These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#161 - 2012-03-23 01:58:33 UTC
head hallow wrote:
i hear CCP has been recruiting devs from WoW. This would certainly explain many things...

No, don't insult WoW. I've played both games for quite a while and I can tell you for a fact that post-decshield EVE is already quite a bit more mellow than the dickery that goes on in some of the more populated pvp servers.

Vimsy Vortis wrote:
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.

High-sec wardecs are at this point very likely to have a consensual element attached to them. Let's not ignore the giant elephant in the room.

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
Minmatar Citizen 20120322
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#162 - 2012-03-23 02:03:15 UTC
calm down bro, WoW's crap anyway.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#163 - 2012-03-23 02:06:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
I wasn't discounting that at all, it's been since the GM announcement about the change in policy regarding dec shield mechanics that whatever changes get made to wars that they aren't going to offer the defender some kind of get out clause.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#164 - 2012-03-23 02:08:06 UTC
Is this intended as a nerf to suicide ganking, or will the concord replacement allow similar amounts of DPS to be done before death?

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Terminal Insanity
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#165 - 2012-03-23 02:08:29 UTC
Velicia Tuoro wrote:

New "suspect" flag
- Minor crimes. Anyone can shoot you without penalty.
- Flipping a can for example

this is ******* stupid.

"War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP
Bump Tremor
Writing Memoirs
#166 - 2012-03-23 02:12:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Bump Tremor
I have actually read every post in this thread - save for any posted whilst writing this. Absolutely a great read

One plus not mentioned in the new can flipping model occurs in incrursions. When the mothership is killed ending the incursion and paying out the LP stored in the LP pool, the mother ship drops a loot can which is usually stolen by a twerp floating around in a fast, small ship who only - under the current setup - draws aggro from the one ship in the approximately 80 ship fleet who delivered the killing blow. The small fast ship did not rise up to the level of being deemed a worthy target by the sansha fleet and could therefor roam with impunity anywhere in the room. Once snatching the loot, the ship seems to disappear is some manner beyond my comprehension and seemingly outside of the mechanics of cloaking in the midst of 80 ships in such a small space

Anyone who attempts to thwart the thief beyond targetting before or after the loot is snatched, save for the one ship who happens to land the fatal blow, incurs the full wrath of Concord

As I think I understand the new system, fleets in the future will be able to have every ship target the thief and volley fire as soon as the thief turns red to them all. Hopefully, the magical disappearing act will be solved as well

Well done, CCP. and many thanks to all at the round table, the player who provided the pix of the slides and all of those who provided a running commentary. Editted in: And thank you Greyscale for spending so much time clarifying and adding the extra bit that cannot always be on a slide.

I think the commentary is a fine example for the news organizations of the world to follow as it seem to have been completely devoid of the observer's opinions and just reported facts. What a concept! Putting news on the front page and opinions back on the editorial page where they belong instead of having a jumble of each "reporter's" opinion mixed in with only the facts which support a political viewpoint and the total absence of any fact which might raise doubt about that pre-defined political viewpoint..
Adunh Slavy
#167 - 2012-03-23 02:18:12 UTC
Tippia wrote:

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.



I see ...

Someone attacking the suspect should be aggroed to the suspect, as if the "duel" flag had been turned on. If someone then reps the suspect, then they also get the aggro, but that could lead back to the spaghetti situation again - Have to find a way to deal with that, perhaps flag the repper as suspect. Not a good thing if the can flipper can't shoot back - that has to be addressed along with people then coming in and repping either party. Flag the reppers suspect perhaps, they know what they're getting into with the saftey feature.

You are right though, more and more suspects will turn into some crazy chaos ... which maybe isn't a bad thing either. However with the saftey on, you have to opt-in to the chaos. So it is not as if people could be baited with out a warning.

Salvage prices would drop, but tractor beams and salvagers would move faster off the market as well. More ships blowing up ... good for the economy perhaps.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#168 - 2012-03-23 02:18:50 UTC
Also, if you do not intend this as a nerf to suicide ganking, I presume you will be consulting with CSM members with experience in this area (mittens) to ensure you get the "time allowed to live" right? Please keep in mind the concord travel time is used for all real suicide ganks so you should make the instant death ray take the proper time for when CONCORD is already in system (six seconds, plus spawn time).

In addition, I would suggest you consider that CONCORD's very exploitability makes it fun: it's interesting to have it as something you jerk around and abuse (within limits, of course) that makes it interesting. Things like prepping concord, moving it, these all add flavor to the game. It's much better to leave CONCORD as it is, while tweaking it every time something really broken is discovered, than just say fuckit and go the death ray route.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Adunh Slavy
#169 - 2012-03-23 02:21:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Adunh Slavy
Tippia wrote:

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.



Yeah suspect = dead is not good. And the duel 'flag' kicking in sounds like a good idea. Then flag any remote reppers as suspects. This way people can still 'cheat' on duels and get some use of their alts, but they have to accept the additional risk for getting involved.

Extend this to war and neutral reppers, oh and any cheese **** switching to a ship from an orca, flag the orca/carrier too!

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Bump Tremor
Writing Memoirs
#170 - 2012-03-23 02:22:05 UTC
I also want to thank DariusIII for bring the whole risk/reward idea up to CCP.
EnslaverOfMinmatar
You gonna get aped
#171 - 2012-03-23 02:24:50 UTC
Minmatar Citizen 20120322 wrote:
calm down bro, WoW's crap anyway.


This
Only retards play WoW.

Every EVE player must read this http://www.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=29-01-07
Severian Carnifex
#172 - 2012-03-23 02:25:54 UTC
Are you trying to solve a problem of excessive (and really to easy and cheap) suicide ganking of miners with this changes too???
I hope you will look at that problem too with this.
Cannibal Kane
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#173 - 2012-03-23 02:26:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Cannibal Kane
Hummm...

