These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jason Xado
Doomheim
#41 - 2012-07-16 00:57:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Jason Xado
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
It's nice to have a straight up admission that you are literally trying to discourage highsec PVP.


Can you explain exactly what you mean by "highsec PVP" in this context?


I'm a bit new here, but since noone else is answering your question I will chime in.

I believe what people are refering to as "highsec PVP" is the practive known as "can flipping" in which a player steals another players cargo and hopes they are ignorant in the rule mechancis and fire back so the "can flipper" can enact revenge and blow up the offending player.

I believe this to be different than old fashioned "ore thievery" in which the suspect is actually trying to get away with the ore and not nessessarily blow up the other player's ship.

I could be wrong, but I believe that is what is being refered to as "highsec PVP".
Jonas Xiamon
#42 - 2012-07-16 01:02:55 UTC
Jason Xado wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
It's nice to have a straight up admission that you are literally trying to discourage highsec PVP.


Can you explain exactly what you mean by "highsec PVP" in this context?


I'm a bit new here, but since noone else is answering your question I will chime in.

I believe what people are refering to as "highsec PVP" is the practive known as "can flipping" in which a player steals another players cargo and hopes they are ignorant in the rule mechancis and fire back so the "can flipper" can enact revenge and blow up the offending player.

I believe this to be different than old fashioned "ore thievery" in which the suspect is actually trying to get away with the ore and not nessessarily blow up the other player's ship.

I could be wrong, but I believe that is what is being refered to as "highsec PVP".


Pretty much, though not exclusively.

I usally write one of these and then change it a month later when I reread it and decide it sounds stupid.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#43 - 2012-07-16 01:16:46 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.

As to "invicible logis", in the current design yes, that is the case, but only in the scenario where you've already done something to become a suspect. There's a point at which we have to say "look, you've done something 'illegal', this fight isn't going to be fair, sorry" if we want to avoid the complexity of the current system.

With the things that will get you into this state in the first place (such as neutrals repping war targets), we're deliberately giving you the ability to do the "bad thing" and take a hit for it rather than simply mechanically banning it, because that's the way we like to do things round here. There does however come a point where we're bending so far over backwards to make the consequences of doing the "bad thing" fair that we have to either stand up or fall over, and in these cases we're currently leaning towards saying "if you don't enjoy it, maybe you should consider not getting into that situation so often in the first place".


so. if you bring a cloaked logi into a lvl4 mission you are basically immune against ninja salvagers. If they become suspect you shoot them. If they come back with a pvp ship you decloak the invincible logistic ship. Or did i miss something?

(i don't say thats good or bad, just try to understand the new system)

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#44 - 2012-07-16 01:16:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Antisocial Malkavian
Vimsy Vortis wrote:


It wouldn't really be a huge issue if it was just going to be the case that everyone can shoot you, but you can shoot back just like normal and if you bring logi they can shoot your logi, but if they bring logi you can shoot it too


Why the hell arent we doing this? This sounds great

Like an ever expanding mini war

That sounds like itd be fun... cause you could recruit military types into it... you know, warriors for hire... oh crap theres a word for them...

And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit.

Ohh Yeah
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
Sedition.
#45 - 2012-07-16 01:18:00 UTC
Bienator II wrote:

(i don't say thats good or bad, just try to understand the new system)


That's bad
Ohh Yeah
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
Sedition.
#46 - 2012-07-16 01:20:30 UTC
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:


It wouldn't really be a huge issue if it was just going to be the case that everyone can shoot you, but you can shoot back just like normal and if you bring logi they can shoot your logi, but if they bring logi you can shoot it too


Why the hell arent we doing this? This sounds great

Like an ever expanding mini war

That sounds like itd be fun... cause you could recruit military types into it... you know, warriors for hire... oh crap theres a word for them...


Hi just make suspects and vigilantes. If you assist either, you are flagged that way. No need for checking individual aggro between players. Any suspect can shoot any vigilante. No individual kill rights at all. SUPER. *******. SIMPLE.
Grinder2210
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#47 - 2012-07-16 01:21:11 UTC
[/quote]

I'm a bit new here, but since noone else is answering your question I will chime in.

