These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
#481 - 2012-03-23 22:40:30 UTC
Garmon wrote:

CCP Greyscale wrote:

That was twenty pages ago and we've already solved the problem, can we move on? Smile


How you must hate these forums Greyscale


Heh, his opinion of them is pretty low. I remember he wrote a long essay on how hard it is to maintain focus when under the massed attack of entire regions of the player base (such as *ALL* null sec residents). I want to say that was in one of the "Nerf 0.0" dev blog comments. Its worth a read, really.

Anyway, I'm more than happy to move on. I was just answering why people's feathers were ruffled and we have a 20 page thread this morning. :P

-Liang

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

Liang Nuren
No Salvation
#482 - 2012-03-23 22:42:31 UTC
Garmon wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Point taken, but at the same time it's very problematic to give people any clue as to which characters share the same account. This is something that will need further thought.


Its probably not worth the ~effort~ it would take to worry about accounts. It wouldn't matter either - even my small corp could reasonably come up with 20-30 -10 characters to repeatedly kill to keep our sec status up. Now imagine if Goonswarm wanted to do it.



Stupid question : Is it possible to get to -10 through suicide ganking with the new system?

I may have heard wrong, but I thought the only way possible is through killing capsules

Saying that, why would you bother going through so much effort to fix your security status?


Last time I ratted my sec status up from -10 it took me 3 weeks of ratting in 0.0 and I almost quit the game. That's why.

-Liang

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

Garmon
Gods Holy Light Bringing You're Penance
#483 - 2012-03-23 22:44:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Garmon
Liam Mirren wrote:


Yes as it's not classed as a "minor offense" you can go all the way down to -10 (at least that's what I've gotten from the fragmented "info" we have).


Thank you, personally, I think what Liang highlighted is the only issue regarding Crimewatch, but saying that, it is a crap load of effort, but it's something an alliance like goons could potentially do, perhaps it's worth considering having a correlation between ship hull cost + security status gain, I apologize if this has already been covered, didn't sleep and some things are not sitting in my mind
I like Duncan
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#484 - 2012-03-23 22:44:40 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Garmon wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Point taken, but at the same time it's very problematic to give people any clue as to which characters share the same account. This is something that will need further thought.


Its probably not worth the ~effort~ it would take to worry about accounts. It wouldn't matter either - even my small corp could reasonably come up with 20-30 -10 characters to repeatedly kill to keep our sec status up. Now imagine if Goonswarm wanted to do it.



Stupid question : Is it possible to get to -10 through suicide ganking with the new system?

I may have heard wrong, but I thought the only way possible is through killing capsules

Saying that, why would you bother going through so much effort to fix your security status?


Last time I ratted my sec status up from -10 it took me 3 weeks of ratting in 0.0 and I almost quit the game. That's why.

-Liang


Option to shoot criminals and/or buy/aquire certain officer tags to help with that process under the new proposals.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#485 - 2012-03-23 22:45:56 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:


Yes, as long as you promise to behave! I plan to get a blog post out with updates when I get home in a couple hours. Just say it one time for clarity:

"People who are flagged for PVP will be able to defend themselves without being Concorded. We will find a way to make this realistically happen."

-Liang


We're extremely keen to pin down a design where you'll always be able to defend yourself from aggression without getting CONCORDed. I'm not going to promise anything because I can't actually predict the future.

Garmon wrote:

Stupid question : Is it possible to get to -10 through suicide ganking with the new system?

I may have heard wrong, but I thought the only way possible is through killing capsules

Saying that, why would you bother going through so much effort to fix your security status?



Yup, things which get you a criminal flag can take you down to -10, which includes suicide ganking.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
#486 - 2012-03-23 22:46:29 UTC
Grumpy Owly wrote:

Option to shoot criminals and/or buy/aquire certain officer tags to help with that process under the new proposals.