That will change my gameplay drasticly. I don't mind being shot at by everybody, but the idea that if I shoot back and kill I get sec hit rubs me the wrong way.

I joined the game since I like shooting at people. I go and flip cans when no wartargets are online.

There is nothing wrong with the current agression mechanics yet there seems to be a need to overcomplicate it. I did not join EVE for PVE so i grind my sec status up for defending myself. If I wanted to PVE stuff I would have kept playing a Single player game and not the only MMO i like because of it's PVP.

This kind of change makes it sounds like the wardec options will now have a "I DON'T WANT" button to opt out as well.

I hope the sec status hit is not set in stone.... You guys seem to move forward 1 step with Crucible then take a giant leap backwards with things like this. And yes, this will not promote PVP in high sec at all, im sure people realise that. If anything it will strangle it.

"Kane is the End Boss of Highsec." -Psychotic Monk
Adunh Slavy
#174 - 2012-03-23 02:30:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Adunh Slavy
Cannibal Kane wrote:
This kind of change makes it sounds like the wardec options will now have a "I DON"' WANT" button to opt out as well.



I am getting a future picture in my head, assuming what Tippia said about the duel system kicking in is true for non-war pvp, war might be fun again because someone won't swarm in with a bunch of neut reppers. I don't see CCP doing a "we agree to war" button. That's rather un-eve. Could be wrong of course :)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#175 - 2012-03-23 02:32:52 UTC
Am sure there are final tweaks and kinks to resolve and I'd like to see more of the war dec and FW mechanics in detail to have a complete picture of the move of PvP activities in Empire.

However, the proposal by CCP here I welcome as a much needed change to add more fun and promote PvP in Empire whilst also giving some ramifications to criminal activity that at present is sadly missing. With further corrections to the Bounty Hunting system it could potentially give realistic white knighting opportunities a real career chance in Empire.

+1 CCP

Bounty Hunting - Soon (™): Retribution (Winter 2012)

It's just criminal - Smuggling
Cannibal Kane
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#176 - 2012-03-23 02:34:51 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Cannibal Kane wrote:
This kind of change makes it sounds like the wardec options will now have a "I DON"' WANT" button to opt out as well.



I am getting a future picture in my head, assuming what Tippia said about the duel system kicking in is true for non-war pvp, war might be fun again because someone won't swarm in with a bunch of neut reppers. I don't see CCP doing a "we agree to war" button. That's rather un-eve. Could be wrong of course :)


The new proposed agression mechanic is pretty un-eve as well.

"Kane is the End Boss of Highsec." -Psychotic Monk
Cannibal Kane
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#177 - 2012-03-23 02:36:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Cannibal Kane
Grumpy Owly wrote:
Am sure there are final tweaks and kinks to resolve and I'd like to see more of the war dec and FW mechanics in detail to have a complete picture of the move of PvP activities in Empire.

However, the proposal by CCP here I welcome as a much needed change to add more fun and promote PvP in Empire whilst also giving some ramifications to criminal activity that at present is sadly missing. With further corrections to the Bounty Hunting system it could potentially give realistic white knighting opportunities a real career chance in Empire.

+1 CCP


How will it promote PVP in highsec? People will refuse to do it if it means going to a negative sec status. Only those that like flying around from gate to gate in shuttles or ceptor might like it since it changes nothing for them.

The ramification of going criminal is EVERYBODY gets to shoot you... mob justice which is fine. The sec status thing bugs me.

"Kane is the End Boss of Highsec." -Psychotic Monk
Adunh Slavy
#178 - 2012-03-23 02:37:13 UTC
Cannibal Kane wrote:
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Cannibal Kane wrote:
This kind of change makes it sounds like the wardec options will now have a "I DON"' WANT" button to opt out as well.



I am getting a future picture in my head, assuming what Tippia said about the duel system kicking in is true for non-war pvp, war might be fun again because someone won't swarm in with a bunch of neut reppers. I don't see CCP doing a "we agree to war" button. That's rather un-eve. Could be wrong of course :)


The new proposed agression mechanic is pretty un-eve as well.



In what way? Sounds to me that overall it will create more oppertunity for PVP while at the same time nerfing some of the meta crap that gets abused to the point no one does anything but gank these days.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Adunh Slavy
#179 - 2012-03-23 02:39:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Adunh Slavy
Cannibal Kane wrote:

How will it promote PVP in highsec? People will refuse to do it if it means going to a negative sec status. Only those that like flying around from gate to gate in shuttles or ceptor might like it since it changes nothing for them.



I'll tell you how it will promote it for me ... I don't have to worry about some guy warping in some neut repper or his silly orca alt - i'll be more inclined to fight, and more inclined to flip a few cans.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Cannibal Kane
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#180 - 2012-03-23 02:39:53 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Cannibal Kane wrote:
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Cannibal Kane wrote:
This kind of change makes it sounds like the wardec options will now have a "I DON"' WANT" button to opt out as well.



I am getting a future picture in my head, assuming what Tippia said about the duel system kicking in is true for non-war pvp, war might be fun again because someone won't swarm in with a bunch of neut reppers. I don't see CCP doing a "we agree to war" button. That's rather un-eve. Could be wrong of course :)


The new proposed agression mechanic is pretty un-eve as well.



In what way? Sounds to me that overall it will create more oppertunity for PVP while at the same time nerfing some of the meta crap that gets abused to the point no one does anything but gank these days.


The only part of the new agression machanic that bugs me is the sec status hit for defending yourself. that alone will deter people from doing it.

On a plus side, Ship prices will decrease since less people will be willing to take the sec hit.

"Kane is the End Boss of Highsec." -Psychotic Monk