2012-10-05 20:11:39 UTC
Mogden Lordsmith wrote:
Do I understand correctly, that neutral assistance in legal engagements (for example war decs) is still risk free?



No you didn't understand at all, sorry.

A neutral Logi healing either of the combatants automatically becomes a suspect and thus free to attack by ANYONE.

This is actually a lot worse than helping by directly attacking the suspect (in case you wished to help the 'rightful' assailant).
Reticle
Sight Picture
#726 - 2012-10-05 20:22:49 UTC
Andski wrote:
Reticle wrote:
I haven't seen an answer to this yet:

Are in corp ganks still retribution-less?


Give them a useless role so they can't drop corp and kill them?

Yes. Give an in corp ganker 24 more hours to wreak havoc. That makes perfect sense.
Borlag Crendraven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#727 - 2012-10-05 20:54:20 UTC
Reticle wrote:
Andski wrote:
Reticle wrote:
I haven't seen an answer to this yet:

Are in corp ganks still retribution-less?


Give them a useless role so they can't drop corp and kill them?

Yes. Give an in corp ganker 24 more hours to wreak havoc. That makes perfect sense.


You have it backwards, that gives the corp 24 hours to repeatedly kill the sucker.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#728 - 2012-10-05 21:01:50 UTC
Any chance of reviewing high sec NPCs? The 'police' ones outlaws get are really chance based and annoying. The 'navy' ones FW people get are a total joke. I'd like it if outlaws got the joke NPCs instead with no tackle.
Reticle
Sight Picture
#729 - 2012-10-05 21:29:36 UTC
Borlag Crendraven wrote:
Reticle wrote:
Andski wrote:
Reticle wrote:
I haven't seen an answer to this yet:

Are in corp ganks still retribution-less?


Give them a useless role so they can't drop corp and kill them?

Yes. Give an in corp ganker 24 more hours to wreak havoc. That makes perfect sense.


You have it backwards, that gives the corp 24 hours to repeatedly kill the sucker.

You mean the guy who won't be flying anything worth killing after awoxing an entire mining team with no repercussions of any kind? Or did you mean that repeatedly killing a noob ship would somehow be cathartic? Assuming of course that he isn't someone who had roles, dropped them, and thus has No New Roles set? All the while with the ability to shoot more corp members without repercussions.

Genius, you are not.
Borlag Crendraven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#730 - 2012-10-05 21:42:15 UTC
Reticle wrote:
Borlag Crendraven wrote:
Reticle wrote:
Andski wrote:
Reticle wrote:
I haven't seen an answer to this yet:

Are in corp ganks still retribution-less?


Give them a useless role so they can't drop corp and kill them?

Yes. Give an in corp ganker 24 more hours to wreak havoc. That makes perfect sense.


You have it backwards, that gives the corp 24 hours to repeatedly kill the sucker.

You mean the guy who won't be flying anything worth killing after awoxing an entire mining team with no repercussions of any kind? Or did you mean that repeatedly killing a noob ship would somehow be cathartic? Assuming of course that he isn't someone who had roles, dropped them, and thus has No New Roles set? All the while with the ability to shoot more corp members without repercussions.

Genius, you are not.


If you are unable to provide the retribution with the tools given to you, how is that my fault? Sigh...miners.
Bantara
Dolmite Cornerstone
#731 - 2012-10-05 21:44:28 UTC
Okay, page 33, gonna post....

@Masterplan : Great job, my 2 thumbs up!

Aiden Mourn wrote:
Historically (and I know its been said a million times), "Eve is hard", and that's actually been its draw to most people who play it. Now, that mentality might be changing as CCP ramps up for the big leagues with the DUST release, but its definitely what drew most of us to this game in the first place;

Proof? I know it's not true for me. I could easily be the minority, and I accept that, but I don't *know*. Thus...proof?
Quote:
There are no "pvp shards" or do-overs, and when you lose your stuff, that stuff is gone, not back in your castle/dungeon/magic toadstool manor.
So why dumb it down?

What you describe here are the concepts of consequence and persistance, not difficulty and not intelligence.

Quote:
But again, I hope CCP keeps in mind that we love this sandbox because it is what we make it, not because it came with pre-made sandcastles and someone to hold our hand as we play in it.

You are completely ignoring that the rules you are so used to dealing with *are* a pre-made sandcastle, just a different floorplan.

TheBlueMonkey wrote:
So you're killing off ninja salvaging and can flipping as a professions how is that not dumbing things down?

pirate != intelligent play
logic fail...
Bantara
Dolmite Cornerstone
#732 - 2012-10-05 21:46:16 UTC
Aiden Mourn wrote:
"For bad" here being, "the loss of substantial skillpoints".

