These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Vegare
Bitslix
Lolsec Fockel
#1081 - 2012-10-23 10:05:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Vegare
CCP Masterplan wrote:
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.


Does the bit about the weapons flag also apply if the bubble owner has already left the grid/system? Could imagine some ways to use this mechanic to make dictor pilots placing defensive bubbles fall behind when travelling (escaping) with their gang...
Josef Huffenpuff
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1082 - 2012-10-23 10:28:39 UTC
CCP Masterplan.
[b wrote:
Interdictor bubbles:[/b]
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.


Thankyou Masterplan. This is a positive change and helps keep Dictors viable in small gang roaming PvP.
Poloturion
Genco Pura Olive Oil Company.
#1083 - 2012-10-23 12:29:48 UTC
sc11232 wrote:
CCP Masterplan wrote:
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.


So if one disconnects while being tackled by the NPC he or she will stay forever on the field until either downtime or killmail happens?

Sounds about right.



If you only have NPC aggro no you will not stay forever. You will stay on grid until your 5 minutes NPC flag expires and then disappear. If you were not tackled you would ewarp off grid and stay wherever you land for 5 minutes until the NPC timer is gone and then you will also disappear.

This is exactly how it has worked previously with the exception of the NPC timer now being 5 minutes.

The changes making it possible to give pvp timers to people who have already logged off however is new and made of an enormous amount of win. Big shout out to the teams at CCP.

Also, please fix POS.

June Ting
Nobody in Local
Of Sound Mind
#1084 - 2012-10-23 12:35:24 UTC
Thank you for listening to the suggestions about PvP flags being applyable after logout and closing the exploit/loophole the lack thereof permitted.

I fight for the freedom of my people.

Barney Goldwing
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1085 - 2012-10-23 13:17:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Barney Goldwing
Quote:
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.


well, if for any reason a industrial ship(heck even a slow combat ship) disconnects on a gate(or enroute to a gate, or departing a gate), with those rules, it will be "massively penalising", a blocade runner may be able to warp off to a safe and MAY be lucky enough to survive the non-agression (1minute?) timer before being scanned and given a PVP timer.

But anything that requires mwd to stay safe will be dead, I presume gatecloak works as today, so after 1 minute the ship decloaks, and the ppl at the gate have 10seconds to flag it... easy.
After that they have forever to kill it, as long as they can get 1 shot off every 15 minutes, they dont even have to keep scram on it, since e-warp is only attempted once, local will tell them if the victim logs back in.

Im sure you know there are alot of unstable issues with jumping, im fairly new and have had my share of unforseen events after jumping (lag, crash, etc)

Also how long is this safety logoff timer ? and is it stopped on a successful target lock, or an attempted target lock ?
Alx Warlord
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1086 - 2012-10-23 15:31:21 UTC
Vegare wrote:
CCP Masterplan wrote:
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.


Does the bit about the weapons flag also apply if the bubble owner has already left the grid/system? Could imagine some ways to use this mechanic to make dictor pilots placing defensive bubbles fall behind when travelling (escaping) with their gang...


The currently inside means that after the probe is released incoming ships will not trigger anything only the currently inside can get/provide flags ....

So you can bubble and jump.... and this will give you some time to escape incoming fleets...
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1087 - 2012-10-23 17:16:13 UTC
sc11232 wrote:
CCP Masterplan wrote:
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.


So if one disconnects while being tackled by the NPC he or she will stay forever on the field until either downtime or killmail happens?

Sounds about right.



No... you will stay on field until:

a.) your non-renewable NPC timer ends (5 minutes)....
b.) until your ship explodes, and your capsule's NPC timer ends...
c.) if you happen to be attacked by a player before your (5 min) NPC timer ends, you will stay in space until 15minutes after the player quits shooting you...
Che Biko
Alexylva Paradox
#1088 - 2012-10-23 17:19:32 UTC
Do many players actually try to warp inside a dictor bubble?
If not, it might be better to give the flags when someone is inside the bubble, wether they try to warp or not.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1089 - 2012-10-23 17:31:58 UTC
Barney Goldwing wrote:
Quote:
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.


well, if for any reason a industrial ship(heck even a slow combat ship) disconnects on a gate(or enroute to a gate, or departing a gate), with those rules, it will be "massively penalising", a blocade runner may be able to warp off to a safe and MAY be lucky enough to survive the non-agression (1minute?) timer before being scanned and given a PVP timer.

