These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Adunh Slavy
#141 - 2012-03-23 00:10:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Adunh Slavy
AkJon Ferguson wrote:

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



Have to disagree. The suspect flag will create new opportunity for players, (and things CCP can do in the future), it'll stream line the convoluted situation we have now, and it'll provide more PVP opportunities. CCP could then code in player run smuggling and player run enforcement against smuggling.

Sec status changes, sound pretty cool, player run game of cops and robbers in low sec, something that has been missing for a long time. No longer will +'s be at the disadvantage of not being able to shoot first with out other wise taking a penalty or getting hit by gate/station guns. This very likely will allow non-pirate players to become territorial in low sec with out having to turn into pirates them selves. Such things are the first steps to the long forgotten idea of Viceroy.

The tag idea could be a very good way to reduce the ISK flow into the game by dropping a new and useful item. Hopefully CCP is smart enough to see this. They could start dropping more tags from pirates, each level of rank having more or less value. Just officer and commander tags is a bad idea, it should be more common tags so that all player level, from noobs to vets can participate in this market.

If the tags are an equivalent to the current sec status gain value of shooting the rat in question, then the overall value of the tags will be above, but not below, the time value, plus 15 minutes, expressed in ISK, that it would take to shoot those rats. The 15 minute wait between sec gains in the current situation is what will carry the value of the tags. A more widely held market like this will create more availability, but not impact the overall value, and penalty, of the current situation. Just officer and commander tags will create a funky, low availability and overly sporadic market.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt

Qvar Dar'Zanar
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#142 - 2012-03-23 00:11:58 UTC
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:
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.


This.

Add duel system please.
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#143 - 2012-03-23 00:20:36 UTC
Since I'm not getting improved Bountyhunting and transferable killrights (put it in your backlog plx) , what about cans and wrecks in low and null being free for all?

The website lists salvaging as a profession which is actually not really true since you can't tractor the wrecks from the battles you scan down or follow follow since they are yellow to you and therefore can't use the greatness of your noctis (would also solve the sentry guns firing at canflippers 'problem')
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#144 - 2012-03-23 00:38:00 UTC
Gilbaron wrote:
Since I'm not getting improved Bountyhunting and transferable killrights (put it in your backlog plx) , what about cans and wrecks in low and null being free for all?

The website lists salvaging as a profession which is actually not really true since you can't tractor the wrecks from the battles you scan down or follow follow since they are yellow to you and therefore can't use the greatness of your noctis (would also solve the sentry guns firing at canflippers 'problem')

I understand now. You're just doing it wrong. All the pirates I've trained start out as ninja looters and salvagers. The Noctis is a poor choice for a ninja looter/salvager. I think it's roll is to follow friendly fleets around missions and the like to clean up after them. In that roll it does very well. If you are going to steal stuff it behooves one to travel light and fast. Destroyers and interdictors are ideal. Yah you can't tractor stuff in BECAUSE IT'S NOT YOURS (YET)! You can if you are in a friendly gang or if people are disowning their wrecks... but stealing shouldn't be risk free. I'm aready tossing around ways to turn that mechanic around and get aggression from carebears in their hero fit battleships. That's some nice loot. Now there will be more opportunities in piracy too...

Signatures should be used responsibly...

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#145 - 2012-03-23 00:40:20 UTC
There are two main issues with this rework that some of us who sat in on the roundtable have been able to observe:

1. The inability to fight back, which basically makes the whole “suspect” flag completely redundant in highsec. This could be fixed by using the duelling contract system that was discussed during the panel, which would allow for some kind of escalation of the conflict without necessarily having everything be a complete dichotomous situation where you either have no semi-legal attacks ever; and everyone fighting everyone do to how quickly it would escalate of suspect flags were handed out as liberally as suggested.

2. This change needs to happen in combination with a bounty hunting and/or “vigilante“ status implementation, creating a particular class of players who can act on these new state flags without requiring a return of the old player-to-player aggression system and the mess it creates.

The whole issue with this new system is the edge cases, which could simply be built out of the mechanics, but on the other hand, it's those edge cases that make some of the aggression “dance” so interesting.

