These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Derath Ellecon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1041 - 2012-10-14 14:37:27 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
MisterAl tt1 wrote:
Back to T3 eject.

Am I getting it right, that a carebear, who never shoots back, receives much privilege over the PVP-pilot, who risks his T3 ship by initiating or taking part in PVP ? Thus carebear will never loose his skill and PVPer will everytime, if T3 is killed.

I thiught this is a game about PVP and a logical result of the idea "more risk = more profit" is "less risks = more losses in case they come" (highsec officer-fitted ratters, e.g.). With the new mechanic carebears in T3 will LOL on the PVPers willing to fight in these ships.

Thank you, CCP it WAS a nice game.


Imagine a t3 gets tackled by a hunter....

If a carebear sits there and does NOT shoot back... .they have zero chance their t3 escaping, but can eject and get their Pod out and not lose SP.

If a PvP'er shoots back, they have a chance of escape, and but cannot eject if they fail to escape. [more risk (sp) but more profit (their t3)]

Just because you can skirt the t3 sp loss now, does not mean it was intended that way, nor that you should be able to!!! IMO, the ONLY way you should NOT lose sp from a t3 loss is if your opponents capture the ship.... In other words, if you eject, and they blow it up anyway... you should still lose sp....



That all sounds great, and while I'm not happy about it, I can live with it. My bigger concern isn't about this winter, but after the rebalance, as other dev's have said they want to "put down T3's like the rabid dogs they are"

Given the SP loss, I think T3's are configured pretty well, given their big tank and larger potential survivability. Nerf their survivability AND ability to eject, and basically they won't get flown again. (which I am sure some people think would be a GREAT idea, even though it isn't)
TWHC Assistant
#1042 - 2012-10-14 17:08:06 UTC
I love the new CW2. Straight, clear, simple.

I hope Limited Engagements get dropped in the future for a simpler mechanic. I'd like for the suspect flag to carry over to anyone who attacks a player marked as suspect. Then we can have big fights in high-sec and only who fires their weapons can get in on it. All other can still enjoy their safety.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1043 - 2012-10-14 17:22:01 UTC
Nyla Skin wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:


So, it depends on the relationship of your corp mate to the person they are repping in the LE. If he is repping another corp mate (that does NOT have a Suspect Flag), he will not gain a suspect flag, and neither will you. If he is repping a "neutral", he will get a suspect flag... and the you will get one too...

Note, CCP is installing "switches" which, if you activate them, will prevent you from committing an act that gives you a Criminal or Suspect flag.... and there may even be another warning of some type....


Try reading better:

Quote:
Assisting your own corp mates* in a Limited Engagement is always legally allowed (it won't be punished per se, but you'll still inherit any W/P/S/C flags they have)


Sorry I didn't elaborate clearly enough.... I put in the missing prepositional phrase so you can follow what I meant...

Assuming they are repping a non-suspect corp mate, the will NOT get a suspect flag....
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1044 - 2012-10-14 17:28:05 UTC
Robin Barson wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Robin Barson wrote:
CCP Masterplan wrote:
Our current thinking on this is something like:

Assisting your own corp mates* in a Limited Engagement is always legally allowed (it won't be punished per se, but you'll still inherit any W/P/S/C flags they have)

But this is still something we're discussing
* Excluding NPC corps, and assisting Outlaws in high-sec


Does that mean if I remote repair a corpmate who also remote repairs someone in a LE, both of us remote guys become suspects, but at least I do not lose security for repping a suspect in highsec? According to the table in the dev blog I'd lose sec for repping another repping logistics.


If you remote repair a NON-corpmate in a LE engagement, you get a suspect flag....
If you remote repair a suspect, you gain a suspect flag....

So, it depends on the relationship of your corp mate to the person they are repping in the LE. If he is repping another corp mate, he will not gain a suspect flag, and neither will you. If he is repping a "neutral", he will get a suspect flag... and the you will get one too...

Note, CCP is installing "switches" which, if you activate them, will prevent you from committing an act that gives you a Criminal or Suspect flag.... and there may even be another warning of some type....