Yes - I know. We are discussing ways to exploit it with alts (for example) ;-)

-Liang

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

Garmon
Gods Holy Light Bringing You're Penance
#487 - 2012-03-23 22:48:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Garmon
Liang Nuren wrote:


Last time I ratted my sec status up from -10 it took me 3 weeks of ratting in 0.0 and I almost quit the game. That's why.

-Liang


Disregard what I said, the only reason I mentioned it was because at the time I was under the impression you'd only be -10 if you kill capsules, and you can enter all highsec systems fine if above -5, so yea, didn't think sec status would matter much unless you're a pirate, I was wrong

PS. With the introduction of anomalies, I've actually found fixing my security status to be quite fun, don't have to warp to every single belt in a brain dead manner like before, always something to do, and the fights you get can be great because the locals would show up and try to camp you in, every mach fight in g9 was a result of me trying to fix my sec status

Edit : what the hell why am I failing at quoting so much god damn
I like Duncan
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
#488 - 2012-03-23 22:48:39 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:


Yes, as long as you promise to behave! I plan to get a blog post out with updates when I get home in a couple hours. Just say it one time for clarity:

"People who are flagged for PVP will be able to defend themselves without being Concorded. We will find a way to make this realistically happen."

-Liang


We're extremely keen to pin down a design where you'll always be able to defend yourself from aggression without getting CONCORDed. I'm not going to promise anything because I can't actually predict the future.

Garmon wrote:

Stupid question : Is it possible to get to -10 through suicide ganking with the new system?

I may have heard wrong, but I thought the only way possible is through killing capsules

Saying that, why would you bother going through so much effort to fix your security status?



Yup, things which get you a criminal flag can take you down to -10, which includes suicide ganking.


That's explicit enough for me. I still encourage you to adopt the "PVP flag or no PVP flag" approach, but I think we both agree that I'd be one of those vets roaming high sec trying to pick fights with entire systems at a time. People like me are probably the entire reason you aren't doing it. Heh. :)

-Liang

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

Liam Mirren
#489 - 2012-03-23 22:49:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Liam Mirren
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:


Yes, as long as you promise to behave! I plan to get a blog post out with updates when I get home in a couple hours. Just say it one time for clarity:

"People who are flagged for PVP will be able to defend themselves without being Concorded. We will find a way to make this realistically happen."

-Liang


We're extremely keen to pin down a design where you'll always be able to defend yourself from aggression without getting CONCORDed. I'm not going to promise anything because I can't actually predict the future.



OH NO YOU DIDN'T!

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

Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#490 - 2012-03-23 22:53:29 UTC
Stupid question:

My main source of entertainment in EVE is sitting outside popular stations (Jita 4:4, Amarr EFA, etc) and watching fights. After the fight, I take the loot of the loser, if there is one. Usually I don't dock unless its a great take (and after unloading in the station, I undock again even with the aggro timer), though that tends to end with me in a pod.

Of course, I also tend market orders, scam a little in local (trying to scam scammers is hard... maybe I'm too obvious), and generally chat.

My question, with the proposed changes, if I continued to do this, once I took from the wreck, would everyone on station be able to shoot me?



If this is the case... well... :(
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
#491 - 2012-03-23 22:54:55 UTC
Liam Mirren wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:


Yes, as long as you promise to behave! I plan to get a blog post out with updates when I get home in a couple hours. Just say it one time for clarity:

"People who are flagged for PVP will be able to defend themselves without being Concorded. We will find a way to make this realistically happen."

-Liang


We're extremely keen to pin down a design where you'll always be able to defend yourself from aggression without getting CONCORDed. I'm not going to promise anything because I can't actually predict the future.



OH NO YOU DIDN'T!


Lol Heh, all he said was that he couldn't promise to behave. Twisted

-Liang

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

Liam Mirren
#492 - 2012-03-23 22:55:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Liam Mirren
Corina Jarr wrote:
Stupid question:

My main source of entertainment in EVE is sitting outside popular stations (Jita 4:4, Amarr EFA, etc) and watching fights. After the fight, I take the loot of the loser, if there is one. Usually I don't dock unless its a great take (and after unloading in the station, I undock again even with the aggro timer), though that tends to end with me in a pod.