I believe what people are refering to as "highsec PVP" is the practive known as "can flipping" in which a player steals another players cargo and hopes they are ignorant in the rule mechancis and fire back so the "can flipper" can enact revenge and blow up the offending player.

I believe this to be different than old fashioned "ore thievery" in which the suspect is actually trying to get away with the ore and not nessessarily blow up the other player's ship.

I could be wrong, but I believe that is what is being refered to as "highsec PVP".[/quote]


There are 4 types of pvp in highsec as i currently stands

1 wardecs
2 sucide ganking
3 Can baiting / fliping
4 Corp pvp
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#48 - 2012-07-16 01:21:59 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
It's nice to have a straight up admission that you are literally trying to discourage highsec PVP.


Can you explain exactly what you mean by "highsec PVP" in this context?

I am guessing that Vimsy is concerned that you are artificially stacking fights against those that gain a suspect flag, probably resulting in no one ever voluntarily gaining a suspect flag in a real ship. I say real, because im sure people will still ninja loot in t1 frigates and whatnot.

This wouldn't be such a bad thing if wars were a viable alternate source of PvP, but in their current state they are a bit of a joke. Almost everything in high sec can be done via NPC alts with no detrimental effect, and war dec evasion via corp hopping is trivial.

On top of that you're also finally deciding to give the miners ships that can't be suicide ganked, whilst screwing up can flipping and still not doing anything to discourage NPC corp mining/hauling etc.

Oh, and still no logi adopting aggression timers? I thought that was supposed to be coming aaaaaages ago?

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#49 - 2012-07-16 01:22:14 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.

As to "invicible logis", in the current design yes, that is the case, but only in the scenario where you've already done something to become a suspect. There's a point at which we have to say "look, you've done something 'illegal', this fight isn't going to be fair, sorry" if we want to avoid the complexity of the current system.

With the things that will get you into this state in the first place (such as neutrals repping war targets), we're deliberately giving you the ability to do the "bad thing" and take a hit for it rather than simply mechanically banning it, because that's the way we like to do things round here. There does however come a point where we're bending so far over backwards to make the consequences of doing the "bad thing" fair that we have to either stand up or fall over, and in these cases we're currently leaning towards saying "if you don't enjoy it, maybe you should consider not getting into that situation so often in the first place".


Id like to see it where the neutral repper becomes free to kill for involving themself in the fight LIKE IN EVERY OTHER MMO

(that I know of anyways)

Take WoW (ugh first thing I thought of off the top of my head) you see a fight (on a non PVP server and/or in your faction held area - then again this is several tears ago, may be different now), youre a healer, the guy getting his ass handed to him is a friend, so you start throwing heals on him. THAT PVP FLAGS YOU

It SHOULD here too.

Given the cold, harsh universe idea lol

Or would that make it too "fair"?

And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit.

Jason Xado
Doomheim
#50 - 2012-07-16 01:24:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Jason Xado
Grinder2210 wrote:

There are 4 types of pvp in highsec as i currently stands

1 wardecs
2 sucide ganking
3 Can baiting / fliping
4 Corp pvp


That is my understanding. And since the suspect flag only applies to option number 3 then I would assume that it the "highsec PVP" that is being refered to.
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#51 - 2012-07-16 01:25:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Antisocial Malkavian
Jason Xado wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
It's nice to have a straight up admission that you are literally trying to discourage highsec PVP.


Can you explain exactly what you mean by "highsec PVP" in this context?


I'm a bit new here, but since noone else is answering your question I will chime in.

I believe what people are refering to as "highsec PVP" is the practive known as "can flipping" in which a player steals another players cargo and hopes they are ignorant in the rule mechancis and fire back so the "can flipper" can enact revenge and blow up the offending player.

I believe this to be different than old fashioned "ore thievery" in which the suspect is actually trying to get away with the ore and not nessessarily blow up the other player's ship.

I could be wrong, but I believe that is what is being refered to as "highsec PVP".


