These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#321 - 2012-03-23 09:20:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Grumpy Owly
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:
As a result if anyone attacks a suspect to enact white knighting, then why not simply allow the "suspect" to have clear defence to aggress that person without Concord intervention.

How many times do multiple people have to tell you that under the current proposal, the suspect will not be able to aggress the white knight without CONCORD intervention/and or security status penalties?


Actually no, the argument was about wether you would be able to defend against White Knights who aggress you without the Concord intervention. Security penalties I stated as something that would happen however small or whatever.

CCP have yet to confirm this. Only players are making this assumption or reporting from a limited source it seems. I have no idea how trustworthy that source is.

Considering the only "official" evidence I have at this time is the Fanfest presentation where these missdemeanors would not invoke GCC or Concord in the process. There is nothing directly linking the fact they would do so due to being a suspect. That is what I want clarified by CCP.

To re-iterate however Concord attacking can flippers who defend against white knights is obviously not something I would like to see introduced anyhow. A WK making a "choice" to aggress should be able to be met with a defence. The interesting part I guess would be the suspect flagging length and the fact he is flagged to more than just the offended parties.
Jethro Winchester
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#322 - 2012-03-23 09:21:30 UTC
As far as can flipping is concerned I see no problem with the current system. If you are experienced enough to know what jetcan mining is then you deserve whatever you get if somebody steals ore from said can. In short if you don't want your ore stolen, don't leave it laying around. With the current mechanic if your can is flipped you have the option to retaliate, which you do at your own risk. If you want to jetcan mine safely have your corpmates (Oh, your in an NPC corp? Well then too bad.) provide cover while you jettison cans to your hearts content. If somebody DOES flip your can at least your corpmates can make sure he regrets it. Again, the way I see it the current mechanics are just fine, and if people were smarter about how they played the game they could avoid a lot of the 'problems' that the proposed changes aim to 'fix'.
OT Smithers
Did he say Jump
Dock Workers
#323 - 2012-03-23 09:23:57 UTC  |  Edited by: OT Smithers
Love the changes to the KM's

Love having Logi and what now grab a timer. About freaking time. Maybe that will cut down the some of the carrier fagging in low sec.

I really love the tears from all the high sec can flippers and station huggers. Maybe they will have to learn some actual PvP.

........

I would like to see all profit removed from suicide ganking.


EDIT -- Now that I see that they are even CONSIDERING not allowing the can flipper to defend himself if attacked I can only say that that this is freaking LAME.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#324 - 2012-03-23 09:27:15 UTC
Jethro Winchester wrote:
Again, the way I see it the current mechanics are just fine, and if people were smarter about how they played the game they could avoid a lot of the 'problems' that the proposed changes aim to 'fix'.

Three threads and thousands of posts might unfortunately mean that this is simply too much to ask of the generation whose general ineptitude is responsible for the health hazard warnings on plastic forks and styrofoam coffee cups.

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

Liam Mirren
#325 - 2012-03-23 09:31:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Liam Mirren
OT Smithers wrote:
I really love the tears from all the high sec can flippers and station huggers. Maybe they will have to learn some actual PvP.


I heard that hanging in Tama with a bunch of friends and some added gang links, waiting for a poor sod who's hoping to find solo action and then blobbing the living **** out of him is a far superior form of PVP (and yes, 6 v1 IS blobbing, in Tama).

I could have heard wrong tho.

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

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#326 - 2012-03-23 09:36:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Adunh Slavy wrote:
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.

He's not going to warp in "some neut repper," but he is going to warp in some neut repperS. Significant numerical superiority will be the most efficient counter for these changes.

There will be no neutral reppers with this change. There will be reppers who are one of more of the following: a) free for all to shoot; b) locked out by docking timers (while being free-for-all targets); c) killed by CONCORD.

Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Liam Mirren wrote:
...So RIGHT NOW is the moment to voice your opinion.

