These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#261 - 2012-07-16 20:52:16 UTC
Rara Yariza wrote:
That's a lot of 'ifs' though.
0 is not “a lot”.

Quote:
The fact that with these mechanics such an imbalanced situation could happen is enough.
Such an imbalanced situation could happen with the current mechanics as well.

Quote:
it is something new as it introduces the concept of 'good' and 'bad' guys
…which has been there all along — it's not new. Good guys and bad guys have existed ever since aggression and criminal flagging was introduced back in the early Triassic era.
Ohh Yeah
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
Sedition.
#262 - 2012-07-16 20:52:19 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Ohh Yeah wrote:
Tippia wrote:
It's ridiculously easy to exploit to the point of making it utterly and absolutely suicidal to be a vigilante, thus making the whole system pointless.
Any more suicidal than being a suspect?
Much.

Joining a PUG against a co-ordinated fleet is far more suicidal than being in a co-ordinated fleet put together to fight PUGs.


And you don't think there will be co-ordinated fleets of vigilantes?

There will be single suspects getting ganked by groups of vigilantes.

There will be single vigilantes getting ganked by groups of suspects.

Goes both ways. Makes interesting conflicts. Gets people interested in PvP, gets people ganked.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#263 - 2012-07-16 20:54:10 UTC
Ohh Yeah wrote:
And you don't think there will be co-ordinated fleets of vigilantes?
…which should be easy to avoid and still exploit the system.
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#264 - 2012-07-16 20:58:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Rara Yariza
Tippia wrote:
Rara Yariza wrote:
That's a lot of 'ifs' though.
0 is not “a lot”.

Quote:
The fact that with these mechanics such an imbalanced situation could happen is enough.
Such an imbalanced situation could happen with the current mechanics as well.

Quote:
it is something new as it introduces the concept of 'good' and 'bad' guys
…which has been there all along — it's not new. Good guys and bad guys have existed ever since aggression and criminal flagging was introduced back in the early Triassic era.


I think you are deliberately missing the point. There are a lot of ifs brought up by your reasoning. Saying someone might not shoot you is ignoring the fact that they have the opportunity to, and so the mechanics open up a lopsided advantage, It would be a vastly different situation than what is currently the case. The concept of 'good' or 'bad' is something new.
Ohh Yeah
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
Sedition.
#265 - 2012-07-16 20:59:14 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Ohh Yeah wrote:
And you don't think there will be co-ordinated fleets of vigilantes?
…which should be easy to avoid and still exploit the system.


And you don't think that co-ordinated fleets of suspects won't be easy to avoid?

You'll likely end up with groups who consider themselves suspects or vigilantes that roam around unflagged - under the radar if you will - and jump on people.

The same thing is going to happen without a two-flag system. People are going to hell-death-camp gates with instalocking tackle, completely unaggressed to any suspects, and only pick off the ones they can deal with.

A two-flag system only provides opportunities for suspects to fight back.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#266 - 2012-07-16 21:01:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Rara Yariza wrote:
Saying someone might not shoot you is ignoring the fact that they have the opportunity to, and so the mechanics open up a lopsided advantage, It would be a vastly different situation than what is currently the case.
…and you're missing the point that the same “if” exists right now.

Quote:
The concept of CCP calling can flipping being 'good' or 'bad' is something new.
…aside from it being having been “bad” for many years now, since it triggers a criminal flag and lets “good guys” come and shoot you.

Ohh Yeah wrote:
And you don't think that co-ordinated fleets of suspects won't be easy to avoid?
Not for the targets they're after. They're stupid enough as it is, and don't seem to get more clever with time. Blink

Quote:
A two-flag system only provides opportunities for suspects to fight back.
They will have that opportunity regardless.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#267 - 2012-07-16 21:01:34 UTC
Rara Yariza wrote:
The concept of 'good' or 'bad' is something new.

Considering standing loss consequences for certain actions leading to not being welcome in certain areas of space I'd say that yes, there is and has for some time been a concept of "good" and "bad" in the game.
Ohh Yeah
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
Sedition.
#268 - 2012-07-16 21:05:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Ohh Yeah
Tippia wrote:

Quote:
A two-flag system only provides opportunities for suspects to fight back.
They will have that opportunity regardless.


Yeah, if one person shoots you, you can shoot back.

