These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Fanfest: Crimewatch

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Istyn
Freight Club
#121 - 2012-03-22 21:52:20 UTC
I have a question regarding these two slides, if you don't mind, CCP Greyscale:


http://i.imgur.com/I1dGd.jpg


http://i.imgur.com/PEAUZ.jpg


Correct me if I'm wrong, but you gain the suspect flag by say, can flipping someone - if they then shoot you and you defend yourself and blow them up, you then gain a sec hit? That seems a bit odd considering all of space can shoot you - thereby you're either guaranteed to lose a ship or a buttload of sec. The 'all of space can shoot you' bit isn't so bad, leading to more risk on the side of the griefer, but when they gain a sec hit for defending themselves, likely against an overwhelming force, it seems a bit one-sided.


Seems like this would completely destroy the whole ninja salvager gameplay as well as numerous other griefer playstyles.
Toshiroma McDiesel
Lupus Draconis
The Lost Drone Society
#122 - 2012-03-22 21:52:49 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Evei Shard wrote:
There have been plenty of comments in various threads about how miners need to protect themselves. How miners need to have an alt sit and protect them in low and null. People were pretty hard ass about all that. Now CCP hints at possibly making that a reality in high-sec, and the tears are a deluge.

You realise that miners can and fairly often do already do that in highsec, right? Oh wait, you're in an NPC corp so you wouldn't know that you get aggression to the entire corp when stealing.

They also aren't reducing the number of situations in which concord responds at all, I don't even know where you're getting that from.


I think what the person you are responding to was talking about something you see in all miner/ganker threads, the idea that you "have someone else there to gank the ganker before/after they gank you". Which in high sec, really doesn't work out well if you do the math, you lose miner and the White Knight, (concord takes him as well as the ganker,) makeing it a double kill for the ganker.

This now makes this a viable option, you kill the miner, his muscle can now get revenge without losing his ship. Think of it as a 15 min transfer of Kill-Rights.

I"m not really the Evil One, I'm just his answering service.
Borun Tal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#123 - 2012-03-22 21:58:16 UTC
Mutnin wrote:
Velicia Tuoro wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

1. Player A takes Player B's can
2. Players C-Z are now able to aggress Player A, who can only retaliate


That is how I interpreted it.



That's a pretty stupid move by CCP if this is the case.



Ganking is perfectly OK, but vigilantism isn't? Part of me would love to hear your logic on this, but then it'll be a black hole, I suspect.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#124 - 2012-03-22 22:00:01 UTC
When someone suicide ganks a miner they get a GCC timer and can be shot by everyone in system without penalty already.
Borun Tal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#125 - 2012-03-22 22:02:22 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Can-flipping as-is will be impossible once the safeties are added. People should be able to choose to do dumb things, but they should also have the information they need to figure out that the thing they're doing is dumb.

I want to clarify here: when I'm racing another explorer in a Gurista Scout Outpost and he pops the tower, will I be able to steal the loot from the can at the risk of him engaging me?

Because if you break that mechanic, you've taken away something that was JUST FINE.




At the risk of him, and everyone else, for the length of the timer, engaging you. Pretty much like Low-sec. Concord won't give a damn. As long as you turn off the safety that stops you stealing.

That's the 'misdemeanors' level, which would suspect flag you.

'Felony' level stuff has concord.

Basically, if it'd currently flag you for aggression to another player, it flags you for all.
If it would get Concord after you, it still will


On a related note, I hope the broken fleet salvage mechanic is fixed before this is implemented, if at all. For example, I'm often fleeted with an alt to do salvage behind me, and if said salvager docks or leaves grid, then returns to continue clean-up, suddenly that alt is a criminal. Clearly a broken mechanic.
Il Feytid
State War Academy
Caldari State
#126 - 2012-03-22 22:25:27 UTC
Lawl at all the neutral RR alt tears.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#127 - 2012-03-22 22:29:10 UTC
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:

Rant



Perhaps you've misunderstood. Turn the saftey off, and continue as normal. It just won't be a pop up. Instead you have to go into the esc menu and turn it off.

No more anoying AppGlobal Modal Windows - This is a good thing.