Of course, I also tend market orders, scam a little in local (trying to scam scammers is hard... maybe I'm too obvious), and generally chat.

My question, with the proposed changes, if I continued to do this, once I took from the wreck, would everyone on station be able to shoot me?



If this is the case... well... :(


Yup, and anyone shooting you would then also be flagged to everyone else.


Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE those changes, it'll make for hilarious slaughter fests but per usual (kinda like Malcanis' law) it won't be the defenders benefiting from this, it'll be the aggressor's game all that way, just on a much much larger scale, spreading like a virus. JUST because I thinkt it would be awesome doesn't mean I'm automatically for it, that would be hypocritical, you'd have mass whining on the forums about whole corporations having lost just about everything, just because some idiot in a rifter flipped a can.

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

Garmon
Gods Holy Light Bringing You're Penance
#493 - 2012-03-23 22:56:09 UTC
Corina Jarr wrote:
Stupid question:
My question, with the proposed changes, if I continued to do this, once I took from the wreck, would everyone on station be able to shoot me?



If this is the case... well... :(


Yes it does, looking at it from the perspective of the killer makes this perfectly fair though
I like Duncan
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#494 - 2012-03-23 22:59:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Grumpy Owly
Liang Nuren wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:

Option to shoot criminals and/or buy/aquire certain officer tags to help with that process under the new proposals.


Yes - I know. We are discussing ways to exploit it with alts (for example) ;-)

-Liang


Fair enough, with those proposals then your alts could buy/aquire officer tags for your pirate toon(s), perhaps that should be considered as an exploitable aspect. Blink

I understand the issues, question I suppose it like other professions how much the power of 1, 2, 3, 4 ...... is deemed beneficial to the criminal profession also. Market forces will help with the above of course, might even provide a pseudo index to criminal behaviour to some extent.

I think the proposal of reducing gains with direct associated links that don't reveal personal player links in a timeframe is a step in the right direction to remove some alt abuse when shooting criminals.

I do however like the idea above made by Garmon about gradiating security gains for shooting alts or other players to be linked with assest destruction as a result. It kind of removes some of the elements of exploitability similar to how BH system currently is exploitable. Interestingly those algorythmns could then be applied to other potential future features of course (hint, hint) so would be nice to see them developed. Such then at least if large alliances want to fund security restoration they can't do it on the cheap and will be attributable to real tangeable losses to benefit from.
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#495 - 2012-03-23 23:01:11 UTC
Ok then. I'm sure I'll adapt. Not afraid of dying... much.
Harotak
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#496 - 2012-03-23 23:38:33 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
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.


Given that it's trivially easy to get a suspect flag, the white hat "protection" of not being attackable by innocents is pretty easily voided, unfortunately.


Yes, but only if the people flagging themselves as suspects to kill white hats are willing to risk making themselves legal targets for all of eve. I think Steve has a great idea here.
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#497 - 2012-03-23 23:44:10 UTC
Greyscale:

You need to listen to this. Listen and understand, not just troll badly in other threads about this.

http://soundcloud.com/the_skunkworks/wardec-roundtable-clean

Star Wars: the Old Republic may not be EVE. But I'll take the sound of dual blaster-pistols over "NURVV CLAOKING NAOW!!!11oneone!!" any day of the week.

Ludi Burek
The Player Haters Corp
#498 - 2012-03-23 23:45:24 UTC
Most of these proposed changes appear good. Proper evaluation can't be made until we see what the war dec changes are going to be.


Couple of points where CCP needs to be careful:


The magical death ray. It better not have shorter response times than concord or be instant unless you want to make artillery the only viable suicide gank weapon. Yes, I did notice your post that there is "no plans" but I'd rather see a definite answer. "No plans" is open to, oops we have plans now Roll

And really, if you get shot you should be able to freely defend yourself. It boggles my mind that this is even up for discussion.