I am not worried about getting a suspect flag for repping another suspect, but about the security hit. According to the table in the dev blog you lose sec if you rep a suspect in highsec. Since everyone who reps someone in a LE becomes suspect, you'll lose sec if you rep a logi in highsec, even if you do it to defend a friend agains thieves.

Or the other way round: you do not get a sec hit for stealing in highsec, but you get a security hit for repping a thief, even when those two are in the same corp? I am no thief, but I like that there are some who steal things. How boring would it be if there was no theft in eve? Not in highsec, because thieves cannot fight without sec loss, and in low or null there is no point in stealing anyway.


Based on CCP Masterplan's statements, you are NOT automatically flagged as a Suspect when you rep a corp mate in an LE. He seems to think repping a corp mate "shouldn't be punished", so you would only get the Suspect flag if your corp mate has the Suspect flag, irregardless of the LE.

Now, IF you get the suspect flag, then you will take the sec status hit, AND the associated gate gun aggression.....

Note, Sec Status hits by themselves mean very little, to be honest... unless you are some borderline pirate that is trying to keep their sec status up high enough for them to enter highsec without being chased about by the navy police.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#1045 - 2012-10-14 18:56:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:
Bienator II wrote:
@devs what was the reason why the no-eject-if-weapon-timer rule was introduced?

only because of the t3s or something else?


Saw your point in the locked GD thread. I agree in the loss of options in scenarios of slow death. That self destruct should carry a perk to the denial of more items to the enemy. A self destruct should also give a capsular time to escape as he planed it. 3-5 sec invul time for lag. Yet SP loss was part of the cost for flying such a tough SOB if it went down. Yet it is kind of a hard punch for those who have made use of the eject maneuver for so long.
Yet I wouldn't mind giving said pilots a real safety net for a cost. What would you think of a hardwire implant that protects your head from a rapid t3 disconnect, slot 10. Or even a high tier only combat booster , slot 1. that will protect your head for a op.


well i simply see it this way: you can't fix something without knowing the issue.

if the issue of self destruct where caps... fix it for caps
if the issue of eject was the orca problem + the t3 problem. fix the orca problem and let you lose SP in any case if your t3 explodes

however fixing it by restricting the eject feature can cause more harm as it fixes. Thats why i asked for a dev response to have a clearer picture behind the motivation of that rule change.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#1046 - 2012-10-14 19:15:20 UTC
Bienator II wrote:
Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:
Bienator II wrote:
@devs what was the reason why the no-eject-if-weapon-timer rule was introduced?

only because of the t3s or something else?


Saw your point in the locked GD thread. I agree in the loss of options in scenarios of slow death. That self destruct should carry a perk to the denial of more items to the enemy. A self destruct should also give a capsular time to escape as he planed it. 3-5 sec invul time for lag. Yet SP loss was part of the cost for flying such a tough SOB if it went down. Yet it is kind of a hard punch for those who have made use of the eject maneuver for so long.
Yet I wouldn't mind giving said pilots a real safety net for a cost. What would you think of a hardwire implant that protects your head from a rapid t3 disconnect, slot 10. Or even a high tier only combat booster , slot 1. that will protect your head for a op.


well i simply see it this way: you can't fix something without knowing the issue.

if the issue of self destruct where caps... fix it for caps
if the issue of eject was the orca problem + the t3 problem. fix the orca problem and let you lose SP in any case if your t3 explodes

however fixing it by restricting the eject feature can cause more harm as it fixes. Thats why i asked for a dev response to have a clearer picture behind the motivation of that rule change.


Because people will simply find a workaround and carry on if all they do is patch one specific abusable aspect, this way shuts it down completely as an option. Saves them wasting time on addressing a different minor variation in the future.

Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin

you're welcome
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1047 - 2012-10-14 20:46:29 UTC
Darek Castigatus wrote:
Bienator II wrote:
Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:
Bienator II wrote:
@devs what was the reason why the no-eject-if-weapon-timer rule was introduced?

only because of the t3s or something else?


