These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#241 - 2012-03-23 05:19:32 UTC
Terazul wrote:
Good grief, the level of insane paranoia in this thread is palpable.

Your nebulous "worst-case scenarios" ARE NOT HAPPENING. I know you guys love to think CCP is full of **** all the time and that they are all complete morons who do not play their own game at all, but that is just a fabrication you've created to justify your insane, trollish rants. Perhaps when CCP management had their heads stuck up their own arseholes your paranoia would have been justified, but that is no longer the case. Get over yourselves, would you?

I mean, good grief, you guys talk about collecting carebear tears all the time, but you guys cry the hardest!


Dude, the man directly said it at the round table. That's ... not us assuming the worst.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#242 - 2012-03-23 05:20:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Grumpy Owly
Liam Mirren wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:
You mean you want to be able to throw bottles at the two people scrapping on the floor and for it to not to be considered hostile?

I really don't see how it vilotes the mechanics at all, if anything it simplifies it without loopholes to sit on the sidelines and effect things in a fight without consequences to those choices.


I think you're missing the point, not that odd once you realise how dumb the DEVS ideas are. It's like this, if I steal form you you're allowed to shoot me but if you do so I am NOT allowed to shoot back. THAT is the implication of what they're "considering".


You are allowed to shoot back and kill. The proposal is that you take a small sec hit as a result.

This is much like you steal something from someone and then you stab them when they try to take it back. Whilst it might seem mean in a game mechnics issue to be unfair to the criminal element. Why should you not be penalised for taking what was a simply theft situation to now assault and murder especially when you instigated the issue?

And from what I understand the security hits may not be as significant as you might believe for these actions.

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

It's just criminal - Smuggling
Liam Mirren
#243 - 2012-03-23 05:20:36 UTC
Terazul wrote:
Good grief, the level of insane paranoia in this thread is palpable.

Your nebulous "worst-case scenarios" ARE NOT HAPPENING. I know you guys love to think CCP is full of **** all the time and that they are all complete morons who do not play their own game at all, but that is just a fabrication you've created to justify your insane, trollish rants. Perhaps when CCP management had their heads stuck up their own arseholes your paranoia would have been justified, but that is no longer the case. Get over yourselves, would you?

I mean, good grief, you guys talk about collecting carebear tears all the time, but you guys cry the hardest!


Your post is made invalid by a CCP DEV statement talking them considering to you not being allowed to shoot back at people who just shot you.

Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#244 - 2012-03-23 05:23:02 UTC
Grumpy Owly wrote:
Liam Mirren wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:
You mean you want to be able to throw bottles at the two people scrapping on the floor and for it to not to be considered hostile?

I really don't see how it vilotes the mechanics at all, if anything it simplifies it without loopholes to sit on the sidelines and effect things in a fight without consequences to those choices.


I think you're missing the point, not that odd once you realise how dumb the DEVS ideas are. It's like this, if I steal form you you're allowed to shoot me but if you do so I am NOT allowed to shoot back. THAT is the implication of what they're "considering".


You are allowed to shoot back and kill. The proposal is that you take a small sec hit as a result.

This is much like you steal something from someone and then you stab them when they try to take it back. Whilst it might seem mean in a game mechnics issue to be unfair to the criminal element. Why should you not be penalised for taking what was a simply theft situation to now assault and murder especially when you instigated the issue?

And from what I understand the security hits may not be as significant as you might believe for these actions.


No, you are not allowed to shoot back: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=982743#post982743

Quote:


One of the most disturbing moments came when, under the proposed rules, the following scenario was given:

1) Player A flips the can of Player B and gains a Suspect flag, making A shootable by everyone

2) Players C-Z go to town on Player A as a result.

Here's the kicker - going into this preso, CCP Greyscale said that once Player A gets aggressed by Players C-Z, Player A will not be allowed to shoot his aggressors back. Yes, this is basically making anyone with a mere Suspect flag the equivalent of GCC, just without the sec drop and CONCORD spawn. Many people in the audience, including myself, collectively WTF'd and suggested that he's off his rocker... and he seemed a bit surprised at this reaction.


Any questions?

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Liam Mirren
#245 - 2012-03-23 05:26:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Liam Mirren
Here's the post Greyscale replied to:

Destiny Corrupted wrote:
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.



Here's his reply:

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



In other words, they're thinking about NOT being allowed to shoot back at people who just shot you, if you do you get concorded. This isn't a sec hit thing, this is a "concord with nuke you" thing. Again, them even giving the idea more than 3 seconds of thought is just wrong.

Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#246 - 2012-03-23 05:27:11 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:
Liam Mirren wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:
You mean you want to be able to throw bottles at the two people scrapping on the floor and for it to not to be considered hostile?

I really don't see how it vilotes the mechanics at all, if anything it simplifies it without loopholes to sit on the sidelines and effect things in a fight without consequences to those choices.


I think you're missing the point, not that odd once you realise how dumb the DEVS ideas are. It's like this, if I steal form you you're allowed to shoot me but if you do so I am NOT allowed to shoot back. THAT is the implication of what they're "considering".


You are allowed to shoot back and kill. The proposal is that you take a small sec hit as a result.

This is much like you steal something from someone and then you stab them when they try to take it back. Whilst it might seem mean in a game mechnics issue to be unfair to the criminal element. Why should you not be penalised for taking what was a simply theft situation to now assault and murder especially when you instigated the issue?

And from what I understand the security hits may not be as significant as you might believe for these actions.


No, you are not allowed to shoot back: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=982743#post982743

Quote:


One of the most disturbing moments came when, under the proposed rules, the following scenario was given:

1) Player A flips the can of Player B and gains a Suspect flag, making A shootable by everyone

2) Players C-Z go to town on Player A as a result.

Here's the kicker - going into this preso, CCP Greyscale said that once Player A gets aggressed by Players C-Z, Player A will not be allowed to shoot his aggressors back. Yes, this is basically making anyone with a mere Suspect flag the equivalent of GCC, just without the sec drop and CONCORD spawn. Many people in the audience, including myself, collectively WTF'd and suggested that he's off his rocker... and he seemed a bit surprised at this reaction.


Any questions?

-Liang


Who quoted that though? I didnt get that impression from when I watched the proceedings I thought the intention was to apply a sec hit as consequences but not prevent being able to attack or defend.

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

It's just criminal - Smuggling
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#247 - 2012-03-23 05:28:49 UTC
Grumpy Owly wrote:

Who quoted that though? I didnt get that impression from when I watched the proceedings I thought the intention was to apply a sec hit as consequences but not prevent being able to attack or defend.


That's from the round table afterwards, not from the presentation. That is his direct response to a direct question about a specific situation.

He believes players should be able to kill PVP flagged players without PVP flagging themselves.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Alain Kinsella
#248 - 2012-03-23 05:28:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Alain Kinsella
Liam Mirren wrote:
- You mine
- I can flip you (with safeties off)
I can now be attacked by ANYONE
- you still can't shoot/loot my can because you have safeties on
- if you take safeties off then you can start shooting me, but if I shoot BACK I get in trouble (this is the idiot bit)


Valid point, that does sound dumb and needs fixing or some other clarification. I'm happy about defending myself, but if the guy who started it can't fight back its going to feel like a turkey shoot or some other missed opportunity; No satisfaction to *either* side.

Edit - BTW, I suppose this would incentive hulk pilots in a fleet to pack long points instead of rock scanners.

"The Meta Game does not stop at the game. Ever."

Currently Retired / Semi-Casual (pending changes to RL concerns).
Harrigan VonStudly
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#249 - 2012-03-23 05:29:15 UTC
Petty theft being met with deadly force from everyone, people who aren't even involved in the least otherwise, and the right to fight back being removed is about as ******* dumb as it gets.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#250 - 2012-03-23 05:30:46 UTC
Anybody who says that this is the answer to the "risk-averse" playstyle that is ninja-looting is completely overlooking the fact that this creates a risk-averse playstyle based around shooting ninja looters without any risk of retaliation.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#251 - 2012-03-23 05:34:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Grumpy Owly
Liang Nuren wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:

Who quoted that though? I didnt get that impression from when I watched the proceedings I thought the intention was to apply a sec hit as consequences but not prevent being able to attack or defend.


That's from the round table afterwards, not from the presentation. That is his direct response to a direct question about a specific situation.

He believes players should be able to kill PVP flagged players without PVP flagging themselves.

-Liang


Is this player reported though or an actual CCP citiation? If it's a player shouldn't you question the validity of that. Especially when the only real talk was from the Fanfest presentation?

Either way I don't agree with any supression of being able to attack of defend in that situation. But until I see it, I really don't think CCP indicated that at all, just the security status effects in relation to the can flipping.

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

It's just criminal - Smuggling
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#252 - 2012-03-23 05:36:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
Grumpy Owly wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:

Who quoted that though? I didnt get that impression from when I watched the proceedings I thought the intention was to apply a sec hit as consequences but not prevent being able to attack or defend.


That's from the round table afterwards, not from the presentation. That is his direct response to a direct question about a specific situation.

He believes players should be able to kill PVP flagged players without PVP flagging themselves.

-Liang


Is this player reported though or an actual CCP citiation? If it's a player shouldn't you question the validity of that. Especially when the only real talk was from the Fanfest presentation?

Either way I don't agree with any supression of being able to attack of defend in that situation. But until I see it, I really don't think CCP indicated that at all, just the security staus effects.


Its both, actually. Its CCP saying something which could potentially be interpreted in a good way (but really shouldn't be) and a player relating what the CCP Dev explained to him in person. That's the current plan. It is the intended behavior of the new Crimewatch that players will not PVP flag for killing PVP flagged players.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#253 - 2012-03-23 05:39:57 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:

Who quoted that though? I didnt get that impression from when I watched the proceedings I thought the intention was to apply a sec hit as consequences but not prevent being able to attack or defend.


That's from the round table afterwards, not from the presentation. That is his direct response to a direct question about a specific situation.

He believes players should be able to kill PVP flagged players without PVP flagging themselves.

-Liang


Is this player reported though or an actual CCP citiation? If it's a player shouldn't you question the validity of that. Especially when the only real talk was from the Fanfest presentation?

Either way I don't agree with any supression of being able to attack of defend in that situation. But until I see it, I really don't think CCP indicated that at all, just the security staus effects.


Its both, actually. Its CCP saying something which could potentially be interpreted in a good way (but really shouldn't be) and a player relating what the CCP Dev explained to him in person. That's the current plan. It is the intended behavior of the new Crimewatch that players will not PVP flag for killing PVP flagged players.

-Liang


Are you not confusing the ability for players to attack low security individuals due to sec hits?

I'm getting confused now about what you mean for PvP flagged.

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

It's just criminal - Smuggling
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#254 - 2012-03-23 05:41:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
Taking a sec status hit for defending yourself is stupid too, why should you be punished for defending yourself against an act of violence initiated by another player? If the initial action that gets you flagged doesn't incur a sec status hit, why should anything resulting from it?

The entire thing smacks of poorly thought out game design and the intent to disincentivize PVP in high security space, which if you live in highsec you know full well is the last thing highsec needs.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#255 - 2012-03-23 05:42:54 UTC
Grumpy Owly wrote:

Are you not confusing the ability for players to attack low security individuals due to sec hits?

I'm getting confused now about what you mean for PvP flagged.


Fortunately for us all, I am not as easily confused as you are. Primarily because I know how to read.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Skex Relbore
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#256 - 2012-03-23 05:45:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Skex Relbore
Andski wrote:
First and foremost, NEUTRAL RR IS A DUMB GIMMICK STOP WHINING ABOUT IT THIS IS LONG OVERDUE.

Now, my question is: how will these changes affect nonconsensual PvP? Specifically, suicide ganking.



Personally I could give a **** about neutral RR in high sec. But you do realize that such changes basically **** s logi in null and low as well where neutral RR isn't an issue?

Cause I sure as hell won't be throwing my 170mil Scimi to keep your drake alive long enough to jump leaving me with a ******* aggression timer.

Please tell me someone has thought about how this change will effect legitimate use of Logistics?

Because unless someone has carved out some exceptions to how this mechanic behaves in null and low sec this is going to have some severe unintended consequences to the null and low sec logi pilots. (oh and carrier pilots too).
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#257 - 2012-03-23 05:45:40 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Taking a sec status hit for defending yourself is stupid too, why should you be punished for defending yourself against an act of violence initiated by another player? If the initial action that gets you flagged doesn't incur a sec status hit, why should anything resulting from it?

The entire thing smacks of poorly thought out game design and the intent to disincentivize PVP in high security space, which if you live in highsec you know full well is the last thing highsec needs.


Citation please.

So far the only sec hits inferrred I believe are related to initiating aggresive activities not defending against them.

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

It's just criminal - Smuggling
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#258 - 2012-03-23 05:47:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Grumpy Owly
Liang Nuren wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:

Are you not confusing the ability for players to attack low security individuals due to sec hits?

I'm getting confused now about what you mean for PvP flagged.


Fortunately for us all, I am not as easily confused as you are. Primarily because I know how to read.

-Liang


Erm, no sorry. Then provide the details in context, all you have done so far is elluded to comments from elsewhere. You havent provided any details to be able to see the things as presented to understand what was trying to be conveyed, only your intepretations.

Can't blame me for having limited information and poor definitions being presented.

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

It's just criminal - Smuggling
Liam Mirren
#259 - 2012-03-23 05:49:34 UTC
How about you start at page 1 of this thread and read all DEV replies, instead of replying with "I dunno, I don't think so" 17 times.

Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#260 - 2012-03-23 05:50:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Grumpy Owly
Liam Mirren wrote:
How about you start at page 1 of this thread and read all DEV replies, instead of replying with "I dunno, I don't think so" 17 times.


I dont have to. I saw the TV program and I have been following the thread.

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

It's just criminal - Smuggling