These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Revajin
Doomheim
#441 - 2012-03-23 20:36:31 UTC
Wait wait wait. Let me get this straight. If you steal from a can now you are considered a criminal and anyone can attack you rather than just the can owner?

Why are can flippers mad about this?
Taihbea
Doomheim
#442 - 2012-03-23 20:38:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Taihbea
Mutnin wrote:
Velicia Tuoro wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

1. Player A takes Player B's can
2. Players C-Z are now able to aggress Player A, who can only retaliate


That is how I interpreted it.



That's a pretty stupid move by CCP if this is the case. While I agree with the logistics need to be given aggression and "should" show up on KMs, but can flipping giving aggro to all is certainly not needed. However would be funny to see all the loot stealing ***** @ jita 4-4 getting popped by the dozen. Assuming it carried over to wrecks as well.

Overall sounds like CCP dumbing down the game once again.

Yes yes. Flipping some defenseless noob can is so pro and hardcore. Wtf are you on? This is AWESOME news.
Diva Ex Machina
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#443 - 2012-03-23 20:43:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Diva Ex Machina
Revajin wrote:
Wait wait wait. Let me get this straight. If you steal from a can now you are considered a criminal and anyone can attack you rather than just the can owner?

Why are can flippers mad about this?


From what I understand the rage is against the idea that the can flippers won't be able to fight back against anyone who attacks them and that shooting someone who attacks you after you flip them will result in a sec status hit.
Harrigan VonStudly
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#444 - 2012-03-23 20:46:52 UTC
Taihbea wrote:
Mutnin wrote:
Velicia Tuoro wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

1. Player A takes Player B's can
2. Players C-Z are now able to aggress Player A, who can only retaliate


That is how I interpreted it.



That's a pretty stupid move by CCP if this is the case. While I agree with the logistics need to be given aggression and "should" show up on KMs, but can flipping giving aggro to all is certainly not needed. However would be funny to see all the loot stealing ***** @ jita 4-4 getting popped by the dozen. Assuming it carried over to wrecks as well.

Overall sounds like CCP dumbing down the game once again.

Yes yes. Flipping some defenseless noob can is so pro and hardcore. Wtf are you on? This is AWESOME news.


IF player A gets ganked on the Jita 4-4 undock and his freighter drops billions in loot and I steal some why should I be shootable by every player on the undock? Furthermore, it was hinted at that I would not be allowed to shoot back if shot at.

You should read the thread more. It goes way deeper than flipping noobs.
Garmon
Gods Holy Light Bringing You're Penance
#445 - 2012-03-23 21:05:16 UTC
Harrigan VonStudly wrote:


IF player A gets ganked on the Jita 4-4 undock and his freighter drops billions in loot and I steal some why should I be shootable by every player on the undock?


Probably because of this thing called risk vs reward, maybe
I like Duncan
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#446 - 2012-03-23 21:08:38 UTC
Revajin wrote:
Wait wait wait. Let me get this straight. If you steal from a can now you are considered a criminal and anyone can attack you rather than just the can owner?

Why are can flippers mad about this?


Because Greyscale's initial position was people shoot the can flipper, he can't shoot back or he'll be concorded. :)

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
E man Industries
SeaChell Productions
#447 - 2012-03-23 21:10:32 UTC  |  Edited by: E man Industries
EvE is not safe nor should it be.

Wardecks on no consenting corps are good!
Sucha wardeck got me out of missioning and into pvp because we formed up to defend ourselves...I said i want more of that and moved out to 0.0

I might still be running missions if i had nto been wardecked.

Also can flipping....other than doing it in noob systems what is the problem?
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#448 - 2012-03-23 21:10:59 UTC
Garmon wrote:
Harrigan VonStudly wrote:


IF player A gets ganked on the Jita 4-4 undock and his freighter drops billions in loot and I steal some why should I be shootable by every player on the undock?


Probably because of this thing called risk vs reward, maybe


I'm fine with being shot at by anyone that wants to shoot at me (I'm -10 after all...) but I would appreciate being able to shoot back without being Concorded. As for my personal preference, I'd say that the right solution is to have high sec PVP flags. You are either flagged for PVP or you are not. Taking any PVP action (from can baiting to shooting someone that's PVP flagged) flags you for PVP.