Saw your point in the locked GD thread. I agree in the loss of options in scenarios of slow death. That self destruct should carry a perk to the denial of more items to the enemy. A self destruct should also give a capsular time to escape as he planed it. 3-5 sec invul time for lag. Yet SP loss was part of the cost for flying such a tough SOB if it went down. Yet it is kind of a hard punch for those who have made use of the eject maneuver for so long.
Yet I wouldn't mind giving said pilots a real safety net for a cost. What would you think of a hardwire implant that protects your head from a rapid t3 disconnect, slot 10. Or even a high tier only combat booster , slot 1. that will protect your head for a op.


well i simply see it this way: you can't fix something without knowing the issue.

if the issue of self destruct where caps... fix it for caps
if the issue of eject was the orca problem + the t3 problem. fix the orca problem and let you lose SP in any case if your t3 explodes

however fixing it by restricting the eject feature can cause more harm as it fixes. Thats why i asked for a dev response to have a clearer picture behind the motivation of that rule change.


Because people will simply find a workaround and carry on if all they do is patch one specific abusable aspect, this way shuts it down completely as an option. Saves them wasting time on addressing a different minor variation in the future.


one of the reasons for limiting the eject mechanics is to prevent ship scooping into carriers / orca's, which is commonly used by pirates to save their precious shiny ships when they bite off more than they can chew..
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#1048 - 2012-10-15 21:03:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

one of the reasons for limiting the eject mechanics is to prevent ship scooping into carriers / orca's, which is commonly used by pirates to save their precious shiny ships when they bite off more than they can chew..


so fix scooping. You shouldn't be able to scoop a 200m long ship and jump INSTANTLY. This makes no sense. Many things which simply make no sense are also the cause of a problem. Thats why we have docking games and other stupid effects in the game. Fix them - but not at the wrong end

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Tsukinosuke
Id Est
RAZOR Alliance
#1049 - 2012-10-15 22:11:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Tsukinosuke
Bienator II wrote:

if the issue of self destruct where caps... fix it for caps
if the issue of eject was the orca problem + the t3 problem. fix the orca problem and let you lose SP in any case if your t3 explodes

however fixing it by restricting the eject feature can cause more harm as it fixes. Thats why i asked for a dev response to have a clearer picture behind the motivation of that rule change.


+1
and why i feel DEVs trying to punish ppl for playing EVE Online? tech3 skill loss is also ridiculous, it is against game mechanics, there are medical clones we have to upgrade for saving SP, there are jumpclones we use them to save our implants.
if "eject" is against gameplay, then just remove it, do not try to sell this "improved" crimewatch thing..

anti-antagonist "not a friend of enemy of antagonist"
Nyla Skin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1050 - 2012-10-16 11:18:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Nyla Skin
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

Based on CCP Masterplan's statements, you are NOT automatically flagged as a Suspect when you rep a corp mate in an LE. He seems to think repping a corp mate "shouldn't be punished", so you would only get the Suspect flag if your corp mate has the Suspect flag, irregardless of the LE.



Ok, then that is just ... WRONG. I wish I could use some strong words here without being accused of trying to circumvent profanity filter.

This needs to go immediately. Repper should ALWAYS be subject to the same aggro rights as the one being repped. No exceptions whatsoever. Regardless what corp/alliance/fleet they belong to together.

This here is the main reason why highsec PVP is ... I can't use a strong enough word here.

In after the lock :P   - CCP Falcon www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies
YariLei
The Asteroid is Depleted
#1051 - 2012-10-16 15:18:43 UTC
"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."

Just a wee question... I play eve on a machine which occasionally crashes or overheats (an old laptop), meaning it just shuts down instantly. Yes, I ain't got the dough right now to upgrade, yet. But that's the main reason I do missions instead of PVP, as when all goes blank, I will only lose my drones but not the ship as it will warp back to mission gate once I get the computer and Eve back up (takes about 5 minutes to get back to that point). So, with a 15 minute timer, if my computer crashes, I will quite certainly lose any ship I brought to the mission room as I won't be able to fight back?

Or will there be a safe way to prevent this from happening? I'm all good for the log-off timer but how about getting thrown out by non-player issues? Maybe ping or log if the player just logged off or the game/computer simply crashed?
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1052 - 2012-10-16 17:14:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Gizznitt Malikite
YariLei wrote:
"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."

