These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Bump Tremor
Writing Memoirs
#401 - 2012-03-23 14:00:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Bump Tremor
If you have no faith in CCP managing it to not be abused to hell and back, then you probably need to find another game provider you can have faith in.

And what in what form would the abuse be? Letting players who don't want to play the part of the game you want them to play have a place to play it within the rich and deep content that is already available to them?
Bump Tremor
Writing Memoirs
#402 - 2012-03-23 14:06:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Bump Tremor
The worst part of the mission can issue is when the ninjas take the item you are required to have to complete the mission. That is for pure grief. The ignored part of the EULA.

Now tell me I am being inconsistent with what I stated here and by telling you earlier to find a game provider you have faith in. Missions are very small part of my gaming while preying on newbs seems to be the major part game you want to preserve.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
R I O T
#403 - 2012-03-23 14:11:21 UTC
Terazul wrote:
As a mission runner, for example, I get to deal with ninja looters who can just steal all the tags from my wrecks freely (that's millions of isk per mission for no real effort, mind) and there's simply no way I can stop them from doing so, and since they're always in a speedy frigate it's pretty much impossible to gank them in the first place. This is risk-free thievery, and it sucks. It really, really sucks.

The thief becomes flagged to your entire corporation. Please tell me what exactly is stopping you from bringing a pvp-geared corp member along for defense, aside from your innate greed which categorically prohibits you from compensating this person for his time?

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

Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#404 - 2012-03-23 14:11:59 UTC
Terazul wrote:
As a mission runner, for example, I get to deal with ninja looters who can just steal all the tags from my wrecks freely (that's millions of isk per mission for no real effort, mind) and there's simply no way I can stop them from doing so, and since they're always in a speedy frigate it's pretty much impossible to gank them in the first place. This is risk-free thievery, and it sucks. It really, really sucks.

I'm sure this will prompt the inevitable anti-carebear comments, but seriously? Should people be able to just steal from mission wrecks without consequence like that? Millions and millions of isk, just like that? No effort at all? How does that make any bloody sense!?

...

Annnnd let the anti-carebear rebuttals begin!
Actually it may amuse you to know that I am a huge fan of carebears. There are few things I like more in this game than seeing a bunch of carebears stand-up and fight back. And fight back well. Which would probably be my suggestion to you on how to deal with ninja-looters. Join a decent corp.

Little frig is in your mission stealing tags? Call up a corpmate to come in a frig, or dessie, or cloaky recon (if he's feeling spunky) to deal with the problem. Or if you do not like conflict, have a corp noob tag along with you and his primary job is to loot/salvage wrecks. Or train up to a Marauder and do it yourself on the fly. Or offer to hire the ninja salvager to become your partner for L4s and split the loot each time (half is better than nothing). Really there are many many solutions.
Adunh Slavy
#405 - 2012-03-23 14:14:14 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Adunh Slavy wrote:
I enjoy your semi-RP responses, they are amusing. They however are not very relevant to a mechanics discussion. The next time an NPC complains about me looting his wreck, I will send him to you so that you can be his lawyer. But make sure he has filed a petition with a GM prior to bothering the NPC judges.

And how exactly are my semi-RP responses that concern player interaction with NPC entities irrelevant to a mechanics discussion in the context of an MMORPG?


You are apparently intelligent enough to attempt to make the abstract argument, linking the two unlike things, but apparently not wise enough to know better than to base your position on an equivocation.

Players are not NPCs. If you want to make an argument for faction based "suspect" flags when players get below a certain faction standing and are in that faction's space, then make that argument, I might even support it. But this nandy pandy BS about taking rat loots from the poor miserable abused rats is below your abilities.

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

Bump Tremor
Writing Memoirs
#406 - 2012-03-23 14:21:42 UTC
Abusing poor rats has already been addressed - shoot a rat for good of the agent's faction and you take a sec hit from the rat's faction. Rats are present to be killed by real people to provide a wide assortments of game features. End of story. But feel free to continue to look foolish arguing 2003's arguments all over again.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
R I O T
#407 - 2012-03-23 14:23:28 UTC
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:
Little frig is in your mission stealing tags? Call up a corpmate to come in a frig, or dessie, or cloaky recon (if he's feeling spunky) to deal with the problem. Or if you do not like conflict, have a corp noob tag along with you and his primary job is to loot/salvage wrecks. Or train up to a Marauder and do it yourself on the fly. Or offer to hire the ninja salvager to become your partner for L4s and split the loot each time (half is better than nothing). Really there are many many solutions.