If you have a group of 5-10 suspects, and another group of 5-10 vigilantes shoots you, none of your friends can help you out, since you're the only one with aggro.

That means to be successful as a suspect, it's gotta be one person in a DPS ship, and everyone else in logistics. Isn't that something you said should be discouraged? That will 100% be the outcome of crimewatch without a two-flag system. A single suspect with all of his friends in neutral RR meatgrinding those targets that don't "get more clever".
Dr Frust
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#269 - 2012-07-16 21:06:29 UTC
So far if I understood everything all the change does is remove content:

Stealing from a can for whatever reason will be nearly gone. Why? If you steal victim will call whole local for help unless it's stupid, victim will never engage which is the reason to do this(ex no more baiting miners & missioners, it would be suicide without profit).
The second reason is to steal for the items worth which will be much riskier than before because everyone will be able to shoot you(ex. less stealing from suiciders or fights).
The third is consentual pvp(1v1 cans) as you see it mostly at hubs (ex. mostly done for 1vs1s in highsec aswell as smaller more balanced fights which you can hardly find in low and null).

All of the above have currently good potential to escalate, this can be exciting for both sides (ex. Corpmates spanking ass, Logis join the fun etc.)

I have not seen the whole plan but the proposed changes seem to me to drastically reduce all of these activities. It seems to me that this is the wanted effect of the changes? Why? I get that for the code and servers efficiency and modifiability the current individual flag system needs to go and be replaced by something simple. But why target valid parts of the sandbox with such an overkill change? Why not try to preserve parts of EVEs holy grail: unexpected player interaction, we ultimately call it 'the sandbox'. It shouldn't be CCPs target to reduce sandbox content. And no you won't find these forms of potentially escalating 'carebear pvp' in low or null, its unique to high.

I'm thinking of the 2 trailers which made me join EVE: The Butterfly Effect & Causality.


I admit that because I don't know the big reasoning behind this I may actually not be aware of possible new content or improvements added with these changes. Just please be careful with this one CCP, theres still lots of time to engage constructive talk & draft, no need to rush while you revamp the code.
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#270 - 2012-07-16 21:08:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Rara Yariza
Tippia wrote:
and you're missing the point that the same “if” exists right now.


The difference between corp members and anyone in system is vastly different.


Quote:
…aside from it being having been “bad” for many years now, since it triggers a criminal flag and lets “good guys” come and shoot you.


it isn't bad, it is a mechanic that allows someone to attack people taking their stuff, which was implemented as those people losing their stuff wanted it. It's an aggression flag that is neither good nor bad.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#271 - 2012-07-16 21:09:42 UTC
Seems pretty clear to me I haven't understood at all what's all the fuss going on, but I think I can loose a bunch of griffins to test this out Lol

brb

Ohh Yeah
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
Sedition.
#272 - 2012-07-16 21:10:27 UTC
Dr Frust wrote:
So far if I understood everything all the change does is remove content:

Stealing from a can for whatever reason will be nearly gone. Why? If you steal victim will call whole local for help unless it's stupid, victim will never engage which is the reason to do this(ex no more baiting miners & missioners, it would be suicide without profit).
The second reason is to steal for the items worth which will be much riskier than before because everyone will be able to shoot you(ex. less stealing from suiciders or fights).


I can tell you right now that ninja-looters and mission runner baiters support a system where anyone can shoot them. If stealing something gives them aggro to everyone in the system, that's even better than only getting aggro on a single mission runner. People who are baiting miners and missioners WANT to get aggressed, and I'm sure can handle themselves.

Just more things for them to shoot.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#273 - 2012-07-16 21:15:37 UTC
Ohh Yeah wrote:
Yeah, if one person shoots you, you can shoot back.

If you have a group of 5-10 suspects, and another group of 5-10 vigilantes shoots you, none of your friends can help you out, since you're the only one with aggro.
…and this is surprisingly similar to the current system, where people seem to constantly groan about how the criminals have all the advantages.

Rara Yariza wrote:
The difference between corp members and anyone in system is vastly different.
Maybe. Maybe not. Again, it's a different dynamic with different balances.

Quote:
it isn't bad, it is a mechanic that allows someone to attack people taking their stuff, which was implemented as those people losing their stuff wanted it. It's an aggression flag that is neither good nor bad.
…it's an aggression flag just like the new one: it's your mechanical punishment for doing an illegal act. It's as good or bad under the new system as under the old one.
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#274 - 2012-07-16 21:28:02 UTC


Quote:
…it's an aggression flag just like the new one: it's your mechanical punishment for doing an illegal act. It's as good or bad under the new system as under the old one.