But anything that requires mwd to stay safe will be dead, I presume gatecloak works as today, so after 1 minute the ship decloaks, and the ppl at the gate have 10seconds to flag it... easy.
After that they have forever to kill it, as long as they can get 1 shot off every 15 minutes, they dont even have to keep scram on it, since e-warp is only attempted once, local will tell them if the victim logs back in.

Im sure you know there are alot of unstable issues with jumping, im fairly new and have had my share of unforseen events after jumping (lag, crash, etc)

Also how long is this safety logoff timer ? and is it stopped on a successful target lock, or an attempted target lock ?


1.) What requires an MWD to stay safe?? that doesn't make a lot of sense to me! Sure, MWD's help you stay safe when active, but if you legitimately dc, an MWD wont' save you now!!!! The only thing that saves a player dc'ing into a gate camp is a high amount of HP so they can survive until they despawn.... which they can no longer do....

2.) They will release more info on the safety logoff timer... my impression is it's a tool that allows you to despawn your ship while still logged in, thereby making sure your ship despawns safely... My assumption is it will take 1 minute base, up to 5 minutes if you have an NPC timer, and up to 15 minutes if you have a PvP timer...

3.) While unstable clients do occasionally occur upon jumping, for the most part jumping is fine (just be careful after every patch until you know it's stable). If you are taking a slow-moving ship through a dangerous area of space (nullsec/lowsec), then make sure you are on a stable client, use scouts, and don't warp gate to gate... then you'll be alright... People, especially in big ships, purposely dc to "save their ship" far, far more often than people legitimately dc....

Truthfully, moving a freighter (the most awkward since it warps real slow and cannot cloak) doesn't change much... if you currently web to warp it, you have to deal with a 15 minute extendable PvP timer.... if you don't, it takes 50s to get it into warp.... during which time someone can come and attack it...
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1090 - 2012-10-23 17:33:44 UTC
Che Biko wrote:
Do many players actually try to warp inside a dictor bubble?
If not, it might be better to give the flags when someone is inside the bubble, wether they try to warp or not.


It is VERY common to warp while inside a dictor bubble...

1.) People do it to purposely aggress the dictor/hictor...
2.) People do it because they are idiots and aggress their dictor fleet mates while powering out of the bubble...
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1091 - 2012-10-23 17:38:30 UTC
Rhavas wrote:
Still need to solve the T3 issue.

  • Solve the problem with logoffskis. This is good.
  • Solve the Orca ship-swap problem if it's bothering you in highsec.
  • You could take self-destruct out of the game. Can't think of a single reason this is even needed, and it causes lots of problems. (EDIT: As per post below, there is a case for pods to self destruct. I can't think of any legit reason to self-destruct a SHIP, however. Even if stuck in a WH, eject and destruct your pod. Leaves lootz in the hole, as appropriate for an abandonment.)
  • Due to storyline reasons, I'm fine with characters losing skillpoints if they are in a T3 when it explodes.

However - if you are going to have this mechanic, you have to have a way to NOT be in it when it explodes. This is a play choice that adds potential. Don't bottle it up.

If you must lock the pod in the ship, get rid of the SP loss mechanic. Otherwise let people eject (again - fine if you get rid of self destruct on eject too - eject should almost always result in your enemy stealing your ship!).


First off, you CAN eject from a t3... just as long as you don't have a weapons timer....

If you don't want the skill loss, then don't PvP in a t3.....

You have a choice... shoot your opponent and be locked in your ship.... or don't shoot them, and be able to eject...



Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1092 - 2012-10-23 21:30:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Ganthrithor
CCP Masterplan:

Now that you've fixed the root of the logoffski problem (that people would vanish 60 seconds after logging out un-aggressed regardless of what transpired), you guys should drop the "vanishing" time for an unaggressed ship down to ~10-15 seconds.

This leaves plenty of time for aggressing people who deliberately logoffski while not providing enough time for people to jump on legitimate disconnects.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1093 - 2012-10-23 21:40:20 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
CCP Masterplan:

Now that you've fixed the root of the logoffski problem (that people would vanish 60 seconds after logging out un-aggressed regardless of what transpired), you guys should drop the "vanishing" time for an unaggressed ship down to ~10-15 seconds.

This leaves plenty of time for aggressing people who deliberately logoffski while not providing enough time for people to jump on legitimate disconnects.


Can you elaborate what your suggesting here... I don't think I understand what you mean...
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1094 - 2012-10-23 22:00:28 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Ganthrithor wrote:
CCP Masterplan:

Now that you've fixed the root of the logoffski problem (that people would vanish 60 seconds after logging out un-aggressed regardless of what transpired), you guys should drop the "vanishing" time for an unaggressed ship down to ~10-15 seconds.