Actually no, not so much. The correct time is when the 'plans' are not on beer stained napkins but on the test server .. if you blow your load on every hypothetical you come across you'll die from dehydration.
Actually, yes, very much. Now is when they're deciding what the design goals of the refactoring is and right now, that list pretty much consists of “get rid of one-to-one flagging”. This is the point in the process where we — who live with these mechanics on a daily basis — chip in and say “no, this reduction removes functionalities X, Y, and Z, and it's imperative that they remain”. This is when we get the message across that other goals need to be on the list, and that we can see severe exploits and gaps in the system as proposed so far.

If anything, IMO, this is the exact opposite of Incarna: they're telling us something that needs to happen and why, and they're asking for our feedback on what needs to still be there at the other end and what issues we have that need to be fixed at the ground floor, rather than be clumsily patched in at a later date.

Oh, and Grumpy and Liang: as someone who was there for both the presentation and the roundtable, and who also took part in the discussions on the stairs afterwards let's make this clear: right now the plan is that flagging yourself as “suspsect” gives you no special rights. You are now a legal target for everyone. Attacking you does not make anyone a suspect. Anyone attacking you are therefore illegal targets, and if you try to shoot back at them as they kill you, CONCORD smacks you down hard. Directly from the devs' mouths. Also from their mouths is the only alternative with the current proposed implementation: anyone who attacks a “susspect” is also flagged a “susspect”. You can now fire back at your attackers. The problem with this (and why they're reticent to do it) is that this will very quickly lead to a situation where half the system is flagged a free-for-all target. There's also the notion that, if people know they'll become free-for-all, they won't use the opportunity to shoot suspects, and that kind of ruins the point of having them — it basically means highsec becomes an opt-in lowsec.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#327 - 2012-03-23 09:38:36 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Greyscale
Hey dudes, I see you made a lot of posts while I was asleep.


Ok, thing up front, here's how talking about things at fanfest works. When we do a devblog, we generally hold it off until we've got a good idea how we think everything's going to work, and then we explain our plan.

When we do a talk or a roundtable at fanfest, we're wheeling out designs at whatever stage they happen to be at. It's not the same as a devblog because stuff isn't always "done". I'll come back to this in a bit.

Weaselior wrote:
Is this intended as a nerf to suicide ganking, or will the concord replacement allow similar amounts of DPS to be done before death?


Nope, not intended as a change to suicide ganking at all. Any CONCORD replacement will keep the same time interval as current CONCORD spawns. We're kicking around the idea of deploying an instant warp-scrambler to prevent warping-around shenanigans, but we don't have any plans to alter the DPS delay right now.

Weaselior wrote:
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.


It is fun, and I always find it amusing when people find some new trick (someone explained the tornado circle-warp to me last night), but at the same time it's the clear and explicit policy of CCP that avoiding CONCORD is an exploit ,and we shouldn't be relying on our CS staff to enforce failures of the game mechanics in this regard. That's where we're coming from on this - if it's the design intent that something be the case (you can't avoid CONCORD), then the game should actually enforce that intent.

Severian Carnifex wrote:
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.


Nope, not something we're considering right now, see above.

Tarsas Phage wrote:
What Crimewatch 2.0 needs to be is a reimplementation of current logic - ie, the current aggression mechanics. Yes, the current Crimewatch code is buggy and convoluted, it needs to be modularized, it needs latent bugs fixed and some additional non-gameplay-affecting features added such as KM's for self-destructs while under aggression. CCP Greyscale and Masterplan need to do this first. Then and only then should actual gameplay-affecting changes be considered.

/T


Which is exactly what we're currently doing, as explained by Masterplan at the beginning ofthe presentation.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#328 - 2012-03-23 09:39:52 UTC
Liang Nuren 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


Are you ******* serious m8? That's the dumbest thing you've ever said - and that's saying a lot.

-Liang

Ed: Just to be clear: it should never be in doubt that the player will have the right to defend themselves while merely a suspect. The fact you haven't even decided if that's possible is just out of this ******* world.


Ok, so firstly, see the first bit of my previous post. This isn't something we flagged up as an issue early on, but which looks like it should be solvable so we've not dedicated a whole lot of work to it yet.

Here's the awkwardness with all three obvious solutions to this problem:

1. You can't defend yourself. Silly but robust.
2. Anyone who attacks a suspect becomes a suspec. Robust, but effectively nullifies the penalties of the suspect flag because the risk of engaging a suspect becomes huge without fully comprehensive scouting (which with cloaking and high local-counts is pretty much impossible in hisec).
3. We reintroduce one-to-one flagging in its current form, which is nice in this limited scenario but causes endless breakages and exploits in aggregate, as we've discovered over the past decade or so.

What we're actually considering right now, based on player suggestions, is to formalize the concept of a "limited engagement", which is effectively needed for both wardecs and some kind of duelling system, and carry that across to here too. To whit, anyone who engages a suspect becomes part of a "limited engagement" with the suspect on one side and all their aggressors on the other side, and any further interference by anyone else in that engagement gets a suspect flag.

And yes, I know "I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU EVEN CONSIDERED THAT OPTION"; we consider all the options, and yesterday I threw one out to gauge the player reaction to it, which generated some useful feedback.

Vimsy Vortis wrote:

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.


Forgive my slow brain, I've just woken up, but... a thirty-minute presentation, 15 minutes of Q&A, a one-hour roundtable and a 16-page-and-counting forum thread... and I'm not running this past anyone? Bwuh?

Liang Nuren wrote:

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


You literally just quoted me saying "we've not made our mind up what the intended behavior is".
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#329 - 2012-03-23 09:42:45 UTC
…also, Greyscale, if you feel I'm misrepresenting what you or Masterplan said at either the panel or the presentation, please correct it. I'm not awake either at this point. P
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#330 - 2012-03-23 09:49:10 UTC
Greyscale, have you considered the possibility that the current can-flagging mechanics are already adequate? I know you want to add on to the game, but sometimes new additions do more harm than good. Having a system where a can-flipper gets aggro toward the can owner's corporation is quite fair and balanced. Extending that aggro to the whole alliance might also be tolerable. But extending it to every single player in high-sec is ridiculous.

Also, note how we're not criticizing the RR and security status proposals. It's this specific change that we have an issue with, and quite frankly, it should be dropped without further discussion. I feel like my words are falling upon deaf ears, however. I shudder to think what kind of surprises Sunday will bring.

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
#331 - 2012-03-23 09:52:36 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Ok, so firstly, see the first bit of my previous post. This isn't something we flagged up as an issue early on, but which looks like it should be solvable so we've not dedicated a whole lot of work to it yet.

Here's the awkwardness with all three obvious solutions to this problem:

1. You can't defend yourself. Silly but robust.
2. Anyone who attacks a suspect becomes a suspec. Robust, but effectively nullifies the penalties of the suspect flag because the risk of engaging a suspect becomes huge without fully comprehensive scouting (which with cloaking and high local-counts is pretty much impossible in hisec).
3. We reintroduce one-to-one flagging in its current form, which is nice in this limited scenario but causes endless breakages and exploits in aggregate, as we've discovered over the past decade or so.

What we're actually considering right now, based on player suggestions, is to formalize the concept of a "limited engagement", which is effectively needed for both wardecs and some kind of duelling system, and carry that across to here too. To whit, anyone who engages a suspect becomes part of a "limited engagement" with the suspect on one side and all their aggressors on the other side, and any further interference by anyone else in that engagement gets a suspect flag.



Here's the awkwardness of your solutions:
1. Players are able to kill PVP flagged players without PVP flagging themselves. In ALL other MMOs this would be an exploit - even the really carebear ones that barely implement PVP.
2. Why do you feel that there needs to be a penalty involved with being flagged as a suspect? Why is ships blowing up a bad thing? You implemented your "safety off" - they know what the consequences are. This is notably how other games handle PVP flagging. Its why its called "PVP flagging".
3. This seems really complicated and you're probably going to end up with a similar set of byzantine rules regarding aggression. You're probably better off with #2.

Quote:

Liang Nuren wrote:

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


You literally just quoted me saying "we've not made our mind up what the intended behavior is".