Yes, that might mean that high sec belts become blood baths as corps, alliances, and friends escalate over a can flip... but why is this a bad thing?

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Brom MkLeith
Epsilon Inc
#449 - 2012-03-23 21:22:12 UTC
Karl Planck wrote:
Pak Narhoo wrote:
Just know it's still on paper. Nothing hard, nothing coded. Can go anyway from here.

Like a good point: friendly can flipping to have a 1 on 1 fight is out the window with these presumed changes.



nope, just fleet up and meet at a safe


Thanks for pointing this one out. I was worried about "friendly" duels disappearing.
Harrigan VonStudly
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#450 - 2012-03-23 21:26:55 UTC
Garmon wrote:
Harrigan VonStudly wrote:


IF player A gets ganked on the Jita 4-4 undock and his freighter drops billions in loot and I steal some why should I be shootable by every player on the undock?


Probably because of this thing called risk vs reward, maybe


I completely agree Garmon. The "mention" by CCP that as a 'suspect' you can not return fire if fired upon is sort of a bad idea imo. I probably should have added that earlier.
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#451 - 2012-03-23 21:27:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Grumpy Owly
Liang Nuren wrote:
Revajin wrote:
Wait wait wait. Let me get this straight. If you steal from a can now you are considered a criminal and anyone can attack you rather than just the can owner?

Why are can flippers mad about this?


Because Greyscale's initial position was people shoot the can flipper, he can't shoot back or he'll be concorded. :)

-Liang


That wasn't the case at all. And he has clarified the list of options that were posed due to roundtable discussions..

This was merely one of those options that was posed as part of the debating for which when clarified he also thoguht wasnt sensible.

Other options being the cascading "suspect" method, and another being a more limited engagement where individual flagging is maintained to some extent.

to requote the confirmation of what was discussed:

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.

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.


It is you who is being persistant in wanting to present an innacurate picture of what was initially discussed by doing this.


CCP Greyscale wrote:
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".


So by your recognition of both it obviously implies more than one option, yet interestingly there are in fact more than 2. And hey presto look, CCP Greyscale confirming how they were in fact options merely discussed as a part of a brainstorming process at a roundtable for which no conclusions were drawn.

But of course you need to revert to your innacurate portrayed sensationalist journalism in preumably the hope to discredit CCP in the process as it might help your stance on an issue, yet of course we all now know the truth on the matter. Great way to show your integrity and credibility in reporting things especially after it was a contentious point for which clarity was sought.

The obvious conclusion is that now they are considering a limited engagement option due to those player discussions.

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

It's just criminal - Smuggling
N3oXr2ii
the united
#452 - 2012-03-23 21:34:58 UTC  |  Edited by: N3oXr2ii
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Liang Nuren wrote:


So... it will soon be impossible to deagress with logistics on the field. That's... interesting.


Yeah, that's a dumb I made on the slide. Assistance will cause you to inherit the assistee's timer, with the current amount of time they have left on it. If you're only assisting and not shooting, it'll always be the case that you'll deagress on the same second as the person you're giving assistance to.


Can the dev or someone clear this up for me

so i'm camping a gate with a logi repping me and something jumps through i kill it while i'm shooting it my logi reps me

after it dies i keep the logi repping me becuase i'm camping

i can jump through the gate after 1 min so this means after the changes the logi can also jump through after 1 min or becuase his reps are still on me he can't until 1 min after he stops repping

which is it the logi can jump when i do or the logi can't jump untill 1 min after he stops repping (btw thats terrible if the case )

i will also take it that remote sebo's tracking etc will still be the same as logis

 please don't take out your real life issues out on me not my fault if your fat ugly bullied divorced broke or  have a pimple thats big and red maybe your mom wants you out her basement or a jock has gave you a wedgie your flames only make me laff at your sadness your hidden tears are as juicy as the whiners i blob or the blobs i hide from

Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#453 - 2012-03-23 21:36:50 UTC
Why oh why did I think it was a good idea to click "view post"?

Grumpy Owly wrote:

That wasn't the case at all. And he has clarified the list of options that were posed due to roundtable discussions..

