EVE General Discussion

Can you lay out for me the specific things you guys are currently trying to achieve involving can-flagging mechanics, so I can properly see the problem from your perspective?



If you're doing something mildly "illegal" (as defined by the very loose and approximate code of morality that the mechanics are trying to suggest), my default position is that there should be some mild negative consequences for that action. If aggressing someone with a suspect flag is always a statistically dumb move, we may as well just make all those actions legal and be done with it.



That's actually an interesting idea.

(And yes, that's yet another thing that we would like to get rid of, because again, it's our stated policy that it shouldn't be possible, therefore we should be trying to ensure that it's not possible.)

Ok, so here's where we're at a fundamental disagreement. The current system of directed aggression graphs ("I'm flagged to you") makes a lot of sense when considering small isolated cases, and solves a lot of individual problems, but when viewed in aggregate it is IMO conceptually broken. It generates endless edge cases, and every edge case that's fixed generates new edge cases. It's not just slightly badly implemented, it's a fundamentally flawed design pattern, and we are *never* going to be able to implement it in a good way. Trying to pursue that course of action just dooms us to repeat all our past mistakes, which is why I'm trying very hard to stamp it out completely and why I'm honestly willing to make some small sacrifices in terms of what's currently possible to achieve that. If making a few specific tricks that are currently employed means that the system as a whole stays healthier for longer, that's a worthwhile exchange IMO. YMMV, obviously.

I will vouch for CCP Greyscale and am sure he will not make it so that you cannot defend yourself when attacked. This is kinda how he operates, he makes really carebear changes at first then loosens them up so they are more fun. I believe you will make the right choice CCP Greyscale.

Let the players decide how much they want to risk. If they want to shoot at a suspect and flag themselves and possibly die then let them. If they don't want to then they won't.

1) to initiate a "duel" or practise with out of corp pilots (this can easily be solved by using an "accept duel invite" option)

2) to bait newbies (sad to do and not allowed in starter systems, just mentioning it as it's used for that)

3) when ninja salvaging to gain aggression towards the mission runner, in hopes of him getting mad and shooting you after which you warp off, switch ship, get back and try to kill or ransom him

4) to annoy miner bots by relieving them of their profits (also very useful to gauge if they are indeed bots, if they just keep dropping ore cans which you invariably nick then you can be fairly sure they're bots, so you can then report them)

5) can flipping, getting aggressed to a miner (and his corp if he is in one) to try and initiate a fight of sorts, hoping to get kills or ransom. Note that jetcan mining is used less and less, the Orca isn't only OP for pvp situations, it's also very OP for mining scenarios, you might want to nerf it a bit there as well. Jetcan mining is the lazy, non-effort way of doing things and as such there should be a penalty for it, in the form of risk. Can flipping is that risk.

If Jetcan mining becomes as safe as any other form then there's no reason to use secure containers anymore, or actual teamwork or people having a brain. In other words, taking out lazy jetcan miners is in the spirit of EVE. Apart from that even with jetcans a smart and possibly prepared miner can still avoid trouble and even avoid loss of ore.

Note that the different timers, to corp and specific members who might have attacked you in the mean time, is a VITAL part of this. If the problem you're describing in regards to coding issues is with how individual timers work then honestly, give it more thought before you implement something that can't handle several different timers at the same time.

That's the thing, we're not trying to achieve anything. We simply feel that the current system, in which the can-flipper becomes flagged to the can owner's corporation, is already fair. Think about it; a single person is exposing himself to hostility from the can's owner, as well as any number of that owner's corp members. This is, essentially, an already unfair fight, if you only consider numbers and not pilot skill.

There are two scenarios in which a person takes from the can of another person:

1. Person A takes from person B's can/wreck while person B performs some kind of pve activity, such as mining or killing mission rats. In this case, person A is stealing either to make a profit, get person B and his corporation to initiate hostilities, or both. It is objectively fair that discretion fall upon person B and his corporation regarding whether or not to engage the thief. It is entirely rational to expect person B's corporation to run interference or provide cover for its industrial base. The system works. It doesn't need to be touched.

2. Person A takes from person B's can/wreck after person B loses a ship in a pvp engagement against person C. The same reasons for the theft apply. It is objectively fair that discretion fall upon person B and his corporation, and person C (as well as any other parties on the killmail) regarding whether or not to engage the thief. So, a slight gameplay change can be made here, to extend can/wreck ownership to the victor of a pvp battle, at least if the battle happened legitimately, such as during war. If person B lost his ship to a suicide gank, then maybe, maybe it is okay to flag the thief as a suspect to the entirety of EVE, since he was following up on the criminal's action.

The last, and somewhat unconventional, scenario where one person takes another's property is when two (or more) players want to initiate a duel. I don't see why you can't simply add a "glove slap" mechanic that flags two players (or two groups of players) to each other. But leave the sandbox intact, and allow neutral assistance to be able to interfere, albeit with the aggression transfer mechanic that has been proposed (which most of us support, by the way).

I hope this answers your question.

Lame as hell

Adapt or die

Greyscale's presentation was absolutely amazing

This is why the concept of duels is very VERY bad and why the flagging should set you red to everyone but then allow you to shoot back at anyone attacking you.

1. Uninterrupted 1v1 fights just discourage people from actually roaming about trying to find a fight. The more people just doing safe-mode 1v1 in high sec, the less people out there enriching the PVP game.

2. What's the point of initiating a fight where you lay yourself open to attack by everyone about you with no ability to fight back should they engage you. There is absolutely no way this idea is going to be put through in this form.

I think the mechanics need a change up and for the most part the suggestions have merit, but the above two points really are atrocious ideas not only from an individual engagements point of view but as a massively negative influence on the game overall.

Because the victims corp cant come and blow the can flipper away

Your guns won't turn on? lol.