EVE General Discussion

…and what mechanics are you referring to here?

…and nothing has changed in that respect. The morality of “good” and “bad” acts already exists and it is already up to players to mete out the punishment for most crimes. Neither of these will change with the new system.

…aside from it being ridiculously easy to exploit to screw over targets. The proposed idea already solves RR entirely: it makes it a horribly bad idea to do for everyone. Want to help? Bring something offensive and punish the sucker.

It would still be up to the players to punish the act. It just widens the range of players that can do so for a particular transgression.

That of suspect flagging leaving you open to be freely attacked by everybody whether you have done something to affect them or not. It is CCP punishing 'bad' behavior with this imbalance. rather than the player who you have agressed.



see above. It tips the fight way in the favor of the 'good' guy rather than it being on a level field where agression mechanics are the same for everyone. This is punishment of 'good' and 'bad' behavior that currently isn't present.

We have low-law space, and law-less space where this holds true.

Why should law-abiding space be a level playing field for criminals? The fights there *should* be tipped in the favor of the "good guy" imo.

(And this is from my perspective as a "criminal" that lives in lowsec and wanders all over hi and null as well)

Hell, if the system actually favors law-abiding hi-sec residents to turn vigilante, more of them might actually engage if they perceive a chance at victory. And all of you *know* you'll be able to play this to your advantage in some way.

Because if they were performing criminal actions, CONCORD would be taking care of it. Stealing from a can or other similar actions that earn someone a suspect flag aren't really criminal actions, as CONCORD doesn't step in. It just makes them a suspect. Being a vigilante and trying to do the job of CONCORD by engaging someone who hasn't done anything to necessitate CONCORD intervention should come with the risk of getting beat up by the shady individuals you picked a fight with in the first place.

That's not all that different to what we have now, when a whole heap of players can descend on you, even if you only affected one (or even none) of them. This is countered by the fact that you can trick them into being the same kind of free-for all target so it's just the stakes being raised on both sides.

Yes? The morality of good an bad still already exists and it's already up to players to mete out the punishment. None of what you said addresses or contradicts what I said and nothing about it all changes with the new system. Good and bad acts already exist as does the mechanical punishment for these acts — go check out the criminal flagging wiki page.

Nope, and that's not what's happening either. What's being punished is the attempt to use “neutrals” to help you engage a target.

It makes the rules consistent and clear without any odd special edge cases to be abused and twisted into logical pretzels. It provides a single simple rule: don't use neutral remote support. No classes of ships are being discouraged — it's one specific tactic (that pretty much everyone agrees is BS to begin with) that is being discouraged.

But with such a system, is there anything other than neutral logistics? Even if the logistics pilot is in your corporation, they're neutral to the suspect until they start repping their corp mate.

The entire class of ship IS being discouraged. There is no such thing as non-neutral support in high-sec with the proposed system. There's no such thing as support that a suspect can identify before engaging, as opposed to in-corp logistics during war-decs.

What is your opposition to having two different aggression flags - suspect and vigilante - and sorting their associated RR by giving them the same flag? That way, all of the suspects can shoot the RR, but random passerbys aren't encouraged to shoot at the logistics without retaliation.

CCP Greyscale's current proposition allows for random neutrals to shoot at logistics ships without the logistic pilot's friends being able to defend him. Some random pilot in a Falcon could jam out a vigilante's logistic ship just for fun, and the vigilante will never be able to protect his friend in the logi.

That, in fact, gives a huge advantage to suspects with Falcon alts, who can freely jam out a vigilante's support without expecting any retaliation of their own. With a two-flag system, the logi would become a vigilante, the Falcon would become a suspect, and all involved parties could fire on one another without wondering who is allowed to shoot who. The currently-proposed system does not make clearly defined rules, and makes more chains of "I can shoot your logi, but you can't shoot me, but you CAN shoot my friend, who can shoot you and your logi alt"

'Not much' downplays it alot. Anyone in system being able to indiscriminately dog-pile you is a vastly lopsided situation compared to only corp members. It would be a disproportionate response made possible by explicit game mechanics.



Yes, these new mechanics would. By saying you are flagged for stealing and flagging meaning you are opened up to the situation outlined above it is a punishment, as it is a massively one-sided advantage to the 'good guys'

Any more suicidal than being a suspect?

When it is easily done as a group activity with absolutely no risk, yes, they are keen on getting easy kills.