This was merely one of those options that was posed as part of the debating for which when clarified he also thoguht wasnt sensible.

Other options being the cascading "suspect" method, and another being a more limited engagement where individual flagging is maintained to some extent.

to requote the confirmation of what was discussed:

CCP Greyscale wrote:

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.


It is you who is being persistant in wanting to present an innacurate picture of what was initially discussed by doing this.

...

But of course you need to revert to your innacurate portrayed sensationalist journalism in preumably the hope to discredit CCP in the process as it might help your stance on an issue, yet of course we all now know the truth on the matter. Great way to show your integrity and credibility in reporting things especially after it was a contentious point for which clarity was sought.



You see the part I bolded and underlined? He threw option #1 out at Fanfest to see how the players responded. He did exactly what I said he did, and he did it on purpose. And he admits he did it.

Quote:
The obvious conclusion is that now they are considering a limited engagement option due to those player discussions.


I see you missed the word "initially". WTS Reading Comprehension. :)

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Brom MkLeith
Epsilon Inc
#454 - 2012-03-23 21:39:08 UTC
Velicia Tuoro wrote:
Did I miss anything important?


New "suspect" flag
- Minor crimes. Anyone can shoot you without penalty.
- Flipping a can for example
- Shooting someone makes you a suspect (I think)
- Anyone assisting a suspect becomes a suspect
- Not sure if gate guns will attack a suspect. Undecided yet.


No no no. Can flipping should not open you up to complete system retaliation.
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#455 - 2012-03-23 21:42:31 UTC
Liam Mirren wrote:
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Liam Mirren wrote:

They already get a warning message if they do something that gets you flagged, so what you're advocating is already in place.


Not really, since they can click ignore/cancel and uncheck the box right then and there as things are now. Noobie presented with a dialog box they may not understand.

This new system means they can't do the action at all until they enable it deliberately. There is no "do it anyway" button on the message.



"WARNING, IF YOU CLICK YES THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE YOU'LL BE ****** SIDEWAYS. DO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE? YES/NO"

How fcking difficult is it?


So you want to maintian the cumbersome numerous checkboxes that occur when a player tries to do a criminal act?

The idea behind safeties is that it allows players to turn off these checks where they understand the consequences of actions and allows them the freedom to act on those decisions without having to use a chckbox at all. In this sense it is a pre-determined decision or stance about criminal actions.

This if anything removes any annoyances of having to confirm. And in other recent threads about the topic would seem to be a welcome change as a result.

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

It's just criminal - Smuggling
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#456 - 2012-03-23 21:45:22 UTC
Taihbea wrote:
Yes yes. Flipping some defenseless noob can is so pro and hardcore. Wtf are you on? This is AWESOME news.

Because only n00bs mine in hulks....

Roll


This thread makes me want to move back to hi-sec and blow up people who think the game isn't about blowing **** up.

Pirate

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.
Garmon
Gods Holy Light Bringing You're Penance
#457 - 2012-03-23 21:45:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Garmon
Liang Nuren wrote:

I would appreciate being able to shoot back without being Concorded.


At this point I'd say that's just something that has been overlooked, I'm very sure that when this will actually be implemented, that wont be the case, but I thought you just lost sec status, not get concorded

Liang Nuren wrote:

As for my personal preference, I'd say that the right solution is to have high sec PVP flags. You are either flagged for PVP or you are not. Taking any PVP action (from can baiting to shooting someone that's PVP flagged) flags you for PVP.


I cant decide if this would be good or not, I'd think not

The main reason I say this is because if that is the case, there will be a bunch of roaming gangs of "veterans" that goes around with the sole intention of ganking, get 10 people in 15 au ss to station, get 1 dude in a mobile/tanky ship to warp in and wait to get aggro'd, rest of gang warps in straight away when something aggros, rinse and repeat, if that's going to be the main face of the mechanic in highsec, that would be ****!

And considering how hard it is to scout in highsec, it would be a big problem I think and it would deter a LOT of people from partaking with the new mechanic unless they are overly prepared, which would be terrible for the current highsec pvpers that has grown balls enough to adapt to the new mechanic, who are mainly soloers

So what I am trying to say is, turning highsec into amamake would be bad, leave that to lowsec I say
I like Duncan
Brom MkLeith
Epsilon Inc
#458 - 2012-03-23 21:46:29 UTC
Velicia Tuoro wrote:
Did I miss anything important?

