These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#361 - 2012-03-23 11:21:28 UTC
OT Smithers wrote:
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.


You are talking about carebears and consequences while crying that it will be more difficult for you to to pursue the risk and consequence free high sec griefing you currently enjoy. Roll

The risks and consequences of "high sec griefing" are defined purely by the attitudes of the players being "griefed." Learn how to defend yourself, or learn how to not be such an overt target. Otherwise, you only have yourself to blame. I can't name a single time that I was griefed, though I can name plenty of times when I lost assets that I would rather have kept. I see no reason why carebears should receive special treatment. People who prefer to not be victims in this game pay for their subs too.

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
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#362 - 2012-03-23 11:22:04 UTC
Garmon wrote:
Adapt or die

Greyscale's presentation was absolutely amazing
…but the roundtable was troubling.
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#363 - 2012-03-23 11:27:13 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
OT Smithers wrote:
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.


You are talking about carebears and consequences while crying that it will be more difficult for you to to pursue the risk and consequence free high sec griefing you currently enjoy. Roll

The risks and consequences of "high sec griefing" are defined purely by the attitudes of the players being "griefed." Learn how to defend yourself, or learn how to not be such an overt target. Otherwise, you only have yourself to blame. I can't name a single time that I was griefed, though I can name plenty of times when I lost assets that I would rather have kept. I see no reason why carebears should receive special treatment. People who prefer to not be victims in this game pay for their subs too.


Except that the culpability for criminal actions and the associated interactions lies with the criminal who initiated the reason for the interaction in the first place not the intended victim. So irrepsective of any PvP Outcomes there should still be some attributable associative penalty for bad outcomes to the vicitm, even if it's small. This is why I like the associated security hits for criminal actions as proposed. Otherwise it just propells an inconsequential outcome for criminal activities.

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
#364 - 2012-03-23 11:33:31 UTC
Grumpy Owly wrote:
Except that the culpability for criminal actions and the associated interactions lies with the criminal who initiated the reason for the interaction in the first place not the intended victim. So irrepsective of any PvP Outcomes there should still be some attributable associative penalty for bad outcomes to the vicitm, even if it's small. This is why I like the associated security hits for criminal actions as proposed. Otherwise it just propells an inconsequential outcome for criminal activities.

So you're saying for the sake of a bit of realism, criminal actions in EVE should have residual consequences, much like in real life?

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
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#365 - 2012-03-23 11:34:14 UTC
Grumpy Owly wrote:


Except that the culpability for criminal actions and the associated interactions lies with the criminal who initiated the reason for the interaction in the first place not the intended victim. So irrepsective of any PvP Outcomes there should still be some attributable associative penalty for bad outcomes to the vicitm, even if it's small. This is why I like the associated security hits for criminal actions as proposed. Otherwise it just propells an inconsequential outcome for criminal activities.


The victim can avoid can flipping easily by not ejecting their cargo into space.
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#366 - 2012-03-23 11:38:01 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:
Except that the culpability for criminal actions and the associated interactions lies with the criminal who initiated the reason for the interaction in the first place not the intended victim. So irrepsective of any PvP Outcomes there should still be some attributable associative penalty for bad outcomes to the vicitm, even if it's small. This is why I like the associated security hits for criminal actions as proposed. Otherwise it just propells an inconsequential outcome for criminal activities.

So you're saying for the sake of a bit of realism, criminal actions in EVE should have residual consequences, much like in real life?


It's more to do with making a criminal action valid as such. I'm not going to be drawn into RL comparison arguments. My view is that criminal actions in a policed area needs to have some effect for participation and those players need to have some responsibility for the choices they make as a result. Irrespective of all your childish avoidance examples and desires this view won't be changed by you wanting to have an easy time being a criminal.

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

It's just criminal - Smuggling
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#367 - 2012-03-23 11:39:46 UTC
Grumpy Owly wrote:


It's more to do with making a criminal action valid as such. I'm not going to be drawn into RL comparison arguments. My view is that criminal actions in a policed area needs to have some effect for participation and those players need to have some responsibility for the choices they make as a result. Irrespective of all your childish avoidance examples and desires this view won't be changed by you wanting to have an easy time being a criminal.


So whats wrong with the current system where you get flagged to the victims corp?
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#368 - 2012-03-23 11:43:33 UTC
Grumpy Owly wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:
Except that the culpability for criminal actions and the associated interactions lies with the criminal who initiated the reason for the interaction in the first place not the intended victim. So irrepsective of any PvP Outcomes there should still be some attributable associative penalty for bad outcomes to the vicitm, even if it's small. This is why I like the associated security hits for criminal actions as proposed. Otherwise it just propells an inconsequential outcome for criminal activities.

So you're saying for the sake of a bit of realism, criminal actions in EVE should have residual consequences, much like in real life?