None of those ideas will be acceptable to him because he is unwilling to share in his mission profits. He has to have all of the profit, not just most of it. Anything less than that requires CCP intervention.

Adunh Slavy wrote:
You are apparently intelligent enough to attempt to make the abstract argument, linking the two unlike things, but apparently not wise enough to know better than to base your position on an equivocation.

Players are not NPCs. If you want to make an argument for faction based "suspect" flags when players get below a certain faction standing and are in that faction's space, then make that argument, I might even support it. But this nandy pandy BS about taking rat loots from the poor miserable abused rats is below your abilities.

I adjust my debate strategy to not go too far above the heads of the people I'm arguing with. What's the point of using high-end logic when most of the responses you get are "htfu gankbear"? Might as well hit closer to home and stick to things they understand. Luckily, mission NPCs are one of these things.

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
#408 - 2012-03-23 14:29:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Grumpy Owly
Tippia wrote:
Bump Tremor wrote:
Why is it a bad thing to have some small part of space where there is law and order?
Because it fundamentally breaks the game in a number of ways and will be abused to hell and back.
.


Actually Tippia it does not break the game. If anything it corrects what the actual view of high sec should be according to the SCC mandate. The complacency if anything is the fact that criminals believe they can get away with their actions with no consequence or culpability for the choices they make in this regard.

As such the proposals do not exclude criminal behaviour, nor do they intend to make HS free of criminal activity. They simply go a step towards re-inforcing some reaction or consequence for the involvement in criminal behaviour. So I can't see how it breaks the game at all as a result, thats just exagerrating to a point of irrational deduction. I personally see it as just a shift in the right direction from my point of view to make criminal actions less inconsequential and to be honest it's been a long time coming.

This is akin with the problem to the broken and abusable Bounty Hunter system. Criminals as a result have had the luxury of this mechanic being ineffective or potentially rewarding to them for ages. Again this complacency by criminals is as a result of the luxury of an ineffective player policing system, yet a Bounty Hunter is meant to be applied as an effective career in EvE, it's even listed on the new Web Career options by CCP.
Jethro Winchester
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#409 - 2012-03-23 14:35:11 UTC
I have multiple reasons for opposing the proposed changes to canflipping mechanics and high security space in general. But there is one major reason that I feel I should explain

Eve is a sandbo

EvE is all about player interaction. It's the experiences we share with other players that make the game what it is. Good, bad, or otherwise. It's the only MMO I have ever ever played where your actions have real consequences no matter what profession you follow, or what side of the law you choose to be on. In highsec the advantage already goes to miners and other carebears (As it should.) who have just a little bit of common sense because if you don't want to participate in can flipping games you don't have to. But If you choose to not to make use of those advantages and launch your ore into the cold vacuum of space without escorts to run off potential looters instead of keeping it safely tucked in your cargohold, you run the risk of having it stolen. And if you choose to engage the thief who looted the ore that you carelessly left floating around you run the risk of losing your ship to said thief. Just like if I choose to flip somebody's can I run the risk of losing my ship to that persons entire corporation, and I WOULD like to see that extended to the players entire alliance

There are ways to avoid being a victim, or even turn the tables (I would suggest that everybody take a short break about now and watch When Carebears Attack) if you will take ten minutes to stop and think of them instead of expecting CCP to hold your hand and punish other players so you can semi-afk jetcan mine with relative impunity

I found a corp that I enjoy flying with because I snatched a bait-can and lost my ship. (Actually made most of my friends in this game by killing or being killed by them at one time or another.) After the fight we struck up a conversation and a day later I was invited to join up with his corp. If flipping that can had led to everybody in local being able to shoot me I doubt that would have happened, I doubt I would have flipped it at all, and I probably would have stopped spending my money on this game a long time ago. I'm not saying that it's all rainbows and sunshine, if it were the game wouldn't be nearly as interesting as it is. I am saying take the good with the bad and learn to fly smarter instead of taking away my player interaction because you made a bad decision

So the next time somebody flips your can don't just cry in local. Call up your buddies, come up with a plan, and have some fun. You might win, you might lose. Either way say 'gf' at the end. If you don't come out on top don't worry about it. Chat up the pilot, chances are he'll give you some tips and you might even get along with the thieving bastard. =P
Corelin
The Fancy Hats Corporation
#410 - 2012-03-23 14:41:29 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:


Can-flipping as-is will be impossible once the safeties are added. People should be able to choose to do dumb things, but they should also have the information they need to figure out that the thing they're doing is dumb.