Yes, and when you try to discourage this, it makes you evil, but it also promotes consequences for the ppl that do it (something that doesnt really exist now) and all this screaming about how THEY CANT DO THAT and ITLL KILL HIGHSEC PVP is funny when these are the same ppl who scream that EVE is a harsh game and EVE isnt fair and how there should be consequences for you actions and I fing that just ******* funny

Jason Xado wrote:
Grinder2210 wrote:

There are 4 types of pvp in highsec as i currently stands

1 wardecs
2 sucide ganking
3 Can baiting / fliping
4 Corp pvp


That is my understanding. And since the suspect flag only appies to option number 3 then I would assume that it the "highsec PVP" that is being refered to.


As Ive SEEN devs say in blogs/posts that EVERYTHING IN THIS GAME is PVP
But I think its damn funny
DAMN FUNNY
That the players try to argue that they know more about the direction of the game than the ppl developing the game lol
(its already been proven the players know how to GAME the rules better lol)

And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit.

Grinder2210
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#52 - 2012-07-16 01:25:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Grinder2210
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:
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.

As to "invicible logis", in the current design yes, that is the case, but only in the scenario where you've already done something to become a suspect. There's a point at which we have to say "look, you've done something 'illegal', this fight isn't going to be fair, sorry" if we want to avoid the complexity of the current system.

With the things that will get you into this state in the first place (such as neutrals repping war targets), we're deliberately giving you the ability to do the "bad thing" and take a hit for it rather than simply mechanically banning it, because that's the way we like to do things round here. There does however come a point where we're bending so far over backwards to make the consequences of doing the "bad thing" fair that we have to either stand up or fall over, and in these cases we're currently leaning towards saying "if you don't enjoy it, maybe you should consider not getting into that situation so often in the first place".


Id like to see it where the neutral repper becomes free to kill for involving themself in the fight LIKE IN EVERY OTHER MMO

(that I know of anyways)

Take WoW (ugh first thing I thought of off the top of my head) you see a fight (on a non PVP server and/or in your faction held area - then again this is several tears ago, may be different now), youre a healer, the guy getting his ass handed to him is a friend, so you start throwing heals on him. THAT PVP FLAGS YOU

It SHOULD here too.

Given the cold, harsh universe idea lol

Or would that make it too "fair"?


it is here logi currently gains any and all agression applyed to the person he / she is repping
Pipa Porto
#53 - 2012-07-16 01:27:59 UTC
Grinder2210 wrote:
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:
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.

As to "invicible logis", in the current design yes, that is the case, but only in the scenario where you've already done something to become a suspect. There's a point at which we have to say "look, you've done something 'illegal', this fight isn't going to be fair, sorry" if we want to avoid the complexity of the current system.

With the things that will get you into this state in the first place (such as neutrals repping war targets), we're deliberately giving you the ability to do the "bad thing" and take a hit for it rather than simply mechanically banning it, because that's the way we like to do things round here. There does however come a point where we're bending so far over backwards to make the consequences of doing the "bad thing" fair that we have to either stand up or fall over, and in these cases we're currently leaning towards saying "if you don't enjoy it, maybe you should consider not getting into that situation so often in the first place".


Id like to see it where the neutral repper becomes free to kill for involving themself in the fight LIKE IN EVERY OTHER MMO

(that I know of anyways)

Take WoW (ugh first thing I thought of off the top of my head) you see a fight (on a non PVP server and/or in your faction held area - then again this is several tears ago, may be different now), youre a healer, the guy getting his ass handed to him is a friend, so you start throwing heals on him. THAT PVP FLAGS YOU

It SHOULD here too.

Given the cold, harsh universe idea lol

Or would that make it too "fair"?


it is here logi currently gains any and all agression applyed to the person her / she is repping


Read CCP Greyscale's post, right up there. Where it says they're currently planning to change that, creating invincible logis.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Grinder2210
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#54 - 2012-07-16 01:27:59 UTC
Grinder2210 wrote:
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:
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.

As to "invicible logis", in the current design yes, that is the case, but only in the scenario where you've already done something to become a suspect. There's a point at which we have to say "look, you've done something 'illegal', this fight isn't going to be fair, sorry" if we want to avoid the complexity of the current system.

With the things that will get you into this state in the first place (such as neutrals repping war targets), we're deliberately giving you the ability to do the "bad thing" and take a hit for it rather than simply mechanically banning it, because that's the way we like to do things round here. There does however come a point where we're bending so far over backwards to make the consequences of doing the "bad thing" fair that we have to either stand up or fall over, and in these cases we're currently leaning towards saying "if you don't enjoy it, maybe you should consider not getting into that situation so often in the first place".