I hope you're right, mate.

No sarcasm, I'm dead-serious here:

I hope this is indeed, as you say, and I'm hugely misinterpreting this...

But the cynic in me insists otherwise, and it's being very insistent atm, if you get my drift. Not least of all because of all the carebear crying we've been seeing 'round these parts for...oooh, let's say the last 8-10 months. It would seem--again, I pray that I am wrong--that they've built up momentum.

This will prove EVE's undoing if CCP takes what they want to its logical end-point.


Having been there, I can confirm that it is planned as a one off toggle, per safety. They specifically want to avoid the click through because people don't read them.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Evei Shard
Shard Industries
#128 - 2012-03-22 22:34:38 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Evei Shard wrote:
There have been plenty of comments in various threads about how miners need to protect themselves. How miners need to have an alt sit and protect them in low and null. People were pretty hard ass about all that. Now CCP hints at possibly making that a reality in high-sec, and the tears are a deluge.

You realise that miners can and fairly often do already do that in highsec, right? Oh wait, you're in an NPC corp so you wouldn't know that you get aggression to the entire corp when stealing.


I don't hide the fact that I'm a forum alt. I'll be sure to send you a special notice, if that changes, to avoid confusion.

The mechanics are in place already for a corp, but this opens it up to anyone, corp or not.

Vimsy Vortis wrote:


They also aren't reducing the number of situations in which concord responds at all, I don't even know where you're getting that from.


The following potential changes were listed by the OP:

New "suspect" flag
- Minor crimes. Anyone can shoot you without penalty.
- Flipping a can for example
- Shooting someone makes you a suspect (I think)
- Anyone assisting a suspect becomes a suspect
- Not sure if gate guns will attack a suspect. Undecided yet.

Criminal Flag
- Is like current GCC
- Killing someone makes you a criminal
- Some sort of buff/tweak for concord? Insta-death, rather than ships
- Appear to have not considered high sec delays due to system security status.
- Considering warp scram ray, then death ray in x secs afterwards.

Perhaps you are a hardcore industrialist, but current mechanics cause Concord to show up even if you just shoot someone. The potential changes, taken at face value, would change that to Concord only showing up when you kill someone.


Profit favors the prepared
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#129 - 2012-03-22 22:40:12 UTC
Shooting someone gives a gcc, like normal.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#130 - 2012-03-22 22:43:30 UTC
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:
I don't give a flying **** about WoW: I just know that this is dividing the sandbox along explicit lines whilst, apparently, eliminating options, which is not what a sandbox is supposed to be

Teaching noobs how to work in the sandbox starting with a revamped NPE, instead of just giving them a mining gun, a civi gun, and teaching them how to shoot red crosses or rocks with nothing about mechanics, is how you build a good, long-term EVE player who "gets it."



You don't even point something looking like an argument, you just rabble some sort of brainless rabble everyone around is tired of, and these changes are there to make you finally "get it".

If things are turning this way to make high sec safer, who the focking hell you think pushed way to far the abuse of game mechanics? - once again, your choice always brings back consequences, one day or another and maybe later but not never.

What I'm not getting in some of these new mechanics, probably because available info atm is very light, how are they going to make high sec a better place for starting players and the occasional industrial whatsoever players that choose to stay in high sec after these changes. Different, yes, better I'm not sure at all but I'm missing information.
Adunh Slavy
#131 - 2012-03-22 22:44:45 UTC
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:

But the cynic in me insists otherwise, and it's being very insistent atm, if you get my drift. Not least of all because of all the carebear crying we've been seeing 'round these parts for...oooh, let's say the last 8-10 months. It would seem--again, I pray that I am wrong--that they've built up momentum.


