These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Is CrimeWatch vaporware?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Grinder2210
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#181 - 2012-07-16 13:47:09 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
player ecosystem.

As to can-flipping in particular, this is something that we assume will become largely ineffective with the "safeties" system, which should hopefully lessen the usability issues which are at the root of this gimmick. People losing out because they made a bad decision is great. People losing out because they didn't fully understand the decision they were making is not ideal. We realize that, for people who've dedicated a portion of their careers to "hisec PvP" of this particular stripe, this will be disruptive to their play experience, but given that there are plenty of other forms of PvP available (many of which incidentally end up generating a much stronger net contribution to the game), we're confident that such players are more than capable of transitioning rapidly to other, more robustly-supported occupations.



Can Fliping by and large being the only way to ever gain agression on shiny ships missioning in high sec its just seem like your giveing a free pass these players
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#182 - 2012-07-16 13:47:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
So your saying that your eliminating one of the four pillars of empire pvp and are replacing it with what? Or are you saying that pvp in empire is simply not allowed outside of suciding and war decs?
I don't think he's saying either of those.
What pillar is being removed?

Grinder2210 wrote:
Can Fliping by and large being the only way to ever gain agression on shiny ships missioning in high sec its just seem like your giveing a free pass these players
You can still do it (if he's turned his safeties off… but that's no different than him just choosing not to take the bait), so the only difference is that, if he just shoots you rather than steal things back, he can have RR support and you cannot.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#183 - 2012-07-16 13:49:45 UTC
I can't believe a dev literally just said that PVP is bad and that players trying to do it should get punished.

That's ******* astonishing.
Vol Arm'OOO
Central Co-Prosperity Union
#184 - 2012-07-16 13:50:56 UTC
Tippia wrote:
[quote=Vol Arm'OOO]So your saying that your eliminating one of the four pillars of empire pvp and are replacing it with what? Or are you saying that pvp in empire is simply not allowed outside of suciding and war decs?
I don't think he's saying either of those.
What pillar is being removed?

There are only four ways of getting pvp in empire - can flipping, suiciding, ninja salvaging and war dec. He is saying that can flipping is being eliminated.

I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#185 - 2012-07-16 13:51:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
I can't believe a dev literally just said that PVP is bad and that players trying to do it should get punished.
Good thing that he didn't, then. Roll

Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
There are only four ways of getting pvp in empire - can flipping, suiciding, ninja salvaging and war dec. He is saying that can flipping is being eliminated.
No, he's not. You can still can flip. If the other guy doesn't take the bait, you just can't kill any logis that come to support him.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#186 - 2012-07-16 13:53:28 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
I can't believe a dev literally just said that PVP is bad and that players trying to do it should get punished.
Good thing that he didn't, then. Roll

Except for the part where that's exactly what he said.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#187 - 2012-07-16 13:55:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Except for the part where that's exactly what he said.
Please link and quote it in full.

He said that doing something that earns you a suspect flag — i.e. doing something that is a petty crime — means you get punished for this petty crime (that punishment being the suspect flag). This is no different than what we have right now where you get punished for doing petty crimes.

You need to learn what quotation marks mean.
Grinder2210
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#188 - 2012-07-16 13:58:49 UTC
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
Tippia wrote:
[quote=Vol Arm'OOO]So your saying that your eliminating one of the four pillars of empire pvp and are replacing it with what? Or are you saying that pvp in empire is simply not allowed outside of suciding and war decs?
I don't think he's saying either of those.
What pillar is being removed?

There are only four ways of getting pvp in empire - can flipping, suiciding, ninja salvaging and war dec. He is saying that can flipping is being eliminated.


pritty much Canfliping gone ninja salvaging still around but only if your trying to salvage wrecks for profit

Wardecs have allready been messed with in such a way there there not nearly as vilable in hs

Sucide ganks Still ok and with Tere 3 battle cruisers a lot easyer win for sucide ganking Lol
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#189 - 2012-07-16 13:59:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
I know you really get off on playing backseat dev at fanfest, but I didn't realize that they'd actually started paying you to support their clearly moronic game design decisions, or maybe you're just verbally fellating greyscale to try and get dev buddy points? Rather than repeating the party line at me why don't you try actually thinking about what that actually means for players.

It is punishment for initiating PVP in no uncertain terms.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#190 - 2012-07-16 14:02:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
It is punishment for initiating PVP in no uncertain terms.
…much like the current situation where you also get "punished" for doing "bad" things.