Also, we'll have to wait until Saturday and see what the new wardec system has in store for us — some of the issues that are created by the criminal flagging refactoring could potentially be solved that way.
Adunh Slavy
#146 - 2012-03-23 00:48:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Adunh Slavy
Tippia wrote:
1. The inability to fight back, which basically makes the whole “suspect” flag completely redundant in highsec. This could be fixed by using the duelling contract system that was discussed during the panel, which would allow for some kind of escalation of the conflict without necessarily having everything be a complete dichotomous situation where you either have no semi-legal attacks ever; and everyone fighting everyone do to how quickly it would escalate of suspect flags were handed out as liberally as suggested.



Could you rephrase that? Those of us not there don't have all the details so I am not sure I understand what you wrote.

If a player is flagged suspect, to everyone presumably from the way I heard it, and someone shoots a suspect, then the suspect can shoot back. Does the suspect shooting player also become suspect or just get aggro with the initial suspect?

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt

T'san Manaan
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#147 - 2012-03-23 00:57:38 UTC
Sounds like all around good changes. keep up the good thinking CCP!Big smile
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#148 - 2012-03-23 01:02:09 UTC
Gogela wrote:
Gilbaron wrote:
Since I'm not getting improved Bountyhunting and transferable killrights (put it in your backlog plx) , what about cans and wrecks in low and null being free for all?

The website lists salvaging as a profession which is actually not really true since you can't tractor the wrecks from the battles you scan down or follow follow since they are yellow to you and therefore can't use the greatness of your noctis (would also solve the sentry guns firing at canflippers 'problem')

I understand now. You're just doing it wrong. All the pirates I've trained start out as ninja looters and salvagers. The Noctis is a poor choice for a ninja looter/salvager. I think it's roll is to follow friendly fleets around missions and the like to clean up after them. In that roll it does very well. If you are going to steal stuff it behooves one to travel light and fast. Destroyers and interdictors are ideal. Yah you can't tractor stuff in BECAUSE IT'S NOT YOURS (YET)! You can if you are in a friendly gang or if people are disowning their wrecks... but stealing shouldn't be risk free. I'm aready tossing around ways to turn that mechanic around and get aggression from carebears in their hero fit battleships. That's some nice loot. Now there will be more opportunities in piracy too...



I wasn't talking about highsec

I was talking about regions where Noone (really) cares when you kill someone which also have a mechanic in place to somehow protect people's 'property'
Terazul
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#149 - 2012-03-23 01:03:43 UTC
Tippia wrote:

2. This change needs to happen in combination with a bounty hunting and/or “vigilante“ status implementation, creating a particular class of players who can act on these new state flags without requiring a return of the old player-to-player aggression system and the mess it creates.

Yesssss, I really want to see bounty hunting actually become a legitimate playstyle. Combine this with the CSM-proposed changes to the bounty system and I could see it becoming a real profession, hopefully alongside smuggling and other sci-fi spaceship standbys.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#150 - 2012-03-23 01:10:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Could you rephrase that? Those of us not there don't have all the details so I am not sure I understand what you wrote.

If a player is flagged suspect, to everyone presumably from the way I heard it, and someone shoots a suspect, then the suspect can shoot back. Does the suspect shooting player also become suspect or just get aggro with the initial suspect?

No. The whole concept of this refactoring is to get rid of player-to-player flagging and all the various interdependent timers that this causes. Instead, you will have a flag that is completely independent from everyone else. Thus we have the “suspect” and “felon” flags instead: both are global flags tied exclusively to you. They change the rules for how other people are allowed to interact with you. Period. They do not change the rules for you in any way.

This means that if you steal from a can, you get flagged “suspsect” and… nothing more. End of story. You are now a suspect and a free-for-all target. You cannot do anything you couldn't do before, including shooting people. Since you are now a legal target, attacking you does not create any flags for the attacker — they do not become suspects or felons; they are not legal targets for anyone, including you. You cannot fight back, because you would be attacking “innocent“ targets and upgrade yourself to “felon“ status and get death-rayed (or however the new CONCORD implementation will work). Essentially, being a suspect is the same as a GCC, without the CONCORD intervention — you are, quite simply, dead without any recourse (aside from staying the hell away from other players). So: people will never ever get themselves flagged suspect unless they know with 100% certainty that they will dock up instantly afterwards, or that they can instawarp away to safety.