Dude:

Quote:
And yes, I know "I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU EVEN CONSIDERED THAT OPTION"; we consider all the options, and yesterday I threw one out to gauge the player reaction to it, which generated some useful feedback.


You threw a suggestion out there that's so carebear its not even implemented in WOW. And you think the player base isn't going to say WTF m8?

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#332 - 2012-03-23 09:55:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Grumpy Owly
Tippia wrote:

Oh, and Grumpy and Liang: as someone who was there for both the presentation and the roundtable, and who also took part in the discussions on the stairs afterwards let's make this clear: right now the plan is that flagging yourself as “suspsect” gives you no special rights. You are now a legal target for everyone. Attacking you does not make anyone a suspect. Anyone attacking you are therefore illegal targets, and if you try to shoot back at them as they kill you, CONCORD smacks you down hard. Directly from the devs' mouths. Also from their mouths is the only alternative with the current proposed implementation: anyone who attacks a “susspect” is also flagged a “susspect”. You can now fire back at your attackers. The problem with this (and why they're reticent to do it) is that this will very quickly lead to a situation where half the system is flagged a free-for-all target. There's also the notion that, if people know they'll become free-for-all, they won't use the opportunity to shoot suspects, and that kind of ruins the point of having them — it basically means highsec becomes an opt-in lowsec.


I'll be gracious and assume it's legit. (More grief from being skeptical of players it seems.)

At least it's interesting they have an alternative proposal.

What's the argument if anything against affording aggression rights to can flippers specifically to those WK's who attack them. Is this simply the case that it would kind of revert back to the old or current complicated list of linked mechanics to individual statuses that would become a jumbled mess as per in some what similar to what we have now?

As the proposal with the CONCORD smackdown would kind of leave can flipping to the exercise of smash and grab then flee. Not really the PvP promoting situation I was hoping for really.

I realise they were proposing a seperate dueling system however to compensate for arbitary PvP encounters.

Edit: Answers from CCP Greyscale came in after I posted.
Vila eNorvic
#333 - 2012-03-23 09:56:09 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Because even today's moral codes would be entirely esoteric to people who lived just five decades ago in the same country. To claim that morality doesn't change much tens of thousands of years into the future and millions of light years away quite possibly makes you dumber than our Glorious CCP Overlords (all hail Glorious CCP Overlords, I beg forgiveness for my insolence, all hail Glorious CCP Overlords).
Diva Ex Machina wrote:
On present day earth the police aren't an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent force that kill you as soon as you do something wrong.

Aside from which, this is a game not reality, and what matters is what makes the game more interesting.
Liam Mirren wrote:
Because this is a game.

None of which makes CCP's proposal unreasonable.


Diva Ex Machina wrote:
People keep saying this but what I want to know is are those new players going to stick around long term when level 4 missions start to pall and they can't sell what they manufacture because nobody is blowing ships up in high sec anymore.

I'm fairly new around here, but I've always understood that many more ships are lost in low- and null-sec than high-sec. So are you saying that isn't so, or are you saying that only high-sec players buy ships built by high-sec industrialists?
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#334 - 2012-03-23 09:58:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Here's the awkwardness with all three obvious solutions to this problem:

1. You can't defend yourself. Silly but robust.
2. Anyone who attacks a suspect becomes a suspec. Robust, but effectively nullifies the penalties of the suspect flag because the risk of engaging a suspect becomes huge without fully comprehensive scouting (which with cloaking and high local-counts is pretty much impossible in hisec).
3. We reintroduce one-to-one flagging in its current form, which is nice in this limited scenario but causes endless breakages and exploits in aggregate, as we've discovered over the past decade or so.

What we're actually considering right now, based on player suggestions, is to formalize the concept of a "limited engagement", which is effectively needed for both wardecs and some kind of duelling system, and carry that across to here too. To whit, anyone who engages a suspect becomes part of a "limited engagement" with the suspect on one side and all their aggressors on the other side, and any further interference by anyone else in that engagement gets a suspect flag.