I understand your doubts, but I don't think they'd nerf danger that much. Honestly, I don't think that many "carebears" want to be perfectly safe either. They just want a fighting chance versus being ganked. Ganked PVP isn't much fun, even as the ganker. Sooner or later it gets boring for all involved.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#132 - 2012-03-22 22:54:09 UTC
Tanya Powers wrote:
once again, your choice always brings back consequences


Where's the consequences for killing faction aligned NPCs? If EVE really took consequences for actions seriously players wouldn't need to play the system to shoot at others in Empire space, the system would support such actions.
Adunh Slavy
#133 - 2012-03-22 22:55:39 UTC
Xorv wrote:
Tanya Powers wrote:
once again, your choice always brings back consequences


Where's the consequences for killing faction aligned NPCs? If EVE really took consequences for actions seriously players wouldn't need to play the system to shoot at others in Empire space, the system would support such actions.



Go pop a customs agent, see what happens. Make sure to get in really close when you do it.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#134 - 2012-03-22 22:59:57 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Yeah, that's a dumb I made on the slide. Assistance will cause you to inherit the assistee's timer, with the current amount of time they have left on it. If you're only assisting and not shooting, it'll always be the case that you'll deagress on the same second as the person you're giving assistance to.


Thanks for the answer. That's probably an acceptable solution, as long as you fix all the other places that Logis get ****** for being Logis. For instance, taking a GCC and/or faction standings hit for repping a pirate without aggression. :)

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Myxx
The Scope
#135 - 2012-03-22 23:07:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Myxx
If highsec becomes safer, they need to tone rewards waaaaaaaaaaaay down, ESPECIALLY for missions and incursions.

and, in my opinion, this is going the wrong way as of current. Highsec is already a bit too safe, and there are a number of strings that should be cut.
Warde Guildencrantz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#136 - 2012-03-22 23:14:08 UTC
People who are complaining about not being able to canflip...they can easily add a way of asking someone to fight you 1 on 1.

They don't have to leave in the complicated stealing makes this able to shoot that but not this but concord will shoot that if it isnt gone in 3 seconds or repping this crap that it currently is.

They want to fix the complexity of the current setup, not stop people from having PvP in hisec, thus they won't refuse to add this sort of feature. Perhaps the agreement would be like "you two can shoot each other but no one can intervene or do anything to help without getting concorded during the duration of this fight".

If either person warped off, the fight declaration would automatically be void. It would have to be a mutual agreement thing, just like can flipping sort of is currently. Also sort of reduces the "gank a noob cause they dont know about agression" thing.

Then again that could be taken advantage of but who knows.

TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#137 - 2012-03-22 23:37:02 UTC
I just watched the replay HD stream on crimewatch. Everything sounds really good. I'm sold on it. It sounds like code wise they are going for a modular system, so whatever you rage about could theoretically be addressed if it's not stupid. I like everything they talked about. CCP Greyscale made perfect sense. The new system is going to rock if they can just fix the wardec system! Nice work CCP!

Signatures should be used responsibly...
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
#138 - 2012-03-22 23:47:57 UTC
Very mixed bag here.

The neutral RR change is welcome and long overdue.

The 'loads of info' killmails are welcome and long overdue.

The 'show all timers' is welcome and long overdue.

The felony/misdemeanor idea is dumb. The sec status change is dumb. The buying sec status with tags idea is dumb.

Instead of the dumb ones, make it possible to configure your overview so that all people you can legally shoot show up on it and all people you can't shoot don't.

It's like they brainstormed ideas and then didn't filter the dumb ones out.
Endeavour Starfleet
#139 - 2012-03-22 23:52:38 UTC
Except it is not a dumb idea. It is about time for me to WTFpwn can flippers harassing miners.
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#140 - 2012-03-23 00:04:24 UTC
AkJon Ferguson wrote:
The felony/misdemeanor idea is dumb. The sec status change is dumb. The buying sec status with tags idea is dumb.

Instead of the dumb ones, make it possible to configure your overview so that all people you can legally shoot show up on it and all people you can't shoot don't.

It's like they brainstormed ideas and then didn't filter the dumb ones out.

Why is the buying sec w/ tags dumb? Why not monetize it... I mean it's like anything else in the game. If someone wants to grind for me I'm willing to pay... and I'm sure they will be glad to get paid. The grinding is happening so what's the problem? The sec status change is required for everything else to work, and if there is some element not working they will be able to adjust it (which they cannot do now) so I don't see the problem there either. What is dumb about it?

Signatures should be used responsibly...