The alternative, strictly using this system, would be that anyone who attacks a suspect becomes a suspect. This creates a massive escalation problem: I steal your can (everyone can shoot me); you shoot me for my isolence (now everyone can shoot you); my backstabbing bastard buddies warp in because we successfully baited you and they shoot you, now everyone can shoot them. Suddenly, we have 20 free-for-all targets in the system just because I took your loot. No-one will come out of this alive and salvage prices will be reaching an all-time low from the massive increase in availability from all those wrecks.

edit: I should point out, at this point, that this is solely speaking within the current, very unfinished design spec as it was presented to us, which is basically just a “no player-to-player flags, evarrr!!1” — further thinking will happen, and they're showing it to us early so we can figure out flaws and exploits such as this and think up ideas to remove them /edit


In an attempt to contain this and still allow for voluntary player-to-player combat, there was talk about a duelling system: you (or your fleet / corp / whatever) ask the other guy(s) for a duel, they accept, and you duke it out. Anyone who interferes becomes a suspect and a free-for-all target (so there goes the neutral reps). Again, the idea is to not have this massive mess of person-to-person flags and inheritance of who can attack whom for whatever obscure reason — instead, you have two predefined groups that are free to blap each other to pieces and no escalation or inheritance can take place (all you can do is trigger a “suspect” flag for yourself).

One idea that was floated was to combine the two in order to provide some kind of middle-ground for the suspect and let him defend himself: I steal your can, and become a suspect. Anyone (including you) who attacks me, implicitly signs one of these duel contracts. If either one of us tries to bring in remote support, they'll flag themselves as suspects (so they won't come help you…), and as longs as I can whittle down people who come to “support” you by shooting me, I can stay alive. This will create a whole slew of new problems that we haven't fully thought out, but it at least gets rid of the whole “suspect = dead” issue.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#151 - 2012-03-23 01:11:46 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Tippia wrote:
1. The inability to fight back, which basically makes the whole “suspect” flag completely redundant in highsec. This could be fixed by using the duelling contract system that was discussed during the panel, which would allow for some kind of escalation of the conflict without necessarily having everything be a complete dichotomous situation where you either have no semi-legal attacks ever; and everyone fighting everyone do to how quickly it would escalate of suspect flags were handed out as liberally as suggested.



Could you rephrase that? Those of us not there don't have all the details so I am not sure I understand what you wrote.

If a player is flagged suspect, to everyone presumably from the way I heard it, and someone shoots a suspect, then the suspect can shoot back. Does the suspect shooting player also become suspect or just get aggro with the initial suspect?

Apparently not. A suspect retaliating against a "vigilante" will be conferred all of the "benefits" of a criminal flag.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#152 - 2012-03-23 01:20:07 UTC
Defending yourself while you're suspect-flagged is an ongoing conversation; we've not decided on anything yet, and we'll devblog when we've got it better nailed down Smile

prolix travail wrote:
Could you also comment on the 'you are engaged in combat' dialog box that doesn't have the option to turn it off? I.e will it also be granted the usefulness of being turned off should a player not want it?


If you're talking about the non-suppressible "suicide gank" box, that's entirely replaced by the safety system.

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.

And if someone wants to whine about how it's not fair that I took from "their" can, what about the fact that I did 90% of the damage in room 1 to unlock the gate and they just got lucky and landed the final blow on the tower?

There's a lot more to consider here than "that's my can because I shot that rat".


Switch off first-level safety, steal from wreck, get suspect flag, do whatever you like with it.

Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Making people be globally flagged with aggression for stealing will be a bad mechanic that people (me) will be able to exploit the hell out of. I mean seriously, it doesn't even seem to be intended to fix any kind of problem and the current system of flagging people to corporations is totally fine.

But whatever I'm going to be able to kill huge numbers of newbies with this, being able to get yourself flagged with aggression to an entire system is basically the holy grail of griefing.


The safety system should in principle catch 100% of noob-baiting attempts. You can't get a suspect flag without turning your safeties off first, and that will pop up a message saying approximately "hey newbie, the guy who asked you to push this button is trying to kill you, tell him to go away".

Hoshi wrote:
Those safety switches, please make sure to place them so the can be accessed in space without blacking out the whole screen. That means don't put them under options but perhaps somewhere on the character sheet.


Honestly I'd like to have them somewhere on the HUD. They're not some big bad setting that you flip once and then leave off forever, they're a thing where your FC says "ok guys, we're going to engage them, safeties off", and then there are some flashing lights and stuff and your gunports open (that last bit I made up but you get the point).

CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#153 - 2012-03-23 01:22:07 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
CCP Greyscale, that not what people will do. What they will do is:

Have each corp member create just one or 2 alts, and all corp members take turns killing each others alts. That way the effort to create the alts is spread out over many people. Or;

People will make "Shoot us!" corps full of -10 pilots, and let you shoot them all for a fee. Or;

Two pirate corps will get together and take turns killing each other.

How to fix: Make ship value lost be a determining factor is sec status gain. Yes you could buy your way up, but with proper balancing, it will be expensive.


Yeah, this is something we're going to have to drill into further as we get into actual implementation. Point taken, though.

Istyn wrote:
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.


In the design as it stands, yes, if you defend yourself and kill the other party you're going to take a smallish sec hit. I'm more sanguine about the outcome here though - I have confidence that people doing this stuff will find a way to make the system work for them Smile

Borun Tal wrote:
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.


Yeah that's just dumb, and I think Masterplan has already actually fixed that (or is about to soon).

Qvar Dar'Zanar wrote:
This.

Add duel system please.


Already on the to-do list.
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#154 - 2012-03-23 01:24:45 UTC
Dang Greyscale... A+ for dedication to your work but shouldn't you be out partying right now? Big smile

Signatures should be used responsibly...

Yuller
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#155 - 2012-03-23 01:28:22 UTC
There is nothing wrong with the current aggro mechanics...Where do you people come up with this stuff???This entire damn game is becoming a carebear fest..
Myxx
The Scope
#156 - 2012-03-23 01:28:26 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:


Qvar Dar'Zanar wrote:
This.

Add duel system please.


Already on the to-do list.


DONT make it a consensual PVP flag. PVP is not consensual in EVE, nor should it ever be. Leave room for criminal activity and other shenanigans. Don't make things safer than they already are.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#157 - 2012-03-23 01:33:31 UTC
Yuller wrote:
There is nothing wrong with the current aggro mechanics...Where do you people come up with this stuff???This entire damn game is becoming a carebear fest..
There's plenty of things wrong with it — the trick lies in fixing those problems while still retaining the maximum amount of freedom to shoot people for various reasons.

Myxx wrote:
DONT make it a consensual PVP flag. PVP is not consensual in EVE, nor should it ever be. Leave room for criminal activity and other shenanigans. Don't make things safer than they already are.
It'll be consensual in much the same way as a current “let's swap cans to steal from” duels are. The main difference is that if you try to bring in more support than was agreed upon, that support will putting itself at (severe) risk.
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#158 - 2012-03-23 01:34:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Adriel Malakai
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Making people be globally flagged with aggression for stealing will be a bad mechanic that people (me) will be able to exploit the hell out of. I mean seriously, it doesn't even seem to be intended to fix any kind of problem and the current system of flagging people to corporations is totally fine.

But whatever I'm going to be able to kill huge numbers of newbies with this, being able to get yourself flagged with aggression to an entire system is basically the holy grail of griefing.


The safety system should in principle catch 100% of noob-baiting attempts. You can't get a suspect flag without turning your safeties off first, and that will pop up a message saying approximately "hey newbie, the guy who asked you to push this button is trying to kill you, tell him to go away".


I think he was discussing this in the case where you can do something reasonable, like defend yourself when you're a suspect (meaning you take the can and go red, then pew pew the newbies who shoot the big mean red guy), rather than just take it up the ass as if you're a little church boy, as you seem to be going for.

Keep in mind that I'm all for going red to an entire system if I steal a can, but it is definitively un-EVE to not let me defend myself when some brave soul decides to shoot at me. Sure, people are going to use this to bait the less intelligent members of the community into dire situations, but I consider it a good thing to provide more options for PVP rather than less. Furthermore, granting a sec status for killing people while a suspect will only discourage any kind of non-war based PVP in HS that's not completely consensual.

Finally, I don't think coding in hard switches to prevent bad decisions is a good thing. I'm all for warnings that pop up with big colorful letters telling people to not be stupid, but those boxes should have a click through so that the person can commit to that action. If someone is too stupid to read the message, they should face the consequences for it.
head hallow
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#159 - 2012-03-23 01:45:23 UTC
i hear CCP has been recruiting devs from WoW. This would certainly explain many things...
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#160 - 2012-03-23 01:49:16 UTC
Yes, I was expecting Greyscale to have come up with ideas that actually made sense from a gameplay perspective. I mean simplifying convoluted systems is great and everything, but I don't see how a sane person would think that doing it at the expense of completely removing non-war related PVP from highsec would be a good idea.