EVE General Discussion

The concept of doing bad is not new. Quit pretending it is.

It has always been bad to shoot someone in empire without cause.
It has always been bad to steal from another person in empire.

The degree of badness varies whether you're in hisec or lowsec.

They are adjusting the degree of badness for stealing in hisec, but not introducing a new concept.

Why? Because of their stated design that, "You should be pretty safe in hisec".

No. Stealing was always bad, as shown by the fact that doing so lets people kill you. This is nothing new.

Oh, and no. EVE is not fair at the moment. It was never intended to be fair either. It does not provide the same consequences for everyone. For minor crimes, it doesn't provide any consequences at all other than letting players mete out whatever punishment they deem fitting. For moderate crimes, it docks your standings. For severe crimes, the consequence is an automated loss of your ship.

CW2.0 changes none of those things.

i was using your logic, you lumped stealing in with going global. stealing isn't currently bad, letting someone shoot you isn't bad, it's just an aggression flag, as is obvious.

In the post of CCP Greyscale you quoted he says they are making the distinction that something is 'bad' and punishing you for it, saying if you feel at a disadvantage it is probably by design. This new mechanic is there to snuff out can-flippng, that is a big change to EvE, where the hapless victim as you call him is being protected by the game mechanics rather than himself. Your hapless victim is only hapless because of himself, which can be changed if he wishes. If he dies it isn't a fault with the current game but with himself. That is what CCP are changing by adding this imbalanced situation.




EvE is fair from a mechanics viewpoint, if a situation arises that is imbalanced it's down to player intiative, not CCP deliberately making it imbalanced. If you think CCP aren't doing that, re-read CCP Greyscales post where he says they are.

LOL, it is, as CCP are making it bad, re-read the post by CCP Greyscale. He says it is bad and you are being punished for it.


Edit: War kitten and Tippia, do you not think CCP Greyscale knows what he is talking about? My question is why are they making these changes that affect the core philosophy of EvE, as it was marketed, that players are responsible for themselves.

I must ask, do you actually play this game or is your main MMO Hello Kitty Online?

Apart from that, the whole "no personal aggression" and "we don't make them transitive" reeks of "we're unable to code it properly, it's too difficult to add such granularity so instead we'll keep it simple and state that we meant it that way". All you've done so far is very much against what EVE is and stood for. Quit your job and apply at Blizzard.

Then CCP should be honest - stop pretending that eve is an open world pvp game. But I guess CCP doesnt want to lose its street cred as a hardcore pvp game.

Good news. It still will be.

By that standard, the current mechanic isn't fair either.

Unfortunately - if you strip away the complexity of eve, you are left with the core eve game which is actually very boring and rudimentary - warp here, orbit that, press shoot, etc. . . For myself and i think for many others its the idea that you can learn more about the game then the other guy which gives you an advantage which keeps the game fresh as there is always more to learn. Hence ignorance has its place in the game -- in fact its an important component of game play and once everyone is on equal footing, I suspect that interest in the game will fast dwindle.

Maybe I'm just funny in the head, but I always thought a nice solution to the "can flipping problem" would be, rather than hacking away at the code like maniacs, to simply explain the mechanics clearly for the newbies. If they don't read it and die, tough *****.

That one pretty much hand-waves itself away through that sentence alone.

That said, the aggression timers still exist. I suppose it could be fixed by having the whole logi-suspect checking depend on who the assist-target is aggressed to: is the logi also at war with that aggressor? Y → no flag; N → suspect. After all, your scenarios go beyond just standard warfare. The same issue would arise from some numpty knowing that the griefdeccer corp is logged off for the night, so he takes on a mission and brings his NPC logi alt on for the ride… since he's at war, that MR-support alt would be flagged suspect and fun would be had by all…

It would mean that just repping someone who is at war to… someone… anyone… isn't what triggers the flag — it's repping someone who's in an active engagement against a WT that triggers it.

The safeties are, from what I understand, just the “do you want to do this stupid act Y/N?” pop-ups collated, expanded on, made more explicit, and shown through a more immediately available interface.

So instead of getting that popup the first time you try to rep a rat or steal or gank a Hulk and then having to dig through your “reset settings” page if you want to alter it at a later time, you just have a window full of “safety toggles”.

Eg. “Felonious actions: [   ] Do not perform [ ✓ ] Warn [   ] Perform without warning”