What about:

4. Anyone who attacks a suspect becomes a suspect *in current grid* (plus a timer to avoid flag => warp => clear flag => get back)? It'd avoid the "viral" flagging (except at Jita undock).
A follow up addition would be "in current grid + gang links in current system".



Also, will you deal with the "circumvent CONCORD with Orca and never lose a ship" trick?
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#335 - 2012-03-23 10:03:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
Vila eNorvic wrote:
I'm fairly new around here, but I've always understood that many more ships are lost in low- and null-sec than high-sec. So are you saying that isn't so, or are you saying that only high-sec players buy ships built by high-sec industrialists?

Numerically, a significantly higher amount of ships gets destroyed in high-sec than in all other areas of space combined. We're talking multiples here. However, from a mineral perspective, the become more even due to the fact that material-intensive capitals and super-capitals only get blown up in non-high-sec space. I forget what the exact numbers are, but high-sec both has a higher player concentration (about two-thirds of total), and a higher amount of asset destruction (not including those days when someone loses a whole capital fleet).

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
#336 - 2012-03-23 10:04:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Grumpy Owly
CCP Greyscale wrote:

What we're actually considering right now, based on player suggestions, is to formalize the concept of a "limited engagement", which is effectively needed for both wardecs and some kind of duelling system, and carry that across to here too. To whit, anyone who engages a suspect becomes part of a "limited engagement" with the suspect on one side and all their aggressors on the other side, and any further interference by anyone else in that engagement gets a suspect flag.


Would see this as the most preferable and sensible option to explore atm.
Liam Mirren
#337 - 2012-03-23 10:08:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Liam Mirren
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Here's the awkwardness with all three obvious solutions to this problem:

1. You can't defend yourself. Silly but robust.
2. Anyone who attacks a suspect becomes a suspec. Robust, but effectively nullifies the penalties of the suspect flag because the risk of engaging a suspect becomes huge without fully comprehensive scouting (which with cloaking and high local-counts is pretty much impossible in hisec).
3. We reintroduce one-to-one flagging in its current form, which is nice in this limited scenario but causes endless breakages and exploits in aggregate, as we've discovered over the past decade or so.


1. is the silly thing you blurted out at the round table
2. a totally new way of doing things, obviously fueled by the overall agression changes. Thing is this will lead to far more "exploitive" behaviour. If you think that this helps the poor miners then you're very mistaken, what will happen are massive slaughter scenarios which will be far more disruptive that you can imagine.
3. the logical thing to do, it stays small scale and limited. Also, there is no reason for this to cause endless breakages if you simply implement it properly

We don't need high sec to become low sec, what needs to happen is for high sec to become less profitable while low sec needs to get some sort of pull so that people actually WANT to move there.


I'm still amazed by your seemingly "pff, we just wanted to see how people would react to this", first of all I don't believe that and secondly, if you can't decently gauge people's reaction to such a rediculous idea beforehand then uhm... yeah. So no, not buying that, I would assume that you'd use some ideas you actually consider and then gauge people's reaction to it on fanfest, so AS you voiced the idea we must assume you are taking it seriously.

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

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#338 - 2012-03-23 10:11:31 UTC
Forgive me if you have gone over this but this is important to me.

The agro everyone change to can flipping I kinda like even if it does mean my battle haulers life will be made much harder but the loss in sec status is a bit of a kick in the teeth.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#339 - 2012-03-23 10:15:17 UTC
I think this direction is excellent, it will improve safety and also introduce more and better pvp in hisec.

However, no matter how suspect you are, you need to able shoot back at your aggressors without CONCORD interference.

How it should work imho:

A conducts a crime towards B, thus becoming suspect, and free to shoot by anyone.

B and his corp starts shooting A

B and his corp become flashies to A and his corp, but not suspect as there was no crime involved

Same goes for C,D,E,F and their corps.







.

Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies
#340 - 2012-03-23 10:17:35 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

1. You can't defend yourself. Silly but robust.

Very silly and very much against the spirit of the game.

Fear God and Thread Nought