Just a wee question... I play eve on a machine which occasionally crashes or overheats (an old laptop), meaning it just shuts down instantly. Yes, I ain't got the dough right now to upgrade, yet. But that's the main reason I do missions instead of PVP, as when all goes blank, I will only lose my drones but not the ship as it will warp back to mission gate once I get the computer and Eve back up (takes about 5 minutes to get back to that point). So, with a 15 minute timer, if my computer crashes, I will quite certainly lose any ship I brought to the mission room as I won't be able to fight back?

Or will there be a safe way to prevent this from happening? I'm all good for the log-off timer but how about getting thrown out by non-player issues? Maybe ping or log if the player just logged off or the game/computer simply crashed?


Two thoughts....

1.) Unless you are warp scrambled, your ship will still warp off and await it's despawn timer 1m km's away from that mission. If you happen to crash when you are warp scrambled, there is a much higher chance you will lose your ship... However, you can also choose to fly ships that can permatank LvL 4 missions.... Cap stable dual rep domi's, cap stable shield boosting ravens, passive shield tanked rattlesnakes, etc....

2.) I think it would be reasonable for the NPC's to stop aggroing your ship after a minute or so of when you leave local.... That would solve your issue while still hindering nullbears from "logging off" to save their ships. Really though, you do have options even if they leave the NPC timer at 15 minutes...
Tsukinosuke
Id Est
RAZOR Alliance
#1053 - 2012-10-19 00:26:01 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
YariLei wrote:
"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."

Just a wee question... I play eve on a machine which occasionally crashes or overheats (an old laptop), meaning it just shuts down instantly. Yes, I ain't got the dough right now to upgrade, yet. But that's the main reason I do missions instead of PVP, as when all goes blank, I will only lose my drones but not the ship as it will warp back to mission gate once I get the computer and Eve back up (takes about 5 minutes to get back to that point). So, with a 15 minute timer, if my computer crashes, I will quite certainly lose any ship I brought to the mission room as I won't be able to fight back?

Or will there be a safe way to prevent this from happening? I'm all good for the log-off timer but how about getting thrown out by non-player issues? Maybe ping or log if the player just logged off or the game/computer simply crashed?


Two thoughts....

1.) Unless you are warp scrambled, your ship will still warp off and await it's despawn timer 1m km's away from that mission. If you happen to crash when you are warp scrambled, there is a much higher chance you will lose your ship... However, you can also choose to fly ships that can permatank LvL 4 missions.... Cap stable dual rep domi's, cap stable shield boosting ravens, passive shield tanked rattlesnakes, etc....

2.) I think it would be reasonable for the NPC's to stop aggroing your ship after a minute or so of when you leave local.... That would solve your issue while still hindering nullbears from "logging off" to save their ships. Really though, you do have options even if they leave the NPC timer at 15 minutes...


1) current system; you wouldnt lose your ship if you got disconnected or your computer crashed, it is perma-warp off to 1m km away spawn point occurs and your all active moduls would be active. you said "perma tank"? ah, i got it, you joking :)

2)logout wont help you to save your ship actually.

3) NPC flag, how could they call this "CRIMEWATCH"?

4) WEAPON flag, if i shoot a roid/LCO etc for fun???

answer of 3,4;
they are trying to sell us what they actually want(t3 eject block), not what we asked for.

anti-antagonist "not a friend of enemy of antagonist"
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1054 - 2012-10-19 00:41:15 UTC
Tsukinosuke wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
YariLei wrote:
"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."

Just a wee question... I play eve on a machine which occasionally crashes or overheats (an old laptop), meaning it just shuts down instantly. Yes, I ain't got the dough right now to upgrade, yet. But that's the main reason I do missions instead of PVP, as when all goes blank, I will only lose my drones but not the ship as it will warp back to mission gate once I get the computer and Eve back up (takes about 5 minutes to get back to that point). So, with a 15 minute timer, if my computer crashes, I will quite certainly lose any ship I brought to the mission room as I won't be able to fight back?

Or will there be a safe way to prevent this from happening? I'm all good for the log-off timer but how about getting thrown out by non-player issues? Maybe ping or log if the player just logged off or the game/computer simply crashed?


Two thoughts....

