These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Arcueid Saber
Legio XCIX CA
#221 - 2012-07-16 17:10:04 UTC
We already get the big statement from CCP about null sec, what they intent it to be. With Incursion and Faction Warfare revamp, we get a blurred picture about low sec intention. So can we get a big statement about High sec and CCP intention for it?
Ohh Yeah
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
Sedition.
#222 - 2012-07-16 17:10:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Ohh Yeah
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:

The chilling effect on vigilantes would be almost instant. Say my crew puts out a can at a sniping location. I go suspect in a tanky ship and sit on a gate with our snipers just off grid and aligned to the can. When someone does finally engage me and gets the vigilante tag, those snipers can warp in, loot from the can, and start shooting any vigilante on the field immediately. If anything, it's the reverse of what you described: we'd have the ability to choose whether or not we go suspect, while the vigilante engaged one guy and suddenly found that he has 15 hostiles on grid. That's on par with joining an at-war corp while in space...which is against the rules for the very reason described above.

I do agree, though, that the system as we currently understand it is stupidly one-sided.


Problem is, the guy who shot at you also made the decision to shoot you. In practice it's no different than making bait wrecks on a gate and waiting for someone to steal so your corp can kill them. With a two-sided system, you would be taking a huge risk to become either a suspect OR a vigilante. Being a shady criminal type should be equally as dangerous as being a fringe justice dealer trying to do Concord's work. Ideally, you would have the option (along with the global safety switches that Greyscale mentioned) to enable a Vigilante or Suspect flag without doing anything first.

In the scenario you described, your friends wouldn't need to loot from a can to get their flag, they could just sit flagged in a safespot ready to go. There would also be icons similar to the current GCC skull that indicate any active suspects or vigilantes in the system. Sure, you gank a few people who shoot at you in your bait ship. But what stops another group of players from taking the bait, getting your snipers exposed, and then flagging 30 bombers they had sitting on grid and zonking you?

It's a system that supports both consensual and non-consensual PvP in both directions, and creates a new high-sec PvP dynamic. It also accommodates the current aggression system by sorting players who engage in certain actions with either a suspect or vigilante flag.

I'm not quite sure why CCP Greyscale and his team want the suspect flag to be something you want to AVOID at all costs. Why not give players the opportunity to roam high-sec together as shady individuals looking for a fight, and others the opportunity to band together and fight them head-to-head?
Commander Spurty
#223 - 2012-07-16 17:23:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Commander Spurty
Cor someone tried to tie wow mechanics to EVE.

So I have 2 accounts (who doesn't?) and this is how I would abuse your mechanic of vigilantes:

- I use my alt in a griffin to hand 'suspect flag' to my main ("He looted my can, pew pew rockets" or something).
- I get the ACTUAL target I always intended to kill to rep my griffin as my main takes a shot at my griffin
- Neutral repper has now repaired my griffin so I can now kill them with impunity (They were always my target)

Nuetral repper dies and I loot him *SMUG*

Dock up until flag expires.

That's what you asked for right?

Allowing that 'good Samaritan' to be blown up ?

Sounds an awful lot like EVE to me lol

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP
Eternal Error
Doomheim
#224 - 2012-07-16 17:36:42 UTC
Spurty wrote:
Cor someone tried to tie wow mechanics to EVE.

So I have 2 accounts (who doesn't?) and this is how I would abuse your mechanic of vigilantes:

- I use my alt in a griffin to hand 'suspect flag' to my main ("He looted my can, pew pew rockets" or something).
- I get the ACTUAL target I always intended to kill to rep my griffin as my main takes a shot at my griffin
- Neutral repper has now repaired my griffin so I can now kill them with impunity (They were always my target)

Nuetral repper dies and I loot him *SMUG*

Dock up until flag expires.

That's what you asked for right?

Allowing that 'good Samaritan' to be blown up ?

Sounds an awful lot like EVE to me lol

Any mechanic can be abused. This would at least allow there to be consequences for "vigilantes" whereas in the currently proposed system the end outcome is going to be gang **** (or running/docking) of the suspect 95% of the time with essentially zero risk to people shooting at him.
Ohh Yeah
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
Sedition.
#225 - 2012-07-16 17:47:43 UTC
Spurty wrote:
Cor someone tried to tie wow mechanics to EVE.