Finally, since you're trying to fix high sec pvp, how about you remove those NPC corps. Those a-holes live in a immunity bubble. And don't give me that "new players" spiel. Most of NPC corp are alts and career carebears. If you don't want to remove it, limit the character age so high skilled mission runners, miners, transport characters can't hide there. I was going to say RR alts, but you seem to be addressing that issue already Lol


When it comes to war decs, please consider that many botters and farmers hide in sub 10 man corps. These guys are impossible to nail down as they remake corps as soon as decced. Address this real issue.

Or at least severely tone down high sec pve rewards so I can stop raging at seeing these exploiters wander around in complete safety.
Cailais
The Red Pill Taker Group
Exxitium
#499 - 2012-03-23 23:51:01 UTC
Id like to throw an idea into the mix - its something like a reverse LP system but it might be interesting

The whole idea revolves around a specific type of dropped tag (probably should have a cool name like "Incriminating Data Core" or something but Im tired, so lets just refer to it as an IDC and be done with the name for now. Here is my proposed suggestion

[b]1. A positive sec player* destroys a neg (-5 or worse) criminal target. The criminal drops an IDC
2. A player destroys a Aggressor War Target (a member of the war declaring corp). The Aggressor drops and IDC.[/b


  • A number of IDCs can be traded (+ ISK) to an NPC to recover negative standin
  • A number of IDCs can be traded (+ ISK) to an NPC to negate/annul a War Dec
  • IDCs can be traded (market or by contract?) to other players

  • Yes this means you can buy off your negative standing
    Yes this means you can buy off a war dec. (or even fight your way to a point where you can do so

    Can this be gamed with alts? Yes certainly (pretty much anything can in EVE) - although applying a drop limit of IDCs per character (1 per 24hrs?) would reduce this somewhat

    Why allow them to be traded??!! The simple reason is rather than try and fight the predilection of players to 'game' their way out of war decs you simple place it under market forces

    Most importantly note that IDCs are only generated as a result of pvp > if a corp buys its way out of a war someone, somewhere has in fact gone pop

    In addition IDCs could be dropped from players cargo holds as challenges to initiate pvp (with the IDC being destroyed on pick up) > a dueling marker if you will in much the same fashion as cans are used now. This would free up cans to be initiators of genuine criminal theft

    Those are some pretty basic ideas at the moment, and I appreciate there are flaws in there that could be 'haxploited' but I think something like this might be workable

    C

    *average sec rating of the gang engaging the neg sec rated target
    Blind Navigator
    Science and Trade Institute
    Caldari State
    #500 - 2012-03-24 00:21:38 UTC
    CCP Greyscale wrote:


    Blind Navigator wrote:
    The system roughly sketched in the presentation will either be insanely complicated or will have massive loopholes.


    Example "Suspect Baiting"
    A can flips and becomes suspect.
    B-D shoot the suspect as he is flagged "anyone can shoot him"
    A1-A20 "neutral" logis warpin and keep A safe while he kills unsuspecting B-D.


    Example "Inherited Flipping"
    A1 flips a can of a mining fleet.
    B-G miners pop A1's Ibis.
    H orca loots the can after can flipper is popped. But can has been flipped so H becomes suspect.
    A2 warps cane on other account and has an easy go at the orca while B-G can only watch.


    "suspect-baiting" "inherited flipping" will cause more tears than current system

    Fixing such holes in the system will make it even harder for new playe and in the end easier for pirates.

    Not a bad thing imo but I dont think its what CCP is trying to accomplish.


    Suspect-baiting is the reason we're trying to avoid having to go down the road of giving people suspect flags for aggressing suspects. Inherited flipping is prevented by the safety system.





    Well not giving suspect flag to ppl shooting suspect doesnt solve problem with suspect baiting.
    Suspect starts shooting white knights and gets reps from logis. Logis might get suspect too but if you just bring enough of them the original suspect (A) can easily dispatch white knights.
    Unless you wont let suspect defend himself in which case the mechanic would be just plain bad. White knights (or whoever in game) cannot be alowed to pvp with 0 risk at all.