By the way…
Grinder2210 wrote:
pritty much Canfliping gone ninja salvaging still around but only if your trying to salvage wrecks for profit
…how do you presume to get PvP out of ninja salvaging? It triggers no flags so unless you're confusing it with standard theft, it's just a way to make (utterly braindead) targets trigger CONCORD and get themselves blown up. Since you never fire a shot, I don't really see how it qualifies.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#191 - 2012-07-16 14:05:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
Initiating PVP therefore is bad and you should be punished for doing it.

I'm not sure how you're confused about this. It is fundamentally an anti-PVP mechanic intended to punish people for engaging in PVP in highsec.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#192 - 2012-07-16 14:06:45 UTC
CCP Greyscale, thanks for pointing out that actions have consequences in this game.

However there is a case where the consequences almost vanish. If you suicide gank someone you lose your ship and a goodly chunk of sec status. To keep your sec status high you got to go do "community service" killing red plus signs. That is a big time sink and a real consequence. (Losing a cheap ship is of almost no consequence).

But what if you let your sec status go to -10? That is a big consequence in and of itself, but:

Once you are -10 the additional consequence for an additional gank is almost zero (loss of a cheap ship).

Its like the opposite of a three strikes law: Do sufficient crimes and the penalties go away.

What additional penalty could there be? Well, how about ganker pays out the insurance for the ship that he destroyed? And if your wallet goes negative, than you cannot board a ship other than a shuttle until its positive. (You could even say that the interest on our wallet balance goes to paying the ship crew, and with a negative balance, you are not contributing your share, so no crewed ship for you). This could apply to all suicide gankers, or just the ones with a real low sec status.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#193 - 2012-07-16 14:08:09 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Initiating PVP therefore is bad and you should be punished for doing it.
You really don't understand the meaning of quotation marks do you?

You already get “punished” for doing “bad” things. This does not mean that PvP is bad — it means that the mechanics are set up to differentiate between legal and illegal actions and that you will be flagged for doing the latter.

So no, he's not saying that PvP is bad. He's saying that committing criminal acts is “bad”, which is no different from the current situation.
Quaaid
Phoenix Foundry
#194 - 2012-07-16 14:16:46 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Having a global "vigilante" flag doesn't seem like a good option to us, because it allows you to then undock your thirty suspect-flagged associates and gank them, which is not the effect we're looking for here, and allowing transitive individual kill rights takes us back to square one.




So long as it works both ways and aggressors can have risk free logistical support as well, then it's all good. Something tells me that won't be the case though.l

Be very careful how you play with the scales, this game is riddled with the combat adverse but is not dominated by them.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#195 - 2012-07-16 14:20:31 UTC
Ok, look… I'll sketch out some scenarios and how I understand that they will play out with CW2.0. Greyscale, please correct me if I've misunderstood them.


1. Theft.
Thief is flagged suspect — anyone can attack him.
Any remote support to the thief will be flagged suspect — anyone can attack them as well.
Anyone attacking the thief becomes a legal target for the thief.
Anyone remote-supporting these attackers cannot be attacked by the thief.

2a. Failed canflip (i.e. target does not steal back the dropped can).
Exactly the same situation as scenario #1.

2b. Successful canflip (i.e. target steals from the flipped can).
Thief and target are both flagged suspect — anyone can attack them.
Any remote support to either the target or the thief will be flagged suspsect — anyone can attack them as well.
Anyone attacking the target or the thief becomes a legal target to whomever they attacked.
Anyone remote-supporting these attackers cannot be attacked by the target/thief.

3. Suicide gank
Ganker is flagged felon — anyone can attack him and CONCORD will come along shortly to mop up.
Any remote support to the ganker will be flagged felon — anyone can attack them as well (before CONCORD deals with them).
Anyone attacking the ganker becomes a legal target (good luck making use of it before CONCORD shows up).
Anyone supporting these attackers cannot be attacked by the ganker.

4. Wardec
Corp1-members and Corp2-members can attack each other freely without triggering any flags.
Any neutral remote support to an Corp1 or Corp2 will be flagged suspect — anyone can attack them.
Anyone remote-supporting the neutral support will be flagged suspect — anyone can attack them.
Any neutral attacking a Corp1 or Corp2 member will be flagged felon (assuming said member has not flagged himself felon or suspect in some other way) — anyone can attack them and CONCORD will be along to mop up.
Anyone supporting these neutral attackers will be flagged felons, with the same effect.


