These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Crimewatch: Is this just Vaporware or what?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#21 - 2012-06-20 13:04:10 UTC
One wonders what happens when 2 limited engagements bump into each other. Say A steals from B, they start fighting and friends join in on both sides. Now say separately X steals from Y, and Y shoots back, forming a second, separate limited engagement. On seeing this everyone in groups A and B decide X is a much juicer target and shoot him.

Are groups A and B added to side Y in the second limited engagement? Are they also still in their own limited engagement? Can they still be shooting each other? How many limited engagements can one player be in at once?

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Jett0
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#22 - 2012-06-20 13:10:18 UTC
I was wondering the same thing.

Will the new system be scalable beyond two parties?

Occasionally plays sober
Har Harrison
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2012-06-20 13:23:50 UTC
Rrama Ratamnim wrote:
Har Harrison wrote:
CCP Masterplan wrote:
Yes this is still being worked on. A lot of backend code went out in Escalation, there's some more in Inferno 1.0 and 1.1 (but this is mostly invisible stuff like GM tools, improved logging, optimisations etc) Current ETA of the major gameplay changes is winter release (but plans can change, and all that smallprint)
Tippia's summary above is a pretty good one regarding the flagging mechanics and the sorts of complexities we're working to solve. We discussed this a bit at the recent CSM summit, so there may or may not be some more details in the minutes when they are released.

Some of the ideas from Fan Fest seemed to have a number of issues such as a person not being able to engage back the way they do at the moment without being a target to everyone else (if memory serves, the notion they could not move was suggested).

Is there an updated proposal on how this would work?


Did you read tippias whole post above? It sorta fixes that issue please read as masterplan said thats basically where there at

What happens in a 3 way fight where people start repping both parties etc???

And yes I did read it. I would like to hear what CCP are planning vs a player proposal. Not saying it isn't a valid idea, just want to hear what CCP is saying they are going to do.
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#24 - 2012-06-20 13:52:05 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Gogela wrote:
Tippia wrote:
They probably got snagged on the whole “limited formal engagement” mechanism, which was kind of key to make the whole thing work without being ridiculously unfair and/or ensuring that a fight wouldn't spread like crazy to anyone who accidentally entered the same system as a criminal…

Got link?

Not really. It was part of the roundtable discussion that took place at fanfest, where we were throwing around ideas for how to make a (semi)legal fight not be completely one-sided.

As the actual presentation showed, the whole idea is to get rid off player-to-player flagging, but this causes the side problem that, if I make myself a legal target by stealing your stuff, I won't be a legal target to you (because that would require the p2p-flagging they want to remove) but rather to everyone… But without the connection between the two of us, there is no way for the system to say that you are also a legal target to me when you attack me. As a result, I can't legally fight back. Without p2p-flagging, there are only really two options: either I can't shoot back as a criminal (which makes all illegal acts a death sentence, even if CONCORD isn't triggered, and that's maybe a bit too harsh), or attacking a criminally flagged player will itself confer a criminal flagging (which means that it's near-suicidal to defend yourself against criminals, so no-one will do it and crime becomes far too easy). Now add in things like neutral reps and it becomes a complete mess.

So the alternative that was spit-balled around was something along the lines of a “limited engagement” — basically an enclosed context where two sides are defined, and everyone on one side can shoot everyone on the other side. To this, people can be added or removed dynamically and with less difficulty than the old system. A temporary, non-corp-based wardec if you like. Under such a system, I steal your stuff and get one of those “suspect” flags that CW2.0 introduces. When you attack me back, the game creates a limited engagement context for the two of us so we can start shooting at each other. If someone else comes along to start shooting at me (because I have that suspect flag), they get added to the engagement on your side, and now I can shoot them too (without the need to set up complex networks of player-to-player aggression flags). A log comes to your aid and reps you? Added to the engagement on your side — now a legal target for me. I get logi support of my own? It gets added to my side and thus becomes a legal target for everyone on your side (yes, this could be used to add more combat ships to my side by flying in a gank-BS fleet, each equipped with a small remote rep, but they're still aiding a suspect, which according to CW2.0 makes them suspects as well, and thus flag them as free-for-all targets, so that's a gamble on their part).

…or some such. The same system could be used to set up those formal duel contracts people are (occasionally) clamouring for: two parties agree to fight, and enter a ready-made limited engagement. Anyone who interferes with this engagement is flagged “suspect” and gets blown up by your seconds.

Regardless of the actual solution, the fundamental problem of CW2.0 was that position of not being able to defend yourself against attackers if you had a suspect flag, and that this limitation would put too large a damper on criminal activity that they still want to see.


quoting Tippia being reasonable and informative.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Tony Two Bullet
Monocle Madness
#25 - 2012-06-20 17:29:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Tony Two Bullet
I think breaking the idea down from "another way" would make more sense.

Instead of assigning flags to another player, you can assign it to a "Criminal object".

So, if a Can is what started the issue, then the can (even if destroyed), becomes what all flags are assigned into, and that keeps it simple. So, if a logistics repairs someone involved in the "can flip" they become assigned to the "can's" aggression list. Everyone who is on the can's aggression list can shoot at each other (even friendlies, like corpmates, allowing for backstabbing, etc.).

Just food for thought, this system can be pretty flexible, and still allow for a lot of what you want to do.

CEO  Monocle Madness ~ Mega-Insane Lotteries for the Mentally Unstable http://www.monoclemadness.com
Plaude Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2012-06-20 17:33:42 UTC
Gogela wrote:
Is it coming in winter or 2021?

Given how often CCP delay all the other things they say they'll add in new expansions, expecting Crimewatch to be out by Winter 2021 isn't a bad guess...Cool

Or did you mean Winter 2012?

New to EVE? Want to learn? The Crimson Cartel will train you in the fields of _**your **_choice. Mainly active in EU afternoons and evenings. Contact me for more info.
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#27 - 2012-06-20 18:56:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Gogela
Plaude Pollard wrote:
Gogela wrote:
Is it coming in winter or 2021?

Given how often CCP delay all the other things they say they'll add in new expansions, expecting Crimewatch to be out by Winter 2021 isn't a bad guess...Cool

Or did you mean Winter 2012?

2021 Blink Maybe we'll get a sealab for PI round about that time too... Big smile

Tippa's post is very informative, yes. I for one figured it was a big deal and really complicated, but now I think I appreciate just how complicated a little bit better. This will indeed be an interesting mechanic if it isn't done in half measures... though given what Tippa wrote I don't see how half measures will even be possible. Looks like if they want to do it at all CCP will be all in on this one. I'm looking forward to it. The wardecs are pretty awesome right now... so I have hope.

I also look forward to all the loopholes such a system may contain...

Signatures should be used responsibly...
Previous page12