How can flipping works now is a simple aggression flag, that doesn't say it is 'good' or 'bad', with the new changes it wont be. The outcome of the mechanic is designed to create a massively disproportionate situation than exists now, because CCP are making the judgment that stealing is a 'bad' thing.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#275 - 2012-07-16 21:36:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Rara Yariza wrote:
How can flipping works now is a simple aggression flag,
Really? Wow. Imagine that.
How can flipping will work in CW2.0 is a simple aggression flag.

it won't be any more (or less) “good” or “bad” than the current aggression flag is. It will still be a criminal act that is being punished. There is no additional “morality” compared to the old system since it's the exact same thing: crime → flag. “Bad act” → hunted by “good guys”.

Theft has been a bad thing since roughly forever. That's why it has triggered a criminal flag for an equally long time.
Dr Frust
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#276 - 2012-07-16 21:36:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Dr Frust
Ohh Yeah wrote:

I can tell you right now that ninja-looters and mission runner baiters support a system where anyone can shoot them. If stealing something gives them aggro to everyone in the system, that's even better than only getting aggro on a single mission runner. People who are baiting miners and missioners WANT to get aggressed, and I'm sure can handle themselves.

Just more things for them to shoot.


I don't see how. I assume that neither a targeted miner nor a missioner will take the bait. I believe the looter will either not be engaged or hunted by a fleet of angry people through the system.The shiny ships will never engage unless stupid. The looter won't get support as repping him will get you flagged and if I understood correctly you can't dock and reship while flagged unless this idea was changed recently. Means you need to have a ship ready floating in space which is risky. Also commonly if you plan to bait someone you currently check if local has corpmembers of victim in it, if there are too many you don't bait, with the changes the amount of players who will potentially interfere is enormeous unless you find a lonely missioner.
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#277 - 2012-07-16 21:41:07 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Rara Yariza wrote:
How can flipping works now is a simple aggression flag,
Really? Wow. Imagine that.
How can flipping will work in CW2.0 is a simple aggression flag.

it won't be any more (or less) “good” or “bad” than the current aggression flag is. It will still be a criminal act that is being punished. There is no additional “morality” compared to the old system since it's the exact same thing: crime → flag. “Bad act” → hunted by “good guys”.

Theft has been a bad thing since roughly forever. That's why it has triggered a criminal flag for an equally long time.


No it hasn't been a bad thing, and it didn't have a flag at first. Only after players complained that people could steal from them and there was nothing they could do that it was implemented.

There is a new morality added that is saying you will be at a bigger disadvantage than another player if you steal. This judgment isn't present now.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#278 - 2012-07-16 21:43:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Rara Yariza wrote:
No it hasn't been a bad thing,
…aside from it triggering a criminal flag, which lets people punish you for your misdeeds. Same as in CW2.0.

Quote:
it didn't have a flag at first. Only after players complained that people could steal from them and there was nothing they could do that it was implemented.
Sure. But then the morality you're complaining about was implemented all those years ago — it's not something that is new with CW2.0. The thief is already at a disadvantage, by the way, so that's not a change in “morality” either.
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#279 - 2012-07-16 21:48:58 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Ok, so.

Here 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,.



Oh really.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#280 - 2012-07-16 21:54:53 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Rara Yariza wrote:
No it hasn't been a bad thing,
…aside from it triggering a criminal flag, which lets people punish you for your misdeeds. Same as in CW2.0.

Quote:
it didn't have a flag at first. Only after players complained that people could steal from them and there was nothing they could do that it was implemented.
Sure. But then the morality you're complaining about was implemented all those years ago — it's not something that is new with CW2.0. The thief is already at a disadvantage, by the way, so that's not a change in “morality” either.



It was never bad from the games point of view, and i never said that it was. I said it was up to the player to decide if that behavior was bad and the aggression flag a way for them to do something about it if they decided to. This new way is deciding a morality that someone who can flips is 'bad' and so is exposed to an imbalanced situation as punishment, as I've repeatedly explained. The imbalanced situation here being anyone in system can shoot you even if you haven't stolen from them (caused aggression)