1.) Unless you are warp scrambled, your ship will still warp off and await it's despawn timer 1m km's away from that mission. If you happen to crash when you are warp scrambled, there is a much higher chance you will lose your ship... However, you can also choose to fly ships that can permatank LvL 4 missions.... Cap stable dual rep domi's, cap stable shield boosting ravens, passive shield tanked rattlesnakes, etc....

2.) I think it would be reasonable for the NPC's to stop aggroing your ship after a minute or so of when you leave local.... That would solve your issue while still hindering nullbears from "logging off" to save their ships. Really though, you do have options even if they leave the NPC timer at 15 minutes...


1) current system; you wouldnt lose your ship if you got disconnected or your computer crashed, it is perma-warp off to 1m km away spawn point occurs and your all active moduls would be active. you said "perma tank"? ah, i got it, you joking :)

2)logout wont help you to save your ship actually.

3) NPC flag, how could they call this "CRIMEWATCH"?

4) WEAPON flag, if i shoot a roid/LCO etc for fun???

answer of 3,4;
they are trying to sell us what they actually want(t3 eject block), not what we asked for.


1.) You're partially wrong.... Currently, if you are warp scrambled by an NPC rat, or any other means, you do NOT perform that 1m km emergency warp... The current NPC logoff timer is 2 minutes, and if you have it, I believe most of your mods continue to run (assuming you don't cap out). It is fairly rare for your ship to be warp scrambled at the moment of DC, so most people don't lose their ships from it... but it does occasionally happen, and it may happen more often with the upcoming patch... And yes... if you are playing on a shoddy connection, and want to make sure you don't lose your ratting ship... fly a permatanked ratting ship, rather than a burst tank, high dps ship.... Otherwise, risk losing your ship on DC... it's rare ever ccp's fault you dc'd...

2.) Currently, logging out is a very common tactic to save nullbear's from roaming gangs... and it works.....

3.) There has always been an NPC flag, and it's always been part of the crimewatch system... don't get your panties in a bunch now!!!

4.) Read the dev blog.. you don't get a weapons flag for shooting a roid... you get it for shooting another player, player object, or activating an AOE device...
Tsukinosuke
Id Est
RAZOR Alliance
#1055 - 2012-10-19 15:46:59 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

3.) There has always been an NPC flag, and it's always been part of the crimewatch system... don't get your panties in a bunch now!!!

4.) Read the dev blog.. you don't get a weapons flag for shooting a roid... you get it for shooting another player, player object, or activating an AOE device...



"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein





anti-antagonist "not a friend of enemy of antagonist"
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1056 - 2012-10-19 16:51:22 UTC
Tsukinosuke wrote:
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein


"Famous remarks are very seldom quoted correctly."
-- Simeon Strunsky
Alexandrina Intakany
JC Mining And Research
#1057 - 2012-10-20 03:51:36 UTC
i think that this system is a bit better here is how i understand it :

basically anybody can attack S flagged ppl but attacking somone S flagged dosent flag you back . (neat)
if you help a S flagged you become S flagged aswell. if you help a non-S flagged party attacking a S flagged you become "attackable" flagged for this S flagged .

now in relation with Criminal ( witch already exists) anybody can attack and Concorde reacts where as S concord dosent)

now how will this relating to bounties ? it seams that everyone wille be "bountyable" will this bounty Grant a S flag ? because that be just stupid everybody could just bounty somone and then kill them (byebye high sec...)
Dominus Alterai
Star Freaks
#1058 - 2012-10-20 18:20:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Dominus Alterai
Alexandrina Intakany wrote:
i think that this system is a bit better here is how i understand it :

basically anybody can attack S flagged ppl but attacking somone S flagged dosent flag you back . (neat)
if you help a S flagged you become S flagged aswell. if you help a non-S flagged party attacking a S flagged you become "attackable" flagged for this S flagged .

now in relation with Criminal ( witch already exists) anybody can attack and Concorde reacts where as S concord dosent)

now how will this relating to bounties ? it seams that everyone wille be "bountyable" will this bounty Grant a S flag ? because that be just stupid everybody could just bounty somone and then kill them (byebye high sec...)