On top of this, any remote-support action will inherit the docking/jumping timers of the ship(s) they're supporting. They either have to stop their support and deaggress on their own, or the ships they're supporting have to deaggress, before the remote support ship can jump/dock up.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#196 - 2012-07-16 14:23:08 UTC
You can just go ahead and say that you think that highsec PVP shouldn't exist, nobody will begrudge you your opinion, but pretending that "if someone did something to you then you specifically are allowed to retaliate at your own risk" is the same as "If someone did something to you anyone in the game can retaliate against them with the odds artificially stacked in their favour" is dishonest.

It doesn't matter how many quotation marks you put around the word bad. If game design stacks the odds against people for doing something the thing that they are doing is being discoruaged, if something is just "bad" and not actually bad then the game mechanics shouldn't actively discourage it.
Vol Arm'OOO
Central Co-Prosperity Union
#197 - 2012-07-16 14:33:35 UTC
Grinder2210 wrote:
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
Tippia wrote:
[quote=Vol Arm'OOO]So your saying that your eliminating one of the four pillars of empire pvp and are replacing it with what? Or are you saying that pvp in empire is simply not allowed outside of suciding and war decs?
I don't think he's saying either of those.
What pillar is being removed?

There are only four ways of getting pvp in empire - can flipping, suiciding, ninja salvaging and war dec. He is saying that can flipping is being eliminated.


pritty much Canfliping gone ninja salvaging still around but only if your trying to salvage wrecks for profit

Wardecs have allready been messed with in such a way there there not nearly as vilable in hs

Sucide ganks Still ok and with Tere 3 battle cruisers a lot easyer win for sucide ganking Lol


Yea - this is exactly the way i see it. PVP in empire is gone - except for suicide ganks and consensual pvp in things like rvb. I wonder if CCP is going to change their marketing - come to eve we got safe zones and battle grounds just like wow?

I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#198 - 2012-07-16 14:34:28 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
pretending that "if someone did something to you then you specifically are allowed to retaliate at your own risk" is the same as "If someone did something to you anyone in the game can retaliate against them with the odds artificially stacked in their favour" is dishonest.
…except that you keep missing the point, and that the quotation marks bear meaning.

Doing something “bad” will get you “punished”. This holds true for both the old and the new system.

You are trying to blow this very simple statement way out of proportion by saying that, suddenly, CCP are telling us that PvP is bad. They're not — they're applying the exact same model of “Criminal Act → Criminal Flag” as the game has had for æons. They're just using “bad” and “punishment” to describe the two parts. The “bad things” and the “punishments” may change a bit, but so will the mechanics behind them and they will open up new fun ways of blowing people up (my list of scenarios above should provide you with a very obvious one).

In fact, if you want to cry about something, you've missed the really annoying change with the new system — the one that will actually make a difference for thieves and canflippers: the safety system.
Vol Arm'OOO
Central Co-Prosperity Union
#199 - 2012-07-16 14:41:31 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
I can't believe a dev literally just said that PVP is bad and that players trying to do it should get punished.
Good thing that he didn't, then. Roll

Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
There are only four ways of getting pvp in empire - can flipping, suiciding, ninja salvaging and war dec. He is saying that can flipping is being eliminated.
No, he's not. You can still can flip. If the other guy doesn't take the bait, you just can't kill any logis that come to support him.


You didnt read all of the dev statements above - they are imposing safeties on everybody that will make it impossible for you to flip a can unless you specifically disable the safeties. CCP has indicated that they expect that this will make can flipping non-viable. CCP has not indicated what they anticipate will replace can flipping as a source of pvp in empire - I suspect that they dont anticipate anything replacing can flipping - what they want is empire to be "safe" while pushing people to low/null. Of course such efforts to compel people into low/null have always failed in the past.

I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#200 - 2012-07-16 14:42:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
Tippia wrote:
In fact, if you want to cry about something, you've missed the really annoying change with the new system — the one that will actually make a difference for thieves and canflippers: the safety system.

Safeties in and of themselves will have virtually no effect on canflipping, although I can see how you'd think that if your entire understanding of canflipping came from reading wikis about it that were written by people whos entire understanding of canflipping came from wikis about it.

People virtually never steal back a flipped can, in practice you're more likely to see a hulk set its drones on a canflipper than actually try and take their ore back. When you canflip someone what you're actually trying to do is get the person you flipped or their corp members to shoot at you so the safeties are virtually a non-issue.

But hey you're clearly expounding outside your experience here so I can't really blame you.