So I have 2 accounts (who doesn't?) and this is how I would abuse your mechanic of vigilantes:

- I use my alt in a griffin to hand 'suspect flag' to my main ("He looted my can, pew pew rockets" or something).
- I get the ACTUAL target I always intended to kill to rep my griffin as my main takes a shot at my griffin
- Neutral repper has now repaired my griffin so I can now kill them with impunity (They were always my target)

Nuetral repper dies and I loot him *SMUG*

Dock up until flag expires.

That's what you asked for right?

Allowing that 'good Samaritan' to be blown up ?

Sounds an awful lot like EVE to me lol


I think your plan stops at about the part where you trick a neutral into repping your Griffin alt. You can already get people killed by tricking them into repping your alt. Most people won't just RR you for no reason.
Chokichi Ozuwara
Perkone
Caldari State
#226 - 2012-07-16 18:01:53 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
You should talk to GM Homonia about teaching people that highsec is for PVE and if that anyone bothers you while you're missioning or mining you're entitled to have them banned. What we all really need is more carebears who think they are entitled to safety.

You need to simmer down a bit pint-size.

Tears will be shed and pants will need to be changed all round.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#227 - 2012-07-16 18:06:25 UTC
Arcueid Saber wrote:
We already get the big statement from CCP about null sec, what they intent it to be. With Incursion and Faction Warfare revamp, we get a blurred picture about low sec intention. So can we get a big statement about High sec and CCP intention for it?

CCPs intention for highsec is very obviously an almost completely PVE environment where PVP is just barely possible enough that they can still claim that EVE is a game with open PVP.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#228 - 2012-07-16 18:08:51 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
CCPs intention for highsec is very obviously an almost completely PVE environment where PVP is just barely possible enough that they can still claim that EVE is a game with open PVP.
…aside from the fact that they're not making PvP “barely possible” — it's just as possible as before (especially given your stance on safeties).
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#229 - 2012-07-16 18:09:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Lin-Young Borovskova
Richard Desturned wrote:
"if you rep something aggressed to another thing, the other thing should be able to shoot you"

Why do you disagree with this, Greyscale?


That was the initial idea that came up with the dev blog and I just jumped in because I believed it was good.
Now everything changes and neutral alts being invincible is really bad (I'm thinking about a nasty word right now but will avoid posting it)

This is completely awful, it's not pvp at all and has nothing to do with the fracking sandbox where choices have consequences.
Those naabs will have no consequence for their choice, great step forward for the worst in the sandbox with this single change...

brb
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#230 - 2012-07-16 18:15:21 UTC
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
Now everything changes and neutral alts being invincible is really bad (I'm thinking about a nasty word right now but will avoid posting it)
Good thing that they're not doing that, then, unless you want to be a whole lot more specific (and even then, according to Greyscale's last post, it will be completely untrue since not even the old exception will be in effect).
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#231 - 2012-07-16 18:35:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Gogela
CCP Greyscale wrote:
*snip*

We had a discussion this morning about the specific case of people RRing vigilantes. We're currently considering treating it like all other "neutral RR" situations under the new system, ie suspect-flagging you if you RR a vigilante, as this seems to iron out a lot of the wrinkles here and makes it more consistent with the rest of the design.

*snip*

This solves a lot of potential problems imho.

Vimsy Vortis wrote:
So greyscale's crimewatch isn't even a failure to move forward, it is a direct step backwards.

You can't go backwards from the current version of crimewatch. There's nothing to go "back" to... crimewatch is old as hell. What should be done to balance it though is since the risk level for living in empire is going down the rewards need to follow suit.

Signatures should be used responsibly...
Ohh Yeah
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
Sedition.
#232 - 2012-07-16 18:58:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Ohh Yeah
Gogela wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
*snip*

We had a discussion this morning about the specific case of people RRing vigilantes. We're currently considering treating it like all other "neutral RR" situations under the new system, ie suspect-flagging you if you RR a vigilante, as this seems to iron out a lot of the wrinkles here and makes it more consistent with the rest of the design.

*snip*

This solves a lot of potential problems imho.



But it doesn't. Explain to me how it makes sense that someone remote repairing a vigilante to help him fight crime should be flagged as a criminal and open to attack from all of EVE? It doesn't.

If you fight against or assist someone in their fight against suspects, all other suspects should be allowed to shoot you. Not all of EVE.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#233 - 2012-07-16 19:03:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Ohh Yeah wrote:
But it doesn't. Explain to me how it makes sense that someone remote repairing a vigilante to help him fight crime should be flagged as a criminal and open to attack from all of EVE? It doesn't.
Different issue.

“Making sense” is something completely different to “solve problems”. There are tons of things that don't make sense in EVE, but which are in place because it provides better and more consistent gameplay. In this case, it makes sense because it means all neutral support is treated equally: it's always a horribly bad idea. It makes sense because it allows people being attacked to always take out any support the attacker might bring.

If you want to fight criminals (including helping other crime fighters), just shoot the criminals…
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#234 - 2012-07-16 19:05:24 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Ok, so.

.....We want to be clear at the same time, though, that getting a suspect flag is a punishment for doing something "bad". As with the current system of killrights etc.... and while we're generally OK with people abusing some of the loopholes in the design and/or UI presentation to use such systems for unintended purposes, the design intent is for suspect flagging to be something that you want to avoid or at the very least treat as a drawback, not an opportunity. If you find yourself saying "but then if I get a suspect flag, I'm at a disadvantage!", you should consider that this is likely intentional. This is EVE: we permit you to do whatever you please, but we mandate negative consequences for some actions, to encourage a generally healthy player ecosystem.


Hi there CCP Greyscale. I'm trying to understand the game philosophy behind these changes, and i hope you can help me out.

My understanding of EvE when i first started playing, around 2007-08, was that CCP wanted a game where they were 'hands off' requiring players to enforce behavior themselves as much as possible. Essentially an equal playing field in terms of mechanics (the only failure i can see is remote reppers being able to dock, jump instantly). Not regulating moral behavior/gameplay in-game, unless it transgressed out of game acceptability guidelines (racisim, threats etc..). This seemed in keeping with a harsh, survival of the fittest MMO, as EvE was marketed. Where those who put the effort in, to understand the game and its workings, were rewarded at the expense of those who didn't. This is a wonderful concept as everyone who plays EvE has access to the same information and opportunities to learn. There is no bias for anyone.

Now this proposed change, to a system where CCP says that this moral behavior/gameplay is 'bad' or 'good' and then unbalances situations to aid one side ('the good guys') removes that equal playing field. Doing this panders to the lazy who didn't take the time to learn what EvE is like and how it works. It takes responsibility away from 'the good guys', who don't need to put the same effort in to excel. Shouldn't it be i want to avoid player x, not i want to avoid mechanic x?

As i mentioned above, everyone has access to the same information, and plays under the same rules. So if in this equal landscape one player can't provide consequences for another it is not a problem with the game. Please let me know what you see as the core game philosophy.

What sort of game does CCP want EvE to be?



Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#235 - 2012-07-16 19:12:22 UTC
Rara Yariza wrote:
Now this proposed change, to a system where CCP says that this moral behavior/gameplay is 'bad' or 'good' and then unbalances situations to aid one side ('the good guys') removes that equal playing field.
The “bad” and “good” morality is nothing new, so that's not a change, and with the idea mentioned in a later post — that all neutral support is treated equally — the imbalance is gone as well.
Arcueid Saber
Legio XCIX CA
#236 - 2012-07-16 19:18:24 UTC
To be clear, if a neutral RR a vigilante while he is fighting a suspect, the goodie 2 shoe will be flag as suspect also. According to the fanfest video, suspect can be shot at by anyone (go to 17:35 on that video). So, can we safe to say that the first suspect can turn around and fire at RR guy without any penalty?

Now, once the neutral RR turn suspect, he with a suspect tag can still repair the vigilante ship with no penalty like concorden. Is that correct?

A new neutral warps into grid, sees 2 suspects and 1 vigilante, and start shooting at RR suspect with no penalty because everyone can shoot at suspect. However the first suspect cannot shoot at the new neutral or else he will be killed by concord according to the dev post.

Thus, it is safer to use a jamming ship or dps ship to help out the vigilante. Do you treat jamming like RR activity?
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#237 - 2012-07-16 19:21:39 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Ok, so.

Here is the presentation from Fanfest, which you should watch if you're curious about this stuff and you haven't seen it already.

We had a discussion this morning about the specific case of people RRing vigilantes. We're currently considering treating it like all other "neutral RR" situations under the new system, ie suspect-flagging you if you RR a vigilante, as this seems to iron out a lot of the wrinkles here and makes it more consistent with the rest of the design.

We want to be clear at the same time, though, that getting a suspect flag is a punishment for doing something "bad". As with the current system of killrights etc, it's not intended as a tool that you can abuse to do further "bad" things with impunity, and while we're generally OK with people abusing some of the loopholes in the design and/or UI presentation to use such systems for unintended purposes, the design intent is for suspect flagging to be something that you want to avoid or at the very least treat as a drawback, not an opportunity. If you find yourself saying "but then if I get a suspect flag, I'm at a disadvantage!", you should consider that this is likely intentional. This is EVE: we permit you to do whatever you please, but we mandate negative consequences for some actions, to encourage a generally healthy 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.


The suspects vs. vigilantes team thing is a bad idea in terms of what hi-sec is supposed to be. It's a good gameplay gimmick and simplifies programming, but makes no sense in terms of law enforcement.

If I am defending my home from a burglar (or shooting at a guy who just stole from my jetcan), why should a nearby car-jacker (other suspect) be allowed to come shoot at me just because I'm now on the vigilante team for defending my property?

Kudos to Greyscale and team for dismissing that idea despite the insinuations that he's only looking for the easy programming way out.

Also, remote assistance of any kind absolutely must inherit whatever conditions their beneficiary is under. If you're going to let suspects shoot back at the "vigilante" in the first place, then you better let the suspect also shoot at the guy RR'ing the vigilante. Leave the criminal on his own as punishment for his crimes, and similarly criminalize anyone RR'ing him, but don't just let any other outside criminal come in and start shooting up the joint because just because there was a local dispute. Even Wild-West-style justice has it's limits.

My .02 isk.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#238 - 2012-07-16 19:23:11 UTC
Arcueid Saber wrote:
Thus, it is safer to use a jamming ship or dps ship to help out the vigilante. Do you treat jamming like RR activity?
Jamming is an offensive act against a hostile target, not a support act against a friendly target.

So yes, it would be safer to jam the original criminal — that would just make you another vigilante.
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#239 - 2012-07-16 19:27:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Rara Yariza
Tippia wrote:
Rara Yariza wrote:
Now this proposed change, to a system where CCP says that this moral behavior/gameplay is 'bad' or 'good' and then unbalances situations to aid one side ('the good guys') removes that equal playing field.
The “bad” and “good” morality is nothing new, so that's not a change, and with the idea mentioned in a later post — that all neutral support is treated equally — the imbalance is gone as well.


The inequality i was talking about is where you are put in an imbalanced situation by explicit mechanics rather than by the players. The morality is certainly new; mechanics at the moment punish actual destruction of another players ship or pod in highsec due to making the game workable not due to core philosophy. The morality of stealing isn't, as it is up to the players to punish, as it should be.
Ohh Yeah
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
Sedition.
#240 - 2012-07-16 19:28:01 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Rara Yariza wrote:
Now this proposed change, to a system where CCP says that this moral behavior/gameplay is 'bad' or 'good' and then unbalances situations to aid one side ('the good guys') removes that equal playing field.
The “bad” and “good” morality is nothing new, so that's not a change, and with the idea mentioned in a later post — that all neutral support is treated equally — the imbalance is gone as well.


Yeah but I guess what confuses is me is why all neutral support is treated exactly the same.

With a two-flag system, anyone who assists a vigilante becomes a vigilante, and anyone who assists a suspect becomes a suspect. That's a much more reasonable system that reduces confusion significantly.

In the current system, if I'm trying to fight "the bad guys", and I have a logistics ship repairing me (see: it could even be in my corp, not even neutral) they will become a suspect. Rather than just my aggressors being able to shoot my logistics, suddenly all of EVE can. Some nerd sitting 50km in his 1400mm Tornado can start volleying chunks out of my logistic's shields/armor all the while technically being in "the right" because he's shooting a suspect.

There is no considerable reason to not have a two-flag system with an aggression flag that is the opposite of SUSPECT. If you engage suspects, you become a Vigilante, and are flagged as such. Not only does this fix issues with neutral RR entirely, it also simplifies aggression maps during engagements.

In the aforementioned example - with a two-flag system - the player shooting the suspect would become a vigilante. The vigilante's neutral RR would also become a vigilante. At this point, both vigilantes can be shot by any suspects who may enable their flag and join the fight. The tornado who fired on the neutral RR (now a vigilante) will become flagged as a suspect. That leaves you with your original suspect and the Tornado pilot with suspect flags, and the original vigilante and his RR with vigilante flags. Now, other players may engage the two suspects and become vigilantes, or enable their suspect flag and start shooting the vigilantes. You have two CLEARLY DEFINED teams instead of a suspect who can shoot his aggressor, all of EVE who can shoot the aggressor's neutral RR, and only the neutral RR who can aggress the Tornado that shot it.