Eh.....?
(forum post 133980)
Master Ventris wrote:
You lose 1 level off a randomly selected skill from the 5 subsystem skills that relate to the ship you lost. (eg caldari subsystem skills when you lose a tengu).
{...}(Although they are all rank 1 skills so only take 3-4 days to retrain back to 5)


Wth....you've got the isk and the gall to take a T3 into combat, but can't afford to train for 5 days? Less if you only take it to IV, which is what I suggest if the training time butthurts that much.

Unforgiven Storm wrote:
Im sorry, but when two navy boats are fighting in the sea and one is loosing the capitan of the losing ship has always the option to say "abandon ship" in the middle of the fight. Same principle applies here, why I cant abandon a ship that is "sinking" and try to save myself (my pod)?

Because in the end, I'm sorry, this is a game and needs to be balanced as such, not a straight-up RL simulator.

Rhavas wrote:
[list=1]
  • Remove the eject lock, at least for T3s. Forcing people to stay in and lose skills is BS, and cuts off a great “steal the T3″ gameplay mechanic.
  • However, losing SP is the original intent, not providing "steal the T3" opportunities.
    Bantara
    Dolmite Cornerstone
    #733 - 2012-10-05 21:48:13 UTC
    Odin Shadow wrote:
    PinkKnife wrote:

    Also, Death to strategically logging off. I can't believe everyone's internet is that bad, and strangely enough only when they are ratting do they experience such unusual internet latency issues. Roll


    what about the times ccp's network goes down or the random isp drops people get.
    while i agree with not letting peeps get away from pvp'ing by logging off, letting tham die in missions because a lone NPC frig is scramming them seams a little bit daft tbh
    all missioners will now only be able to make sure they dont die to disconnects if they are in a +20min cap stable, high dps tanking ship. narrowing the ships people use is not a good thing.


    First off, learn to kill the scramming frig first. Yes, there could be that miniscule chance that your ISP will blip just after you got pointed but before you started killing it, but if that's the case...
    1) CCP can't make a solid, consistant, intelligble, and--most importantly--exploit-resistant/proof system while simultaneously accommodating every single tiny little edge case. So HTFU.
    2) When I was young, I was taught to make my mission ships tanky and cap stable. And I walked uphill to school, both ways!
    3) On that day, put down the game and go buy a lottery ticket. Who knows?


    Solstice Project wrote:
    Steijn wrote:
    Quote:
    NPC Flag: This flag is activated when a player uses offensive modules against an NPC (or vice-versa). Having this flag will prevent a ship from being removed from space if the pilot logs off. This flag functions in all areas of space.

    thats just shafted anyone who does missions and not PVP because they have a weak internet connection.

    It's fair because COMBAT is COMBAT, no matter against whom.
    The PvPer could have a weak internet connection too, but of course,
    mission runners want a special piece of the cake everybody gets ...

    Welcome to Eve, Steijn, where if you don't want to risk losing your ship, you don't undock!
    Bantara
    Dolmite Cornerstone
    #734 - 2012-10-05 22:07:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Bantara
    Varesk wrote:
    Can you give us an option to remove the new flags from the overview?

    I laughed in my head when I read this. Cause you know what would have happened, right? Dec 8 would have come along and there would have been hundreds of people on the feedback thread asking where/how to turn it off....what do you mean I can't!?!

    Andski wrote:
    This is going to reduce income across the board, not just in hisec. Sorry.

    Because it was so low already, oh noes! /sarc
    Also, if it's a reduction all across the board, then there is no real loss. It's just deflation (hint: opposite of inflation.) Our great player-driven, supply-and-demand market will adjust.

    Jarin Arenos wrote:
    So far I've seen no commentary on the effect this will have on mission runners.
    {...}
    Come on, somebody has to give a crap about the massive headache that is getting handed to mission runners with the NPC flag's introduction...

    Then you haven't been f'ing reading. It has come and gone already, thanks for reheating it.
    Your retort doesn't counter Nirnaeth's point that this is an MMO--do not complain if you can't do upper-level content (lvl 4 out of 5 possible) missions alone. Get friends. (I for one will never say "get an alt".)

    Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
    #1: Ransoming player pods in lowsec sounds like it will now cause a massive sec status loss as the warp scram will count as podding them.

    Yes, because ransoming someone with a death threat isn't an 'evil' act and shouldn't hurt your security status....riiiight....
    Lyron-Baktos
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #735 - 2012-10-05 22:18:10 UTC
    surprised nobody else feels the 60 seconds to dock to not long enough
    Jarin Arenos
    Card Shark Industries
    #736 - 2012-10-05 22:34:16 UTC
    Bantara wrote:
    Then you haven't been f'ing reading. It has come and gone already, thanks for reheating it.
    Your retort doesn't counter Nirnaeth's point that this is an MMO--do not complain if you can't do upper-level content (lvl 4 out of 5 possible) missions along. Get friends. (I for one will never say "get an alt".)