Duelling we're planning to support with an explicit mechanic rather than the current hacky workaround.


So... let me get this straight. Taking from an unsecure container is stupid. Putting stuff you value into an unsecure container is somehow not stupid? When you "jettison" something you are getting rid of it. You are choosing to give up control. This is a choice that should have consequences. When I take from a jet can I get a consequence. I flag myself to that guy and his entire corporation. He has the opportunity to defend his stuff but again he has to choose to expose himself to danger. If he is never exposed to danger, even after opening fire, you may as well just bring CONCORD in to kill can flippers.
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#411 - 2012-03-23 14:43:57 UTC
Bump Tremor wrote:
Why is it a bad thing to have some small part of space where there is law and order? Seems like the RP aspect demands that 20 thousand years into the future, we can expect to have laws enforced in some parts of space without relying on vigilante justice.

And no, I have not had trouble finding friends who I could trust - it just was a little difficult for the first few months.- far more A-holes, than trustworthy players.


You want a serious reply to that or should I make another joke? P

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.

Bump Tremor
Writing Memoirs
#412 - 2012-03-23 14:48:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Bump Tremor
Great Idea, Corelin! But only in very few 1.0 and newb starter systems should Concord be expected to enforce laws about thievery.

I'm opting out of the convo here to watch the presentations, but please feel free to resist change and fight the inevitable crush of the will of the majority in this sandbox.

I'm told in fleet chat CCP Sunset has very nice legs, but everyone would like her to face the camera every now and then - even wave!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#413 - 2012-03-23 14:55:25 UTC
Grumpy Owly wrote:

Actually Tippia it does not break the game. If anything it corrects what the actual view of high sec should be according to the SCC mandate. The complacency if anything is the fact that criminals believe they can get away with their actions with no consequence or culpability for the choices they make in this regard.
No. The complacency lies in people absolutely refusing to provide consequences. There are tons of themfor criminals, but the victoms then immediately void them.

This proposal excludes criminal behaviour because it reduces aggression to two types: suicide and wardecs. Neither is a good platform for proper criminality. While it opens up for bounty hunting, it will not enable it because it immediately becomes pointless.
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#414 - 2012-03-23 15:00:34 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:

Actually Tippia it does not break the game. If anything it corrects what the actual view of high sec should be according to the SCC mandate. The complacency if anything is the fact that criminals believe they can get away with their actions with no consequence or culpability for the choices they make in this regard.
No. The complacency lies in people absolutely refusing to provide consequences. There are tons of themfor criminals, but the victoms then immediately void them.

This proposal excludes criminal behaviour because it reduces aggression to two types: suicide and wardecs. Neither is a good platform for proper criminality. While it opens up for bounty hunting, it will not enable it because it immediately becomes pointless.


I think that's a key issue with younger players, they can't accept that EVE from the get-go always forced you to accept the consequences to your actions. A big vocal part of the playerbase don't want that today. You can always discuss/argue why they play this game since it's always been an integral part of the EVE identity (i.e. sandbox), but they tend to scream "but we don't want it and we're more than you, stfu bittervet" or "but the game should be for everyone, part of space should have XYZ because I want it".

Whatever they say, you're right, it is gamebreaking. Not sure it mean EVE will die tho, but it definately kills the very identity and core of this game. Where's the consequences. And how will you learn the game if new/young players don't learn there is always consequences. We all went through that process at some point.

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.

Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#415 - 2012-03-23 15:02:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Grumpy Owly
Tippia wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:

Actually Tippia it does not break the game. If anything it corrects what the actual view of high sec should be according to the SCC mandate. The complacency if anything is the fact that criminals believe they can get away with their actions with no consequence or culpability for the choices they make in this regard.
No. The complacency lies in people absolutely refusing to provide consequences. There are tons of themfor criminals, but the victoms then immediately void them.

This proposal excludes criminal behaviour because it reduces aggression to two types: suicide and wardecs. Neither is a good platform for proper criminality. While it opens up for bounty hunting, it will not enable it because it immediately becomes pointless.


Thats also an incorrect view as you forget that your "victim" directly suffers from the behaviour of the criminal activity. An effective suicide gank is meant to provide a loss to the vicitim. And for some they have already demonstrating the ability to significantly profit from this activity or easily afford a disparity in assest losses in favour of the ganker. Sometimes in different orders.