This is kinda worrisome (read:awesome, but whatever).
I can totally see trade hubs turning into giant battle royale. Good (kinda) thing about this is that you don't have to fight if you don't want to...unless, you know, you killed someone in the past 30 days..

Reducing your holes to a quivering mess since 2009.
Bart Starr
Aggressive Structural Steel Expediting Services
#1059 - 2012-10-20 19:05:06 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:


one of the reasons for limiting the eject mechanics is to prevent ship scooping into carriers / orca's, which is commonly used by pirates to save their precious shiny ships when they bite off more than they can chew..


Perhaps some people do this, but this can be fixed without eliminating combat ejection and boarding.

The real purpose of this has nothing to do with pirates 'saving' anything from destruction.

Its that carebears die at a ferocious rate in highsec because they shoot at 'helpless' looting frigates, the frigate pilot locks them down, boards a Hurricane, and pwns their multi-billion ISK money printing machine. Carebear cries, Carebear quits, wetnurse CCP comes to the rescue with Crimewatch.

Existence of ninjas makes highsec carebears less safe, so ninjas must be removed from the game.

Silly fringe case low-sec docking games is just a fig leaf, because nobody really cares if you are killed in lowsec or not. If you are in lowsec, you expected a fight.

Unfortunately, ninjas are one of the last threats remaining to highsec carebears, so whats left? Mission rats? LOL.
CCP Masterplan
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1060 - 2012-10-22 16:39:23 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Masterplan
We've been reviewing the feedback since we released the crimewatch dev blog (all 53 pages and counting), and now have planned some revisions that I'll outline below:

Interdictor bubbles:
We've looked at the concerns about Weapons flags excessively penalising Interdictor pilots, and also about flags potentially propagating intel that is otherwise not available. With these in mind, the following alterations are planned:

The act of launching a Warp Disrupt Probe from an Interdictor will not give any flags.

If someone CURRENTLY INSIDE a dictor bubble attempts to warp then:
* Both the (failed) warper and the bubble owner will get a PVP flag
* The bubble owner will get a Weapons flag.

When someone's incoming warp is altered by a bubble at the destination, no flaggings will occur.

This should allow dictor pilots to more easily keep moving with their fleet. It also prevents free intel via flaggings when someone starts a warp to a distant bubble from the other side of the system.


NPC and PVP timers:
Firstly I want to emphasise the following will remain unchanged: If a player disconnects from the game, his ship will make an attempt to perform an emergency warp. This warp will be prevented by the regular forms of disruption as normal. The presence of any flag will not prevent this emergency warp from being attempted. There was some confusion about this, so I wanted to make sure everyone is clear this was never planned to change. If you disconnect whilst engaging NPCs, your ship will still make a single attempt to e-warp as normal at the moment of disconnect, provided you aren't tackled.

With that out of the way, here are the updated changes/clarifications:
* NPC flag timeout will be lowered to 5 minutes. NPC flags are not further extended after log-off.
* PVP flags CAN be created and further extended after log-off even if the owner did not have a PVP flag at the time of disconnect.. If Char A logs off in space (with or without a PVP flag), and then char B attacks A, then A will get a PVP flag. Char A's ship will then remain in space for as long as that PVP flag exists.
These changes should ensure that unavoidable disconnects (eg caused by network problems) aren't massively penalising, whilst ensuring that manually killing the client to avoid PVP is never a viable strategy.
* We are adding a 'Safe Log-off' ability, where you can go through the process of removing your ship from space BEFORE closing the client, rather than after. This will let you confirm that your ship is truly hidden, by getting it to a safe location and then going through a timer.
Before anyone panics about this become the new ALT-F4 to avoid combat or that we're making the game too safe, this does come with a number of restrictions. For example, the timer cannot be started whilst you have modules running, have incoming/outgoing target locks, have a Weapons/PVP flag, are in a fleet, are under jump cloak, etc. Should any of these required conditions change whilst the timer is running, it will be aborted.
We'll be putting a dev blog out with more details on this feature in the near future.

Please keep the constructive feedback coming!

"This one time, on patch day..."

@ccp_masterplan  |  Team Five-0: Rewriting the law