These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Liam Mirren
#201 - 2012-03-23 03:45:04 UTC
I'm not entirely sure greyscale really understands the implications of these proposed changes, seems like it'll become a lot be exploitable and silly than it is now.

Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#202 - 2012-03-23 03:45:41 UTC
The point I tried to make is that when carebears spit drivel like "now everyone will have consequences for their actions, they mean that everyone but themselves will have consequences for their actions. So far, I have yet to see what consequences the missioners and miners have for the choices they make, aside from the varying amounts of money they receive from their choices of what rats to shoot and what rocks to mine.

If I'm going to be penalized for even looking at these people funny, then they should be penalized for the veritable crimes against humanity they commit each time they warp to a deadspace or an asteroid belt.

I don't care how CCP does it. Let players join pirate factions for all I care, as long as they get a free pass on anyone who shoots one of those factions' NPCs. CONCORD doesn't shoot Serpentis rats, so this system would be completely acceptable to all mission runners.

Right?

Right?

MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
What? Stop crying and whipe the boogies off your nose for a second because I'm not sure I understand what you ask for. Are you suggesting that someone not committing an aggression against another player and thus not aggroing Concord be flagged to you anyway because if you commit a crime against another player you are flagged?

Exactly. I fail to see why performing a non-hostile action against a pod-pilot should be treated with more hostility than a hostile action against a non-pod-pilot NPC entity. Both are part of the EVE universe. For example, why should a pod-pilot who runs missions for the Gallente Navy be flagged to everyone after stealing a can from a pod-pilot who runs missions for the Caldari Navy, but the pod-pilot who runs missions for the Caldari Navy not be flagged to everyone after shooting a non-pod-pilot ship that belongs to the Gallente Navy?

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
Adunh Slavy
#203 - 2012-03-23 03:48:45 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
I fail to see why performing a non-hostile action against a pod-pilot should be treated with more hostility than a hostile action against a non-pod-pilot NPC entity.



NPCs don't pay the bills.

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
#204 - 2012-03-23 03:52:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Grumpy Owly
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
If I'm going to be penalized for even looking at these people funny, then they should be penalized for the veritable crimes against humanity they commit each time they warp to a deadspace or an asteroid belt.

I don't care how CCP does it. Let players join pirate factions for all I care, as long as they get a free pass on anyone who shoots one of those factions' NPCs. CONCORD doesn't shoot Serpentis rats, so this system would be completely acceptable to all mission runners.

Right?

Right?


Wrong.

Wrong.

There's already implications associated with standings and missions.

Suggest also re-reading the topic at hand. This is a topic about crimewatch and the associated aggression mechanics. Not inter-factional relationships.

Look at it this way, if players can pay concord to war dec and look the other way, don't you think a similar policy will arise for factions to take out contracts against other factions as a result? Otherwise common rat elements have associated bounites for players to help out policing activities.

Since neither of the areas you are dicussing are considered criminal activities, I don't see much relevance to the subject material. I'd love to see your arguments for making mining illegal in a seperate thread however, be fun seeing the responce.

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

It's just criminal - Smuggling
Terminal Insanity
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#205 - 2012-03-23 03:57:00 UTC
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.

Duelling we're planning to support with an explicit mechanic rather than the current hacky workaround.


They do have that right to do stupid things. And in space, when you do something stupid, it gets you killed. That is how you learn.
How about you protect me when i approach a cyno dominix with my webbing loki and cant get away in time? i mean, if i was smart i'd have stayed out of point range, but hey i'm dumb and i need you to hold my hand through it.

Seriously though, carebear gets canflipped and gets a POPUP WARNING EXPLAINING EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN when he steals it back. If he chooses to ignore it the first time, that's his own fault and he receives his lesson. If he refuses to listen to it time and time again, that's his own stupidity getting him killed.

"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
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#206 - 2012-03-23 03:57:38 UTC
Grumpy Owly wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
If I'm going to be penalized for even looking at these people funny, then they should be penalized for the veritable crimes against humanity they commit each time they warp to a deadspace or an asteroid belt.

I don't care how CCP does it. Let players join pirate factions for all I care, as long as they get a free pass on anyone who shoots one of those factions' NPCs. CONCORD doesn't shoot Serpentis rats, so this system would be completely acceptable to all mission runners.

Right?

Right?


Wrong.

Wrong.

There's already implications associated with standings and missions.

Suggest also re-reading the topic at hand. This is a topic about crimewatch and the associated aggression mechanics. Not inter-factional relationships.

Since neither of the areas you are dicussing are considered criminal activities, I don't see much relevance to the subject material. I'd love to see your arguments for making mining illegal in a seperate thread however, be fun seeing the responce.

So why is stealing a can from a random State War Academy bro a criminal action, but shooting a Gallente Navy Admiral (or whatever they're called, I don't run missions) not a criminal action? Let's not be inconsistent for the sake of comfort, shall we?

Adunh Slavy wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
I fail to see why performing a non-hostile action against a pod-pilot should be treated with more hostility than a hostile action against a non-pod-pilot NPC entity.

NPCs don't pay the bills.