If you think the promotion of PvP that can provide a more fun and enlivened EvE for both sides of this equation as pointless? Especially when Bounty Hunting will open up new game play and career options in EvE.
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#416 - 2012-03-23 15:07:49 UTC
Misanth wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:

Actually Tippia it does not break the game. If anything it corrects what the actual view of high sec should be according to the SCC mandate. The complacency if anything is the fact that criminals believe they can get away with their actions with no consequence or culpability for the choices they make in this regard.
No. The complacency lies in people absolutely refusing to provide consequences. There are tons of themfor criminals, but the victoms then immediately void them.

This proposal excludes criminal behaviour because it reduces aggression to two types: suicide and wardecs. Neither is a good platform for proper criminality. While it opens up for bounty hunting, it will not enable it because it immediately becomes pointless.


I think that's a key issue with younger players, they can't accept that EVE from the get-go always forced you to accept the consequences to your actions. A big vocal part of the playerbase don't want that today. You can always discuss/argue why they play this game since it's always been an integral part of the EVE identity (i.e. sandbox), but they tend to scream "but we don't want it and we're more than you, stfu bittervet" or "but the game should be for everyone, part of space should have XYZ because I want it".

Whatever they say, you're right, it is gamebreaking. Not sure it mean EVE will die tho, but it definately kills the very identity and core of this game. Where's the consequences. And how will you learn the game if new/young players don't learn there is always consequences. We all went through that process at some point.


Absolutley not game breaking. None of the proposals will prevent options to criminal activity, it is not exclusive or preventative to the sandbox abilities. That argument simply wont hold.
rootimus maximus
Perkone
Caldari State
#417 - 2012-03-23 15:07:51 UTC
I often "canflip"... my other toons. There are plenty of times when it's move convenient to jetcan stuff for a different toon to pickup. Given that my toons are mostly in different corps, that'll mean I'm going to be flagged for criminal behaviour that actually isn't.

The rest of this stuff is pretty interesting. Looking forward to firm details when they figure them out.
Adunh Slavy
#418 - 2012-03-23 15:10:41 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
I adjust my debate strategy to not go too far above the heads of the people I'm arguing with. What's the point of using high-end logic when most of the responses you get are "htfu gankbear"? Might as well hit closer to home and stick to things they understand. Luckily, mission NPCs are one of these things.


Players do understand that rats are not people, likely even the least intelligent amongst them.

Now to your better argument, about current mechanics and being flagged to a corp. Mainly it is to get rid of spaghetti, mud-ball as Greyscale called it, even if he did have a pic of a dung beetle. Inefficient legacy code either has to be refractored or redone. Redoing it is often the more cost effective tact. If they want to add things, to expand game play for we paying customers, they have to break 10 things to make one.

Also, being flagged to an entire corp for 15 minutes is hardly a price to pay or a deterrent. The average high sec corp is spread out over a constellation or a region, this is not a defense or a threat, and I know you know that. Your argument is attempting to exploit this very weakness in most high sec corps. They are loosely defined, they don't wander in packs, they are not organized and most of them don't want to be organized beyond hanging out with some internet friends and relaxing for an hour or two before they have to go to bed.

Everyone versus Everyone. Go suspect and Everyone can shoot you. That sounds more like Eve than appeals to the Empire of the Dung Beetle.

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

Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
R I O T
#419 - 2012-03-23 15:16:20 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Also, being flagged to an entire corp for 15 minutes is hardly a price to pay or a deterrent. The average high sec corp is spread out over a constellation or a region, this is not a defense or a threat, and I know you know that. Your argument is attempting to exploit this very weakness in most high sec corps. They are loosely defined, they don't wander in packs, they are not organized and most of them don't want to be organized beyond hanging out with some internet friends and relaxing for an hour or two before they have to go to bed.

Well that's kind of their fault, isn't it? They have the tools, but don't utilize them. You can hardly blame the people taking advantage of that fact. Also, the MMO player and the "relax for an hour with some friends" demographics never really had any significant overlap.

Why should CCP make changes that cater to this specific player subset, instead of making changes that will bring in more pvper/griefer/sociopath subscriptions?

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

Adunh Slavy
#420 - 2012-03-23 15:21:46 UTC
Tippia wrote:

This proposal excludes criminal behaviour because it reduces aggression to two types: suicide and wardecs. Neither is a good platform for proper criminality. While it opens up for bounty hunting, it will not enable it because it immediately becomes pointless.



You are forgetting, or have not read Grayscale's comment in this thread about the limited engagement option, and now he's on Eve TV, let's listen ...

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