It's more to do with making a criminal action valid as such. I'm not going to be drawn into RL comparison arguments. My view is that criminal actions in a policed area needs to have some effect for participation and those players need to have some responsibility for the choices they make as a result. Irrespective of all your childish avoidance examples and desires this view won't be changed by you wanting to have an easy time being a criminal.

Fair enough. I'll take your security hit, but in exchange I want police response times to be "valid as such." I'm not going to be drawn into RL comparison arguments, so I won't ask for a full seven minutes. However, I feel that it is fair for CONCORD to take a similar amount of time to arrive that another player would. Irrespective of all your childish avoidance examples and desires this view won't be changed by you wanting to have the hand of God strike me down within two hundred milliseconds in a .9 system because I shot at your ship.

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
#369 - 2012-03-23 11:46:24 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:


Except that the culpability for criminal actions and the associated interactions lies with the criminal who initiated the reason for the interaction in the first place not the intended victim. So irrepsective of any PvP Outcomes there should still be some attributable associative penalty for bad outcomes to the vicitm, even if it's small. This is why I like the associated security hits for criminal actions as proposed. Otherwise it just propells an inconsequential outcome for criminal activities.


The victim can avoid can flipping easily by not ejecting their cargo into space.


Very true. Yet there are situations where cans are used. Nothing to stop miners from making an informed choice. But why should a player be penalised for using a can? It is just a tool at the end of the day with intrinsic value and skilling.

Players can avoid situations by using the right mods, criminal and victim. Again its a question of which tools you want to use for your activity.

So yes miners can choose to use a can. Guess what criminals can choose to flip or steal from them.

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

It's just criminal - Smuggling
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#370 - 2012-03-23 12:07:47 UTC
Might have missed this suggestion (I read the dev comments, and about the first 10 pages)

Suggestion:

Four stage flagging.

a: Innocent. The regular state for people. Can attack anything, but they will lose this status.
b: White Hats: People that can attack anything below, without changing status. And can be attacked without consequence by those below. But not innocents. No sec status hits for kills.
c: Grey hat: Suspects. Can attack white hats without changing status, or sec status.
d: Black hats: GCC



Avoids 1-1 tagging, and allows people to fight back, without everyone just becoming suspects.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#371 - 2012-03-23 12:14:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Vladimir Norkoff
baltec1 wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

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




I use the cans to pick fights in my battle hauler vs other corps/players. The goal is not the barge but the combat ships the come back in. Solo combat haulers don't really work in low sec/0.0 and going to war with people scares them into cowering in stations even if I am in a one man corp

I like the idea of mass agro but the sec status drop is a bit too far.
Baltec summed it up very nicely. Though I'm not so much a fan of the idea of mass aggro. Extend the aggro to the whole alliance, sure (after all they do pay to be in an alliance). But aggro from the entire world just seems a bit... much

The whole reason for me is to get small scale PvP. One opponent. Two. Maybe three or four. And unfortunately that's not something I generally find in lowsec, nullsec, FW, or from observation of RvB. People just seem to be too risk adverse. It's usually blobtastic gangs and gatecamps looking for easy kills. And since I don't use an alt (link or scouting) that's generally not something I can take on with even a slim chance of winning. Also, the best part of the can-flipping aggro is that it is completely voluntary. You cannot force them to fight. You cannot make it non-consensual. You provoke them, but they have the choice to fight or walk away. So when you get a fight, you know that they want to PvP.
Bump Tremor
Writing Memoirs
#372 - 2012-03-23 12:20:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Bump Tremor
Suppose they don't want to be a mining bwitch for everyone who happens by AND they don't want to PvP? Suppose they just want to play the game as a miner? Suppose they want to play their own version of the game and not have to choose whether to be a miner for everyone who happens by to steal out of a can they deployed next to their ship for their own use or have to play another's version of the game and get into PvP? Suppose you go find PvPers to PvP with instead of thinking everyone who is mining is secretly wanting to PvP?
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#373 - 2012-03-23 12:25:23 UTC
Bump Tremor wrote:
suppose they don't want to be a mining bwitch for everyone who happens by AND they don't to PvP? Suppose they just want to mine without interruption?
Then they can anchor and use a secure can? Or just warp back to station whenever their cargo hold is full? Or get a friend and transfer the ore to their hauler after every cycle? Hey! There's three possible solutions for ya.
Liam Mirren
#374 - 2012-03-23 12:31:05 UTC
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:
Bump Tremor wrote:
suppose they don't want to be a mining bwitch for everyone who happens by AND they don't to PvP? Suppose they just want to mine without interruption?
Then they can anchor and use a secure can? Or just warp back to station whenever their cargo hold is full? Or get a friend and transfer the ore to their hauler after every cycle? Hey! There's three possible solutions for ya.