This leaves plenty of time for aggressing people who deliberately logoffski while not providing enough time for people to jump on legitimate disconnects.


Can you elaborate what your suggesting here... I don't think I understand what you mean...



With the current vanishing timer, it's easily possible to scan out and aggress someone who either logs out or is involuntarily DCed? Generally speaking 60 seconds has always been enough time to probe out, land on grid with, and shoot someone who logs out. Historically though, that was about all you could do, since you generally didn't have enough time to actually kill them. With the new system, you'll have all the time in the world. Essentially noone will be able to log out or DC without dying as long as there's a hostile prober in system, which is kind of silly.

There's very little reason not to shorten the unaggressed vanishing timer under the proposed mechanics, since it's no longer necessary to have a 60 second timer to allow people a chance at killing people who, say, jump unscouted into a gatecamp and control-q. Under the proposed mechanics, you only need enough time to lock and fire on someone in this scenario, and you're then given as much time as it takes to finish them off. A 10-15 second vanishing timer would make it so that legit logoffs are safe (IE if you log out with no hostiles on grid with you, its basically impossible to become aggressed) while still allowing plenty of time for people to aggress those who attempt to use Ctrl-q to dodge combat.
Tiberizzle
Your Mom Heavy Industries
Goonswarm Federation
#1095 - 2012-10-23 22:14:32 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
CCP Masterplan:

Now that you've fixed the root of the logoffski problem (that people would vanish 60 seconds after logging out un-aggressed regardless of what transpired), you guys should drop the "vanishing" time for an unaggressed ship down to ~10-15 seconds.

This leaves plenty of time for aggressing people who deliberately logoffski while not providing enough time for people to jump on legitimate disconnects.


These changes as presented are basically all pure ****, insane over-reaching which excessively punishes common cloaking playstyles and players with marginal connections or real lives because CCP can't be assed to come up with actual solutions.

As someone who both has a marginal connection and yet has been frequently frustrated by ******** logoffski abuse, I'd still rather they back completely out of this heap of **** than overstep this far in the realm of assfucking cloaking playstyles, players with connection issues, or players with A Need To Logoff.

At the very least, you should be able to initiate a safe logoff while cloaked. This still leaves the 'if you DC unaggressed, cloaked, in deep space, with no hostiles on or even near your grid (i.e. in one of the most tactically secure positions in the game), but a poopsocking prober is about, enjoy your solo lossmail to autocannon Cheetah' vulnerability. It also leaves the 'if you DC while ratting then I mean basically get ******, if the rats don't kill you before you disappear then some roaming gang that wasn't even in the region when your connection dropped will' opening.

That is to say, the changes would still be pure **** even with significant rebalancing because this path, the path of shrugging and announcing loudly "**** everyone without a flawless connection and perfectly stable PC" that they've sanely been avoiding for years, leads nowhere.
Soon Shin
Scarlet Weather Rhapsody
#1096 - 2012-10-24 01:11:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Soon Shin
Tiberizzle wrote:
Ganthrithor wrote:
CCP Masterplan:

Now that you've fixed the root of the logoffski problem (that people would vanish 60 seconds after logging out un-aggressed regardless of what transpired), you guys should drop the "vanishing" time for an unaggressed ship down to ~10-15 seconds.

This leaves plenty of time for aggressing people who deliberately logoffski while not providing enough time for people to jump on legitimate disconnects.


These changes as presented are basically all pure ****, insane over-reaching which excessively punishes common cloaking playstyles and players with marginal connections or real lives because CCP can't be assed to come up with actual solutions.

As someone who both has a marginal connection and yet has been frequently frustrated by ******** logoffski abuse, I'd still rather they back completely out of this heap of **** than overstep this far in the realm of assfucking cloaking playstyles, players with connection issues, or players with A Need To Logoff.

At the very least, you should be able to initiate a safe logoff while cloaked. This still leaves the 'if you DC unaggressed, cloaked, in deep space, with no hostiles on or even near your grid (i.e. in one of the most tactically secure positions in the game), but a poopsocking prober is about, enjoy your solo lossmail to autocannon Cheetah' vulnerability. It also leaves the 'if you DC while ratting then I mean basically get ******, if the rats don't kill you before you disappear then some roaming gang that wasn't even in the region when your connection dropped will' opening.

That is to say, the changes would still be pure **** even with significant rebalancing because this path, the path of shrugging and announcing loudly "**** everyone without a flawless connection and perfectly stable PC" that they've sanely been avoiding for years, leads nowhere.


10-15 seconds is far too short, when you factor in lag, invulnerability from warp/jump and time to lock(battleships take more than 10-15 seconds to lock a frig). 10-15 seconds is far too short.

1 minute is perfect. This ensures that people who jump in gatecamps and then logoffski will not be able to simply run away.

When you play eve you consent to PVP period, whether you are pvping or pveing. Accept that the game has risks, both predictable and unpredictable.

Having bad internet connection does not give an excuse. The majority of players have fairly good internet connection. If something happens, tough **** nothing is fair. I've lost ships due to DC issues, but you don't hear me whining about it.



EDIT: Oh you can easily avoid getting probed down by:

1. Warping to a safespot .

2. Logoff in warp.

Your timer of 60 seconds will start after logoff, the moment you land in your safespot your ships will perform an emergency warp to a random area. Leaving with almost no time for you to be probed down and exit.

-For a member of a large nullsec entity, this should be rather common knowledge to you.
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1097 - 2012-10-24 01:39:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Ganthrithor
Soon Shin wrote:


10-15 seconds is far too short, when you factor in lag, invulnerability from warp/jump and time to lock(battleships take more than 10-15 seconds to lock a frig). 10-15 seconds is far too short.


15 seconds is plenty of time. If a player in a frigate jumps into your battleship that takes 20 seconds to lock them, they don't need to control-q to be safe do they? They could just warp off. 15 seconds is more than the align time of most ships in EVE, and the ones that can't align in less than 15 seconds certainly take far less than 15 seconds to be locked by anything short of a capital ship. If your camp can't lock a target in 15 seconds you're doing it pretty wrong.


Soon Shin wrote:

1 minute is perfect. This ensures that people who jump in gatecamps and then logoffski will not be able to simply run away.

When you play eve you consent to PVP period, whether you are pvping or pveing. Accept that the game has risks, both predictable and unpredictable.


Do you understand what the new mechanics do? There's zero reason to have a 60 second timer under the proposed mechanics because as soon as your ship is aggressed your timer essentially becomes infinite. That's the whole reason for the change. Anyone who jumps into a gatecamp and logoffskis can be aggressed in well under 60 seconds, at which point the camp has as long to kill the target as they require, since the aggro flag continually resets as long as the target is being engaged.

A 60-second timer for un-aggressed ship disappearance is far too long under the new mechanics. Here's an example: say you're sitting in a safespot cloaked and want to log out. Under the proposed mechanics, you either quit the game and stay vulnerable in space for a good ~30+ seconds after your ewarp completes or you need to decloak and sit there for a full 60 seconds with no modules running before you can "manually" disappear your ship.

In either case, hostile probers have more than enough time to scan you out, warp in, and flag your ship before it disappears from space. Since your response will probably be "then don't log out with hostile probes out," consider that not all systems in EVE are very large (many are small enough to easily cover with 1-2 sets of probes, meaning there's nowhere to log off inconspicuously) and it's not always possible to change systems in order to log.

Basically, if you're in a system, and hostiles camp the outgates (so you can't go somewhere else to log) and have probes out, it becomes impossible for you to log off (or DC) without losing your ship, even if you log in a safespot and are un-aggressed. This is not really acceptable game design.

If you shorten the timer for un-aggressed ships, though, it becomes way less possible to probe out and aggress someone who logs in a safespot without aggression. By cutting the timer to 10-15 seconds you leave plenty of time for people who attempt to ctrl-q as a way to avoid combat to be aggressed while eliminating the "you can never log off" problem.


edit:

Soon Shin wrote:
Oh you can easily avoid getting probed down by:

1. Warping to a safespot .

2. Logoff in warp.

Your timer of 60 seconds will start after logoff, the moment you land in your safespot your ships will perform an emergency warp to a random area. Leaving with almost no time for you to be probed down and exit.

-For a member of a large nullsec entity, this should be rather common knowledge to you.



You can't do this in the case of an involuntary DC. In the case of ratting or fighting and getting DCed, whatever, **** happens, but there's no way that the game should turn you into a free kill if you safed and cloaked while unaggressed. That's just stupid.
Tiberizzle
Your Mom Heavy Industries
Goonswarm Federation
#1098 - 2012-10-24 01:43:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiberizzle
Quote:
10-15 seconds is far too short, when you factor in lag, invulnerability from warp/jump and time to lock(battleships take more than 10-15 seconds to lock a frig). 10-15 seconds is far too short.

1 minute is perfect. This ensures that people who jump in gatecamps and then logoffski will not be able to simply run away.