Sec Status
- Kill someone while a suspect will only take you to -5
- Pod killing will take you below -5 to -10
- Killing someone with positive +5 gives you hit
- Killing someone with a negative sec gives you bonus
- Hand in tags for sec boost up to +5. Less effect if you are -5.
- Fixing rat spawns after downtime.
- -5 can be killed without penalty in low sec.
- Something about -5 in high sec being pursued.



Nice. Now we can be pro-active vigilantes instead of just sitting around waiting for someone to get killed. I've never been an advocate of 100% safe High Sec, but someone should have to have some serious beef with me before they come after me. Like Chris Rock's theory of making bullets cost $5,000 each. You've got to really want someone dead to spend $5,000 on one bullet.
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#459 - 2012-03-23 21:50:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Grumpy Owly
Liang Nuren wrote:
Why oh why did I think it was a good idea to click "view post"?

Grumpy Owly wrote:

That wasn't the case at all. And he has clarified the list of options that were posed due to roundtable discussions..

This was merely one of those options that was posed as part of the debating for which when clarified he also thoguht wasnt sensible.

Other options being the cascading "suspect" method, and another being a more limited engagement where individual flagging is maintained to some extent.

to requote the confirmation of what was discussed:

CCP Greyscale wrote:

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.


It is you who is being persistant in wanting to present an innacurate picture of what was initially discussed by doing this.

...

But of course you need to revert to your innacurate portrayed sensationalist journalism in preumably the hope to discredit CCP in the process as it might help your stance on an issue, yet of course we all now know the truth on the matter. Great way to show your integrity and credibility in reporting things especially after it was a contentious point for which clarity was sought.



You see the part I bolded and underlined? He threw option #1 out at Fanfest to see how the players responded. He did exactly what I said he did, and he did it on purpose. And he admits he did it.

Quote:
The obvious conclusion is that now they are considering a limited engagement option due to those player discussions.


I see you missed the word "initially". WTS Reading Comprehension. :)

-Liang


How do you know that all three of these options werent discussed? Presumably by the player involvement and the fact they adopted a view to persue the limited engagement choice suggest some player discussions as it was quoted as based on player discussions?

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.


Either way, because it was clarified doesn't allow you to propogate an incorrect and untruthfull awareness or understanding about the scope or direction of the development.

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

It's just criminal - Smuggling
Liam Mirren
#460 - 2012-03-23 21:50:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Liam Mirren
Grumpy Owly wrote:
So by your recognition of both it obviously implies more than one option, yet interestingly there are in fact more than 2. And hey presto look, CCP Greyscale confirming how they were in fact options merely discussed as a part of a brainstorming process at a roundtable for which no conclusions were drawn.

But of course you need to revert to your innacurate portrayed sensationalist journalism in preumably the hope to discredit CCP in the process as it might help your stance on an issue, yet of course we all now know the truth on the matter. Great way to show your integrity and credibility in reporting things especially after it was a contentious point for which clarity was sought.

The obvious conclusion is that now they are considering a limited engagement option due to those player discussions.


Remember a while ago a DEV stated that NEX store would not have game altering options in it (and actually a few months earlier another DEV stated we would never even HAVE a NEX store), and then they changed their minds about it trying to sneak it in, right up till the point we the players started yelling and revolting? Yeah, that's happening right now, again.

Back then all the problems would have been avoided if CCP would have stated outright that they would NOT introduce "gold ammo", but they didn't for the simple reason that they were thinking about it. Same thing applies here, until greyscale states that "no, not being allowed to shoot back without issues if you're being shot at would be a stupid idea, whatever we're trying to come up with, trust us it won't be THAT" we must assume that, at the very least, they have it on the table.

And that in and of itself shows us that they lack an understanding of what EVE is and should be, which is pretty much worrying for a DEV. Greyscale has replied several times to this thread, I'm sure he noticed our rage is about the "not being able to shoot back" bit, so I'm sure that he's smart enough to simply reply to it with a basic statement that they aren't thinking about that. But he hasn't.

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