Also, "without interruption" isn't what EVE is about, it never was and never should be. This is an MMO where others can and should affect your gameplay.

Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
Diva Ex Machina
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#375 - 2012-03-23 12:32:04 UTC
Vila eNorvic wrote:

None of which makes CCP's proposal unreasonable.


'It happens here on earth, why shouldn't it be like that far in the future?' is a not a reasonable justification for the proposal either.

Quote:

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?


Both. Looking at the map the majority of ship losses are in high sec systems. What percentage of those are lost to npcs I don't know for sure but my best guess would be a very large chunk of those losses are in PvP. Also, null and low sec players only buy ships and modules in high sec if they aren't available locally.
Bump Tremor
Writing Memoirs
#376 - 2012-03-23 12:33:27 UTC
3900 cap secure can cannot be anchored in the higher hisec systems so they are actually just very small version of jetcans, that can be dropped and picked up again.

Yeah, run back and for the to the station to avoid A-holes - great fun.

And not every player can find a "friend" who is not just a griefer right out of the gate when first starting to play.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#377 - 2012-03-23 12:34:16 UTC
Bump Tremor wrote:
Suppose they don't want to be a mining bwitch for everyone who happens by AND they don't want to PvP? Suppose they just want to play the game as a miner? Suppose they want to play their own version of the game and not have to choose whether to be a miner for everyone who happens by to steal out of a can they deployed next to their ship for their own use or have to play another's version of the game and get into PvP? Suppose you go find PvPers to PvP with instead of thinking everyone who is mining is secretly wanting to PvP?

I wanted to play my own version of Call of Duty where I was a photographer, but it didn't work out so well.

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
Ferocious FeAr
THE FINAL STAND
The Final Stand.
#378 - 2012-03-23 12:36:01 UTC
Garmon wrote:
Adapt or die

Greyscale's presentation was absolutely amazing



Exactly my friend. The only serious tears I see in this thread are from the noob can flipping hi-sec pvp experts that do not want consequences for their own actions.

Neutral RR - about time, cya Rebirth and Kai86 o/, pirates in low sec undocking 4 carriers to rep one bs that aggro'd, lets see how many of you want to risk your caps to the entire system. Greyscale you got this right.

Improved pvp in hi-sec and low-sec. Pirate hunting, sec raises and sec decreases due to making decisions about pvp on the spot instead of station camping for 6 hours and having people dock if they think they are going to lose. You got this right too Greyscale.

EvE is and should be about losing ships in pvp if you choose to pvp, if you are not losing a ship, you are merely trying to survive for the sake of a killmail instead of pvping to win, this makes you rubbish by default. Stop pretending you are better than you really are and buy another box of tissues.

I have been a Merc in MC, pirate in low sec, nullsec sov holder and through hi-sec war dec system as a Mercenary. In all of these situations there is risk in hitting F1-F8, if you perform a criminal type act, be it misdemeanor or felony there should be consequences. You made that choice the same as if you were shooting at a hauler on a gate in low sec. Free will ..... =/

Too long the can flippers, gankers, ninja looters have been able to go about their business with no risk at all, because they pick on the tiny willy instead of the big ball sack. Time for you people to adapt to a new situation where you reap what you sew.

The feeling you can get from head on toe to toe pvp and actually winning because of tactics, strategies, skill, vs patheric station games, neutral reppers x2 for each player you have in fleet, far exceeds the mini hard-on you get from believing you ruined the life of some noob in high sec that ended up in station wondering what happened to them when they only lost a free ship to begin with :)

If you get a mild sec hit from shooting someone who shot you back after you flipped their can, you can go shoot one of your stupider brothers in low sec and get that sec back in spades....

Where in all of this has anything Greyscale suggested, broken eve, destroyed pvp or made the sandbox a childs pissing potty?

Nowhere!.......

The faster these get implimented the better, because you have old vets like us from 2003/4/5/6 that quit in 2010 all wanting to come back and play hardcore again. Forget the noob player base, give us a reason to pay our subs... This is certainly a good start.
Bump Tremor
Writing Memoirs
#379 - 2012-03-23 12:37:23 UTC
This game has a rich and full content for players who do not want to interact with others, why should they be forced to interact beyond the limit they desire? There is no single player version of the game, yet.
Bump Tremor
Writing Memoirs
#380 - 2012-03-23 12:38:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Bump Tremor
Being a photographer was not a part of that game - there was no rich and full content for that role.

I wanted to be a miner/ manufacturer in that game and that didn't work out so well either - so I came to a game which has a wide berth for mining/manufacturing.

It also has a rich and deep content for those who choose to PvP and plenty of people who want to PvP with them.

Ask yourself, why is it that your fun can only come from bullying others?