See, this guy gets it.

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
Tarsas Phage
Sniggerdly
#207 - 2012-03-23 04:01:33 UTC
Liam Mirren wrote:
I'm not entirely sure greyscale really understands the implications of these proposed changes, seems like it'll become a lot be exploitable and silly than it is now.


With all due respect to the Devs, I'm worried that they're a good bit out of touch with things given their position behind the curtain with the limits that puts on their first-hand experience in EVE. Devs aren't allowed to grief on their non-Dev accounts, so that means no can flipping, no ninja looting, no ganking, no nothing that could possibly bring CCP's Internal Affairs to their desk one day. As a Dev, you have to be benign and as we all know, fliipers, looters, gankers and griefers are anything but.

By and large, this means that they have to rely on what they remember from their (perhaps dated) pre-Dev EVE experience and what they hear second-hand when it comes to aggression mechanics. More importantly, this also means that they're largely out of touch with the social dynamic that surrounds these activities, further making any impressions artificial in nature.

We have T20 to thank for this.

/T
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#208 - 2012-03-23 04:02:18 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
If I'm going to be penalized for even looking at these people funny, then they should be penalized for the veritable crimes against humanity they commit each time they warp to a deadspace or an asteroid belt.

I don't care how CCP does it. Let players join pirate factions for all I care, as long as they get a free pass on anyone who shoots one of those factions' NPCs. CONCORD doesn't shoot Serpentis rats, so this system would be completely acceptable to all mission runners.

Right?

Right?


Wrong.

Wrong.

There's already implications associated with standings and missions.

Suggest also re-reading the topic at hand. This is a topic about crimewatch and the associated aggression mechanics. Not inter-factional relationships.

Since neither of the areas you are dicussing are considered criminal activities, I don't see much relevance to the subject material. I'd love to see your arguments for making mining illegal in a seperate thread however, be fun seeing the responce.

So why is stealing a can from a random State War Academy bro a criminal action, but shooting a Gallente Navy Admiral (or whatever they're called, I don't run missions) not a criminal action? Let's not be inconsistent for the sake of comfort, shall we?

Adunh Slavy wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
I fail to see why performing a non-hostile action against a pod-pilot should be treated with more hostility than a hostile action against a non-pod-pilot NPC entity.

NPCs don't pay the bills.

See, this guy gets it.


When a player pays a war dec Concord looks the other way, don't you think that it's possible factions will take out similar contracts (aka mission elements) in a similar way?

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

It's just criminal - Smuggling
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#209 - 2012-03-23 04:07:06 UTC
Grumpy Owly wrote:
When a player pays a war dec Concord looks the other way, don't you think that it's possible factions will take out similar contracts (aka mission elements) in a similar way?

Okay, well, give me a call when your good Serpentis buds decide to decshield after your second mission. Or better yet, leave their corporation right before you arrive on the mission grid.

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
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#210 - 2012-03-23 04:12:21 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:
When a player pays a war dec Concord looks the other way, don't you think that it's possible factions will take out similar contracts (aka mission elements) in a similar way?

Okay, well, give me a call when your good Serpentis buds decide to decshield after your second mission. Or better yet, leave their corporation right before you arrive on the mission grid.


lmao

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

It's just criminal - Smuggling
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#211 - 2012-03-23 04:12:28 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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.


Can we at least confirm that you are not going pants-on-head mode by not allowing the can-flipper to shoot back when the victim shoots first or steals the liberated materials?

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Liam Mirren
#212 - 2012-03-23 04:13:50 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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


How is that an ongoing conversation? Any DEV who feels you shouldn't be able to shoot back at someone who's shooting you ought to be sacked from CCP. Seem like the Crucible "nono, we're back to our old good ways honest" were just a lie, CCP still has some pretty moronic ppl making quite ******** decisions.

Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#213 - 2012-03-23 04:19:06 UTC
Liam Mirren wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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


How is that an ongoing conversation? Any DEV who feels you shouldn't be able to shoot back at someone who's shooting you ought to be sacked from CCP. Seem like the Crucible "nono, we're back to our old good ways honest" were just a lie, CCP still has some pretty moronic ppl making quite ******** decisions.

CCP Greyscale is just continuing his long pattern of making horrible changes to game mechanics without running them past anyone. If you liked Sov mechanics and the sanctum nerf I'm sure you'll enjoy greyscale's new and improved aggression system.
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#214 - 2012-03-23 04:20:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Grumpy Owly
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Liam Mirren wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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


How is that an ongoing conversation? Any DEV who feels you shouldn't be able to shoot back at someone who's shooting you ought to be sacked from CCP. Seem like the Crucible "nono, we're back to our old good ways honest" were just a lie, CCP still has some pretty moronic ppl making quite ******** decisions.

CCP Greyscale is just continuing his long pattern of making horrible changes to game mechanics without running them past anyone. If you liked Sov mechanics and the sanctum nerf I'm sure you'll enjoy greyscale's new and improved aggression system.


This is just as bad as making assumptions about war dec mechanics.

CCP have already said they will present blogs for discussion with the players prior to any finalsing of details.

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

It's just criminal - Smuggling
Liam Mirren
#215 - 2012-03-23 04:23:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Liam Mirren
Grumpy Owly wrote:
This is just as bad as making assumptions about war dec mechanics.

CCP have already said they will present blogs for discussion with the players prior to any finalsing of details.


Wrong, the simple fact that there's even a NEED to discuss this is already enough proof that the DEVS don't actually understand the game, OR they're willing to sacrifice the game as it was in favour of WOW in space.

I just came back after the :18 months: nonsense, seems like i wasted my time by thinking they'd actually changed their ways.

Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
#216 - 2012-03-23 04:25:10 UTC
Please, for the love of god, scrap these pants-on-head ******** new aggression mechanics and go invent a bunch of stupid new names for modules or something.

No duels. Once you introduce those you'll get 3v3's and then 10v10's and then there will be no spontaneous gang PvP. Arenas have been proposed and rejected because they kill the sandbox you twats.

ffs, they never learn.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#217 - 2012-03-23 04:26:01 UTC
Terminal Insanity wrote:
They do have that right to do stupid things. And in space, when you do something stupid, it gets you killed. That is how you learn.
How about you protect me when i approach a cyno dominix with my webbing loki and cant get away in time? i mean, if i was smart i'd have stayed out of point range, but hey i'm dumb and i need you to hold my hand through it.

Seriously though, carebear gets canflipped and gets a POPUP WARNING EXPLAINING EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN when he steals it back. If he chooses to ignore it the first time, that's his own fault and he receives his lesson. If he refuses to listen to it time and time again, that's his own stupidity getting him killed.


Moving from a click-through popup to a system where part of the UI has to be twiddled first means that noobs won't be caught out by their laziness in reading dialog boxes that pop up at importune moments. For example, running missions in hisec with a war target, I am expecting the "this pilot is a war target, if you rep her, her enemies can shoot you". But I target the wrong ship by mistake and start repping the Serpentis guy shooting my friend and CONCORD arrives to remind me that I am not supposed to do that,

With the safeties in place, and my "war dec safety" disabled, I would get Aura telling me, "You need to disable your criminal action safety interlock to perform that criminal action" at which point I then my friend like I was supposed to and start repping. No annoying popup.

I think the switch to "pre-commitment" safety locks is a good idea.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#218 - 2012-03-23 04:31:37 UTC
Liam Mirren wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:
This is just as bad as making assumptions about war dec mechanics.

CCP have already said they will present blogs for discussion with the players prior to any finalsing of details.


Wrong, the simple fact that there's even a NEED to discuss this is already enough proof that the DEVS don't actually understand the game, OR they're willing to sacrifice the game as it was in favour of WOW in space.


Sorry I dont see it that way. Not all developments are uniquely black and white even when knowing the full details. Or the issues held therein without the need to see player preferences or attitudes to various features of a change. The theme surrounding the change is obvious but I don't see anything written in stone yet about some of subtleties.

CCP seem to be trying to improve communications, especially after the fiasco with incarna gate and calls for them to improve interaction with players. Now the minute they start doing so with blog discussions everyone just sees them as imposed future ideas rather than discussion topics. Roll

As such I will honour the proposal and future suggested discussions with players with the respect its intended, especially when its been re-iterated thats the purpose behind this blogging process.

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

It's just criminal - Smuggling
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#219 - 2012-03-23 04:34:41 UTC
Just to clarify, "safety switches" is a great idea.

Being visited upon by CONCORD because I have the temerity to shoot back at people shooting me is pants on head, batshit insane. Welcome back to Incarna. Or welcome to Inferno, which is the expansion where CCP dies in flames.

If CCP wants to take can flipping away, does this mean jetcan mining is supposed to be safe? If people are not free to make stupid decisions, we are not really playing in a sandbox.

PS: batshit insane: check up on lyssavirus. It is a fatal disease, which means first you act pants on head crazy, then you die.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Liam Mirren
#220 - 2012-03-23 04:35:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Liam Mirren
Grumpy Owly wrote:
Sorry I dont see it that way. Not all developments are uniquely black and white even when knowing the full details. Or the issues held therein without the need to see player preferences or attitudes to various features of a change. The theme surrounding the change is obvious but I don't see anything written in stone yet about some of subtleties.

CCP seem to be trying to improve communications, especially after the fiasco with incarna gate and calls for them to improve interaction with players. Now the minute they start doing so with blog discussions everyone just sees them as imposed future ideas rather than discussion topics. Roll

As such I will honour the proposal and future suggested discussions with players with the respect its intended, especially when its been re-iterated thats the purpose behind this blogging process.


So you're going to be a good consumer and wait till it's set in stone and THEN you'll do... what again? RIGHT NOW a DEV is stating that they're unsure whether you should be allowed to shoot back if you're being shot at. That means that RIGHT NOW at least a portion of DEVS think that you shouldn't be able to do so, otherwise it wouldn't even be up for discussion. Which means that they're either diehard carebears, morons or don't actually know EVE all too well, perhaps all 3 at the same time.

So RIGHT NOW is the moment to voice your opinion.

Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.