Id like to see it where the neutral repper becomes free to kill for involving themself in the fight LIKE IN EVERY OTHER MMO

(that I know of anyways)

Take WoW (ugh first thing I thought of off the top of my head) you see a fight (on a non PVP server and/or in your faction held area - then again this is several tears ago, may be different now), youre a healer, the guy getting his ass handed to him is a friend, so you start throwing heals on him. THAT PVP FLAGS YOU

It SHOULD here too.

Given the cold, harsh universe idea lol

Or would that make it too "fair"?


it is here logi currently gains any and all agression applyed to the person he / she is repping
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#55 - 2012-07-16 01:31:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Richard Desturned
"if you rep something aggressed to another thing, the other thing should be able to shoot you"

Why do you disagree with this, Greyscale?

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#56 - 2012-07-16 01:32:42 UTC
Jason Xado wrote:
Grinder2210 wrote:

There are 4 types of pvp in highsec as i currently stands

1 wardecs
2 sucide ganking
3 Can baiting / fliping
4 Corp pvp


That is my understanding. And since the suspect flag only applies to option number 3 then I would assume that it the "highsec PVP" that is being refered to.

Grinder also missed ninja salvaging as well as intentionally putting out "fight" cans to cause engagements of varying scales. Can flipping, remote repping for aggro, can baiting and "fight" cans can all be put under the general label of "Intentionally gaining an aggression countdown so that an individual or members of a corporation or alliance can shoot you".
Gatosai
Death and Taxes Incorporated.
#57 - 2012-07-16 01:33:44 UTC
Am i the only one here that sees this as a direct attack to what people love about this game in the first place? That the players words count and that our opinions matter? Just seems to me that this is one really intricate game of Russian roulette with eve online looking down the barrel. you kill highsec pvp you kill yet another role to play in this game and thus in turn you kill a community of players love for the game. I’m not trying to point my finger at anyone and question their intelligence but really this doesn’t seem like a bad idea to ccp?
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#58 - 2012-07-16 01:40:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Antisocial Malkavian
Grinder2210 wrote:


it is here logi currently gains any and all agression applyed to the person he / she is repping


yes, read the thread tho; CCP dude is saying this is changing

The quote I QUOTED that YOU QUOTED when you included what I said said as much

Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Jason Xado wrote:
Grinder2210 wrote:

There are 4 types of pvp in highsec as i currently stands

1 wardecs
2 sucide ganking
3 Can baiting / fliping
4 Corp pvp


That is my understanding. And since the suspect flag only applies to option number 3 then I would assume that it the "highsec PVP" that is being refered to.

Grinder also missed ninja salvaging as well as intentionally putting out "fight" cans to cause engagements of varying scales. Can flipping, remote repping for aggro, can baiting and "fight" cans can all be put under the general label of "Intentionally gaining an aggression countdown so that an individual or members of a corporation or alliance can shoot you".


He also missed/is ignoring (by re-posting his own quote) that CCP Greyscale is saying this WONT be the case when they institute this. YES GRINDER, tyhis is how it is NOW but it WONT be and thats kinda what we're getting at here

And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit.

EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#59 - 2012-07-16 01:40:47 UTC
I for one endorse this meta griefing of highsec griefers
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#60 - 2012-07-16 01:45:42 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:

Grinder also missed ninja salvaging as well as intentionally putting out "fight" cans to cause engagements of varying scales. Can flipping, remote repping for aggro, can baiting and "fight" cans can all be put under the general label of "Intentionally gaining an aggression countdown so that an individual or members of a corporation or alliance can shoot you".


Funniest thing I ever had happen to me was missioning, a ninja salvager came in, started his thing. This was a mission called "pot meet kettle" where you shoot mines that spawn rogue drones (but where it also does damage apparently to everyone/everything in the pocket).

He jumped in, I blew up like 4 to 6 mines and killed his ship, he warped out, came back in a Tengu, fired on me and got CONCORDED then started bitching in local about how I fired on him and was a cheating hacker.

And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit.