These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Warfare & Tactics

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Crimewatch nonsensicality and clarification
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
StrongSmartSexy
Phenix Revolution
#1 - 2013-04-02 08:07:09 UTC
Crimewatch needs some more development. I realise it's not perfect but there are some glaring oversights that should've been corrected by now as I'm sure Scenario 2 has already been mentioned to CCP long ago.

Scenario 1:
Players A and B are in corp X and player C is in corp Y. Corp X and corp Y are at war with each other.
A attacks C and thus both players receive a limited engagement flag. B then uses remote assistance on A.

Does B get a suspect flag?

Scenario 2:
Players A and B are in corp X and player C is in corp Y.
A attacks B and B retaliates but both players do not receive a limited engagement flag. Player C can give remote assistance to player A or B without getting a suspect flag. C is also free to dock at his convenience.

Scenario 2 needs to be looked at as it defeats one of the purposes of having developed Crimewatch in the first place - consequences for neutral RR.
Corp infiltrators can simply bring boatloads of out-of-corp logistics ships to help him defeat impossible odds.
The simplest fix would be to trigger LE flags between corp members who attack each other.

Scenario 3:
Players A and B are in corp X and player C is in corp Y.
C has a suspect flag. A attacks C and both get a limited engagement flag. B gives remote assistance to A so B gets a suspect flag.

How is scenario 3 fair? Players A and B could be in vindicators pummeling the hell out of suspect flagged C but the moment player B uses so much as a light shield drone on player A (or vice versa) then he will also become suspect flagged.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#2 - 2013-04-02 12:09:35 UTC
Scenario 3 is fair because he butted in on a LE. If he wants to fight the guy with a suspect flag, he should fight the guy with the suspect flag, not interfere with limited engagements - they wouldn't be limited if people could dogpile into them like that
StrongSmartSexy
Phenix Revolution
#3 - 2013-04-02 13:53:02 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Scenario 3 is fair because he butted in on a LE. If he wants to fight the guy with a suspect flag, he should fight the guy with the suspect flag, not interfere with limited engagements - they wouldn't be limited if people could dogpile into them like that

But that argument seems to be based on a technicality rather than rational gameplay reasons and how is that fair?
There's a difference between providing remote assistance to an LE flagged player and an LE flagged player who is flagged to a suspect player.

You can jump into a BS and attack the suspect and gain an LE but if you jump into a logi and rep someone else attacking a suspect, do you simply gain an LE? No you get a suspect flag, makes no sense.

You should simply get an LE for providing remote assistance to a player who is attacking a suspect and in that scenario only get a suspect flag the moment the suspect player is no longer suspect and you are still providing remote assistance to his attacker.
Princess Nexxala
Zero Syndicate
#4 - 2013-04-02 14:39:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Princess Nexxala
Please refer to following chart, it works like this;

http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/63443/1/logo2_actions2flags.png

If you are seeing behavior not in line with this then file a bug report...otherwise deal with it

nom nom
Milan Nantucket
Doomheim
#5 - 2013-04-02 15:00:35 UTC
Stop using neut alts to rep?
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2013-04-02 15:39:07 UTC
the logic is: by assisting player A player B joins engagement. However by not attacking player C player B cannot be attacked by player C.
This leads to situation when player C has engagement with (A,B) but he cannot engage B.
This leads to suspect flag for player B.

I don't see anything bad or strange here.


What do i see strange is:
When
- players A,B and C are in militia (not sure if C should be in militia tho)
- A and B are in different corps
- corp A has offwar with someone (not with B or C corps)
- A and C have had LE which finished, A only has "logoff timer"

Result:
- player B cannot assist player A without going suspect.

The strange thing here is: when there is no weapon timer or LE timer why remote assisting is "prohibited"? I made a petition, asked in forums but still don't understand logic behind this.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Milan Nantucket
Doomheim
#7 - 2013-04-02 16:31:58 UTC
I see your confusiuon... remote repairing is not prohibited.

Repping anyone with a timer gives you suspect flag.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2013-04-02 17:06:10 UTC
Milan Nantucket wrote:
I see your confusiuon... remote repairing is not prohibited.

Repping anyone with a timer gives you suspect flag.

i know. Question is: where is the reason?

I can clarify why it should not be this way:
weapon timer is off, LE if off. Engagement is over. No remote assistance can hurt other party of finished engagement.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
StrongSmartSexy
Phenix Revolution
#9 - 2013-04-02 17:37:42 UTC  |  Edited by: StrongSmartSexy
I don't think people seem to understand so let me try to break it down even further:

What happens in-game:
B remote assists A who is attacking C who is under a suspect flag. B becomes a suspect himself.

What people mistakingly think I'm arguing for:
B remote assists A who is attacking C. A and C have LE to each other but neither are suspects. B remote assists A but does not get a suspect flag or LE flag.

What I'm trying to say the game should be changed to:
B remote assists A who is attacking C who is under a suspect flag. As long as C is a suspect, B will not become a suspect himself but C is now free to shoot B (like the old aggression system except B will still inherit weapons flags etc. and be unable to dock for a minute after disengaging).

As a suspect, you can be shot by multiple people but those same people are not allowed to remote assist each other at the same time without becoming suspects themselves. Again, how does that make sense gameplay-wise?
Note, there's a difference between people trying to work together to attack you while you only have LE flags and you are not a suspect and people trying to work together to attack you while you are a suspect.
Kodama Ikari
Thragon
#10 - 2013-04-02 18:35:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Kodama Ikari
From what I can tell, crimewatch is fine, with the exception that during a wardec, logi from other corps in the same alliance can get some unfair suspect flags. If my information is out of date, please provide source.

StrongSmartSexy wrote:

Scenario 1:
Players A and B are in corp X and player C is in corp Y. Corp X and corp Y are at war with each other.
A attacks C and thus both players receive a limited engagement flag. B then uses remote assistance on A.

Does B get a suspect flag?


This is not correct. If the corps are at war, neither player should get a limited engagement flag because neither was originally a suspect. Player B will get PvP and weapons flags but will not become a suspect. However, this alone would mean that neutral RR during a wardec would be completely unpenalized due to lack of an LE. Apparently they have fixed this. IF you remote rep someone with an active wardec who is not in your corp, and IF that person has a PVP flag, only then will RR cause a suspect flag without the presence of a limited engagement. source: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2212793#post2212793 However I think makes suspects out of logi in the same alliance or logi from corps that are called in as assistance in a war.

StrongSmartSexy wrote:

Scenario 2:
Players A and B are in corp X and player C is in corp Y.
A attacks B and B retaliates but both players do not receive a limited engagement flag. Player C can give remote assistance to player A or B without getting a suspect flag. C is also free to dock at his convenience.

Scenario 2 needs to be looked at as it defeats one of the purposes of having developed Crimewatch in the first place - consequences for neutral RR.
Corp infiltrators can simply bring boatloads of out-of-corp logistics ships to help him defeat impossible odds.
The simplest fix would be to trigger LE flags between corp members who attack each other.


This is also wrong. A and B are in the same corp, are not suspects, and are not in limited engagements. There should be no penalty for repairing one of them. This is not an example of classic neutral RR problem because person C is not assisting A or B against some third party, that is, no true aggression is taking place. This is just two guys dueling to structure with a third helping them repair. Furthermore, C is not free to dock at his convenience, because any kind of RR will cause a transfer of PvP logoff timer and Weapons flags. the Weapons Flag prevents docking. However, in the event that corp X has an active wardec, player C repping A or B while they pretend duel will cause C to become a suspect.

StrongSmartSexy wrote:

Scenario 3:
Players A and B are in corp X and player C is in corp Y.
C has a suspect flag. A attacks C and both get a limited engagement flag. B gives remote assistance to A so B gets a suspect flag.

How is scenario 3 fair? Players A and B could be in vindicators pummeling the hell out of suspect flagged C but the moment player B uses so much as a light shield drone on player A (or vice versa) then he will also become suspect flagged.


This is perfectly fine. If B assists A against C, then C must have some recourse to fight back against B. The entire point of the crimewatch re-write is to prevent inheriting limited engagements through remote assistance. Because if A happens to be in multiple limited engagements, then this would mean B must inherit multiple limed engagements as well. If you like, you may consider this the compromise made by simplifying the system.

Some first-hand PI tips
Milan Nantucket
Doomheim
#11 - 2013-04-02 19:30:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Milan Nantucket
Makes sense to me... still have the timer running.

Reason is because ppl hate other people that use neut alts during duels.... or "fights" they are hated so much that if there is a timer then the repper gets flagged for stupid.

See neut alt repping is so yesterday. The thing now is to have off grid boosts... that is today. I also just tried it and apparently your safety is not green.