Are you seriously going to run a nullsec tuff guy probing mechanics routine (that obviously doesn't ******* apply to accidental d/c) then act like a complete idiot about gate tackling? 15 seconds is the align time of a goddamn plated Abaddon, if you are the kind of ****-up who needs that much of a hand out to get a kill maybe you should skip the logoff safe spot bouncing and chill in highsec. If it's something that nothing in your entire gang can lock in less than 15 seconds to tackle, why the **** would it intentionally log off when it can just warp past your gaggle of mouthbreathing chucklefucks piled on a gate?

Quote:
When you play eve you consent to PVP period, whether you are pvping or pveing. Accept that the game has risks, both predictable and unpredictable.


You are a dumb ass.

Quote:
Having bad internet connection does not give an excuse. The majority of players have fairly good internet connection. If something happens, tough **** nothing is fair. I've lost ships due to DC issues, but you don't hear me whining about it.


Please stop posting.
Powers Sa
#1099 - 2012-10-24 01:50:21 UTC
Tiberizzle wrote:
Quote:
10-15 seconds is far too short, when you factor in lag, invulnerability from warp/jump and time to lock(battleships take more than 10-15 seconds to lock a frig). 10-15 seconds is far too short.

1 minute is perfect. This ensures that people who jump in gatecamps and then logoffski will not be able to simply run away.


Are you seriously going to run a nullsec tuff guy probing mechanics routine (that obviously doesn't ******* apply to accidental d/c) then act like a complete idiot about gate tackling? 15 seconds is the align time of a goddamn plated Abaddon, if you are the kind of ****-up who needs that much of a hand out to get a kill maybe you should skip the logoff safe spot bouncing and chill in highsec. If it's something that nothing in your entire gang can lock in less than 15 seconds to tackle, why the **** would it intentionally log off when it can just warp past your gaggle of mouthbreathing chucklefucks piled on a gate?

Quote:
When you play eve you consent to PVP period, whether you are pvping or pveing. Accept that the game has risks, both predictable and unpredictable.


You are a dumb ass.

Quote:
Having bad internet connection does not give an excuse. The majority of players have fairly good internet connection. If something happens, tough **** nothing is fair. I've lost ships due to DC issues, but you don't hear me whining about it.


Please stop posting.

Can you summarize in 5 sentences or less why you are raging your balls off in this thread?

Do you like winning t2 frigs and dictors for Dirt Cheap?https://eveninggames.net/register/ref/dQddmNgyLhFBqNJk

Remeber: Gambling addiction is no laughing matter unless you've lost a vast space fortune on the internet.

Tiberizzle
Your Mom Heavy Industries
Goonswarm Federation
#1100 - 2012-10-24 02:22:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiberizzle
Powers Sa wrote:
Can you summarize in 5 sentences or less why you are raging your balls off in this thread?


(1) The change to the effect of allowing a 60-second vanishing player to gain a 15-minute timer from aggression has the consequence that any termination of a game session while undocked and outside of a POS shield allows an active prober to score a free kill off of you because probing, warping to, and aggressing a dude in under 60 seconds is extremely possible.

(2) In the extreme: he can extend the timer indefinitely to whittle you down, he doesn't even need to tackle you because you won't warp off from your e-warp spot, you could be cloaked in a deep safe entirely unaggressed when you logged/dc'd and as long as his probes were reasonably close and probing skills decent you just lost your Cynabal to a solo civilian gunned Imicus or what the **** ever.

(3) The NPC flagging system is similar* in the extent to which it overshoots 'punishing logoffski' and lands more in the territory of 'punishing everyone for logging in / free kill giveaway'.

(4) I'm pretty mad about it because the real pvp tactical error legit kills* from this will dry up so fast it will resemble them having never been there in the first place as people realize certain actions have new risks and minimize them or Just Don't Do Them Anymore while we'll be left with its extremely cool spectre of awesome gameplay logging in from d/c to stations with no idea what happened to find lossmails to kkkomedy probing ships.

(5) CCP is dumb.

edit: and a bunch of bad eve players are hard as a rock about it because they can't seem to score any kills off players that are actually logged in and this is the break they really needed, now they're gonna make an elite pvp video, put it up on youtube and everything~

double-edit: * Even now people don't commonly do things that would add legitimacy to the NPC flag in the proposed form. With new hostiles in local they extract from ratting by rolling safes, safe and cloak, safe to a POS, or dock at a station. They very rarely intentionally drop connection in an anomaly for no logical reason. So, in the proposed form it is almost fully a license to farm players unintentionally disconnecting during PvE. It could be made much more selective of intentional evasion by adding a requirement of being tackled by the NPCs at the time of disconnection to flag the player.