These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#261 - 2012-03-23 05:52:20 UTC
Grumpy Owly wrote:
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.


That's your problem, you really should read Greyscales replies.

Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#262 - 2012-03-23 05:52:49 UTC
Grumpy Owly wrote:
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.


Everything is well formed and cited (with links and context) here: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/fanfest-and-crimewatch/

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#263 - 2012-03-23 05:57:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Grumpy Owly
Liang Nuren wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:
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.


Everything is well formed and cited (with links and context) here: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/fanfest-and-crimewatch/

-Liang


So you are using your editorial on the words of one player and not CCPs to formulate this conclusion and without any corroboration. Nice reporting technique. Roll

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

It's just criminal - Smuggling
Adunh Slavy
#264 - 2012-03-23 05:58:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Adunh Slavy
Andski wrote:
High-sec is not supposed to be a PvE-only zone or "consensual-only PvP" zone. Suicide ganking is effectively the only non-consensual PvP that one can engage in hisec - wardecs are easily evaded. There is no incentive to join a corp, and the way corp hangar mechanics work allows an entire mining fleet to be in starter/NPC corps, immune to wardecs, with all the mining ships hugging an Orca and dumping ore into its CHA. Nothing in this game, not even mining veldspar in a Bantam, should be free of risk. But please, tell me more about how HIGH-SEC IS SUPPOSED TO BE SAFE HURR



Refer back to your earlier RR post. Part of the problem with high sec war is RR and the spaghetti of aggression rules surrounding all the possible scenarios. Cleaning up a lot of these side issues and abuse, not exploits, of Byzantine loop holes, that many first time war deced players don't understand, will be mitigated.

Sooner or later some people are going to discover that camping a few long range BS outside a station or off gates, with destroyer/notics alts in close, is a great way to snipe RR "suspects" and other aggro tricksters, while the DD flying alt scoops up loot.

I hate to use this word in Eve because we all know it doesn't really work, but maybe war will be a little more "fair" and perhaps a few more people might enjoy it, even if and hopefully will remain, non-consensual.

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
#265 - 2012-03-23 05:58:48 UTC
Liam Mirren wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:
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.


That's your problem, you really should read Greyscales replies.


I have. Show me where he says your explicitly unable to defend.

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

It's just criminal - Smuggling
Harrigan VonStudly
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#266 - 2012-03-23 05:59:50 UTC
@ Liang and Liam

Just go to McD's and talk to the 'tard. He'll understand and it's easier vov
Liam Mirren
#267 - 2012-03-23 06:02:52 UTC
Grumpy Owly wrote:
I have. Show me where he says your explicitly unable to defend.


Then you need glasses.

Post 151 and Greyscales reply, first bit of post 152, I even linked it in post 245.

Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#268 - 2012-03-23 06:04:26 UTC
Grumpy Owly wrote:
I have. Show me where he says your explicitly unable to defend.


It is fully cited and the two quotes do not disagree with each other even in the slightest. A reasonable interpretation of what CCP Greyscale actually said (himself, on this here forum) is that they have not decided whether you will be able to defend yourself when aggressed by non-flagged players.

His further explanation at the round table rather confirms this interpretation and does notconflict with it at all. There is no realistic reason to doubt that he said what was said that he said.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Baneken
Arctic Light Inc.
Arctic Light
#269 - 2012-03-23 06:04:34 UTC
Hey people that flag only means "if you do this you will die" nothing else you can still gank people in high sec all you like.
Though getting a target painted on your forehead for doing bad stuff but you're a criminal so. P
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#270 - 2012-03-23 06:09:01 UTC
Liam Mirren wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:
I have. Show me where he says your explicitly unable to defend.


Then you need glasses.

Post 151 and Greyscales reply, first bit of post 152, I even linked it in post 245.


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

.....

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


I see why you are confused.

The first part does not infer an exclusion at all. Have you considered that CCP may simply be deciding on the details surrounding what happens in these situations?

And if anything the second comment about freedom to do what you like when safeties (aka the replacement of checkboxes) are turned off should provide some indication to attitudes and a perspective to abilities.


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

It's just criminal - Smuggling
Liam Mirren
#271 - 2012-03-23 06:15:40 UTC
Looks like you're either an idiot or just trolling, doesn't credit the ideas you're trying to champion in your sig.

There's a post where several people go "wait, what? You're not allowed to shoot back if getting shot at?" to which Greyscale replies "yeah, we're not sure on that yet". The only reasonable reply would have been "no, that would be daft, but we're still working on some details", but he didn't. He gave a direct reply to a silly situation without simply defusing the elephant in the room question. Thus we must conclude that they're actually thinking pushing this through.

And what liang stated.

Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
Adunh Slavy
#272 - 2012-03-23 06:19:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Adunh Slavy
Grumpy Owly wrote:

So you are using your editorial on the words of one player and not CCPs to formulate this conclusion and without any corroboration. Nice reporting technique.


It's two so far that I have seen, Tippia reported the same statements much earlier in the thread.

To sum up, the issues are,

1. "A suspect player that is shot, can't shoot back with out further penalty."

This is not a good thing. Who ever and where ever you are, you should be allowed to shoot back no matter what. I think there may be two interpretations floating around. From the presentation, I recall Greyscale saying that the suspect could shoot back but would get the penalty, and then these other two statements from the round table. It needs to be cleared up obviously. Personally, from my experience, I just can't fathom CCP creating a scenario where someone can't shoot back.

2. That a suspect player takes a sec status hit for being a suspect that does shoot back. - Though this is probably a minor penalty, there are quite a few legitimate reasons to do "suspect" things, especially when one comes across a bot. Secondly, by invoking a penalty, it will create a condition that may limit possible uses of the suspect flag in the future like smuggling, factional warfare and being on good terms with a pirate faction. Creating a need for new spaghetti is not a good idea.

Get those two things cleared up and it'll make for a good foundation.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#273 - 2012-03-23 06:20:35 UTC
War decs are going to have to be consensual? Where did that rumor come from? I saw one thread started with that premise. The devs themselves trolled the hell out of it.
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#274 - 2012-03-23 06:21:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Grumpy Owly
Liam Mirren wrote:
Looks like you're either an idiot or just trolling, doesn't credit the ideas you're trying to champion in your sig.

There's a post where several people go "wait, what? You're not allowed to shoot back if getting shot at?" to which Greyscale replies "yeah, we're not sure on that yet". The only reasonable reply would have been "no, that would be daft, but we're still working on some details", but he didn't. He gave a direct reply to a silly situation without simply defusing the elephant in the room question. Thus we must conclude that they're actually thinking pushing this through.

And what liang stated.


No i think you are simply putting something there that doesn't exist, because "you" want it to be. CCP Greyscale was addressing many points in his comment. It doesn't mean he was directly addressing the previous comment at all as a result. Merely summarising the position or laying down a foundation generally for a number of new points that he was responding to. As such the only white elephant I see is the one you want to invent for it.

Either way I have already previously said I dont agree with an exclusion mechanic to being able to defend previously (not including safeties as part of that as they can be turned off) so please don't start inventing stances for me either.

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

It's just criminal - Smuggling
Liam Mirren
#275 - 2012-03-23 06:23:49 UTC
He was, as it was the first paragraph and he didn't quote first, meaning he replied to the post directly above him, and yes there was enough time between the 2 posts to make that happen. Either way, I'm tired of pursuing this, I'll simply expect each and any of your future posts to be either dumb or trolling.

Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#276 - 2012-03-23 06:24:47 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
War decs are going to have to be consensual? Where did that rumor come from? I saw one thread started with that premise. The devs themselves trolled the hell out of it.

A few years ago, the devs consistently trolled the hell out of threads that presented anxiety in regards to CCP potentially succumbing to the lure of the gaming industry's new pseudostandard: micro transactions.

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
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#277 - 2012-03-23 06:26:36 UTC
Grumpy Owly wrote:

No i think you are simply putting something there that doesn't exist, because "you" want it to be


Heh, my initial post in this thread was asking why everyone was so bent out of shape. Being able to can flip one guy and gain aggression to all of Eve would be ******* epic - almost amazing enough to rat my sec status back up for. It wasn't until I went and read what Greyscale said (both directly and at the round table) that I began to say... "Umm, WTF?"

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#278 - 2012-03-23 06:29:48 UTC
Liam Mirren wrote:
He was, as it was the first paragraph and he didn't quote first, meaning he replied to the post directly above him, and yes there was enough time between the 2 posts to make that happen. Either way, I'm tired of pursuing this, I'll simply expect each and any of your future posts to be either dumb or trolling.


Likewise, though at least I have clear evidence of you trying to fabricate points about myself. Interesting behavioural stance to take don't you think? Blink

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

It's just criminal - Smuggling
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#279 - 2012-03-23 06:31:11 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:

No i think you are simply putting something there that doesn't exist, because "you" want it to be


Heh, my initial post in this thread was asking why everyone was so bent out of shape. Being able to can flip one guy and gain aggression to all of Eve would be ******* epic - almost amazing enough to rat my sec status back up for. It wasn't until I went and read what Greyscale said (both directly and at the round table) that I began to say... "Umm, WTF?"

-Liang


Meaningless without CCP coroborated evidence. Merely trying to push the same argument through.

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

It's just criminal - Smuggling
Adunh Slavy
#280 - 2012-03-23 06:31:17 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
War decs are going to have to be consensual? Where did that rumor come from? I saw one thread started with that premise. The devs themselves trolled the hell out of it.



What is the source of this? Guess we'll know more soon.

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