    Caught. I may have just been reading dev posts only, being short of time at work. <.< Would like to see some sort of blue comment on the matter, though, having been someone who has suffered from a regularly-unreliable connection to the EVE servers. Yeah, I'm getting a new ISP, but I'm still paranoid.

    Losing a ship because I'm stupid, or because someone successfully kills me within game mechanics is one thing, and a danger I accept implicitly by clicking Undock. But dying horribly because my internet is unreliable? No game I've ever played had that penalty. Hell, the closest thing I've seen was Ubisoft's always-on DRM, and that rightly raised holy hell from the gaming community.

    But I'm not CCP Soundwave, so what do I know?

    Rengerel en Distel
    #737 - 2012-10-05 23:03:48 UTC
    Jarin Arenos wrote:
    Bantara wrote:
    Then you haven't been f'ing reading. It has come and gone already, thanks for reheating it.
    Your retort doesn't counter Nirnaeth's point that this is an MMO--do not complain if you can't do upper-level content (lvl 4 out of 5 possible) missions along. Get friends. (I for one will never say "get an alt".)

    Caught. I may have just been reading dev posts only, being short of time at work. <.< Would like to see some sort of blue comment on the matter, though, having been someone who has suffered from a regularly-unreliable connection to the EVE servers. Yeah, I'm getting a new ISP, but I'm still paranoid.

    Losing a ship because I'm stupid, or because someone successfully kills me within game mechanics is one thing, and a danger I accept implicitly by clicking Undock. But dying horribly because my internet is unreliable? No game I've ever played had that penalty. Hell, the closest thing I've seen was Ubisoft's always-on DRM, and that rightly raised holy hell from the gaming community.


    Pretty sure any game where you're in combat and get disconnected, you're likely to die. Most games keep you where you are, and you either live or die. Eve actually warps you out of combat if you're not scrammed. Not sure why so many people are complaining about this, when it's how it is already. Sure, you sit in space for 15 min, so perhaps someone could scan you down, and suicide gank you, but is that really a major concern?

    With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.

    ihcn
    Life. Universe. Everything.
    #738 - 2012-10-05 23:22:01 UTC
    Reticle wrote:
    I haven't seen an answer to this yet:

    Are in corp ganks still retribution-less?

    This is a good point, if we're completely eliminating all hisec pvp we need to be thorough about it
    ihcn
    Life. Universe. Everything.
    #739 - 2012-10-05 23:27:23 UTC
    Jarin Arenos wrote:
    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?

    Because eve is and has been advertised as a pure pvp game, since day one. "no pvp vs non-pvp zones" was literally a selling point.

    except at this point hisec is basically a non-pvp zone. you whiners complained loud enough and now you've gotten your way. enjoy your cartoon game for babies.
    Jarin Arenos
    Card Shark Industries
    #740 - 2012-10-05 23:31:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Jarin Arenos
    Rengerel en Distel wrote:
    Pretty sure any game where you're in combat and get disconnected, you're likely to die. Most games keep you where you are, and you either live or die. Eve actually warps you out of combat if you're not scrammed. Not sure why so many people are complaining about this, when it's how it is already. Sure, you sit in space for 15 min, so perhaps someone could scan you down, and suicide gank you, but is that really a major concern?


    Most online games have your character vanish after less than a minute. And that's those where you don't vanish immediately, which is fairly common.

    As for sitting in 15 minutes, the concern isn't other players, but the NPCs you were fighting in the first place. Unless you can sit and survive 15 minutes worth of enemy DPS (impossible unless you're running a good cap stable tank, and that's ASSUMING that your modules don't deactivate on logout, which I have yet to hear one way or the other), you're dead. No outside player interaction required at all. No fun player-involved mechanics, just random stupid rat death. THAT is what the problem is.

    I have no problem, zero, with staying in place under PvP interaction. If someone scans me down in a mission and attacks, I shouldn't be able to log off to avoid him. But NPC rats? Come on, now. There's no exploited mechanics here. If I'm logging off to avoid being killed, the rats are probably going to kill me within 60 seconds. Nevermind 15 minutes. The only thing this nerfs affects is people with poor/unreliable internet connections.

    Edit:
    ihcn wrote:
    Because eve is and has been advertised as a pure pvp game, since day one. "no pvp vs non-pvp zones" was literally a selling point.

    except at this point hisec is basically a non-pvp zone. you whiners complained loud enough and now you've gotten your way. enjoy your cartoon game for babies.

    So you're crying that you can't get easy kills on people that don't share your playstyle and would not be playing the game if highsec didn't exist? I don't think I'm ever going to understand your viewpoint. That'd be like me complaining about the talk of a POS revamp because I don't own a POS, and hating everyone who uses one.

    But I'm not CCP Soundwave, so what do I know?