These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Gatosai
Death and Taxes Incorporated.
#81 - 2012-07-16 02:32:21 UTC
Drinoch wrote:
Cops and robbers...easy like faction warfare.

You make bounty hunters...We kill them alot

we get loyalty points and our bounties

We get LP and their frozen corpses

would be an interesting idea to have an npc corp you can sign on for to assit concord so that if u flag as a suspect these individuals that ally with concord can then take action insted of the entirity of local
Drinoch
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#82 - 2012-07-16 02:39:00 UTC
Gatosai wrote:
Drinoch wrote:
Cops and robbers...easy like faction warfare.

You make bounty hunters...We kill them alot

we get loyalty points and our bounties

We get LP and their frozen corpses

would be an interesting idea to have an npc corp you can sign on for to assit concord so that if u flag as a suspect these individuals that ally with concord can then take action insted of the entirity of local



I ment to say They get loyalty points and our bounties...my bad
Drinoch
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#83 - 2012-07-16 02:42:54 UTC
Oh and this does 2 things it actually gives the bounty system a purpose other then to give us a seperate bank account...And you

could even take it a step further and concord could control our bounties..

Everytime we kill one of their Deputies they raise our bounties
Ohh Yeah
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
Sedition.
#84 - 2012-07-16 02:46:47 UTC
Drinoch wrote:
Oh and this does 2 things it actually gives the bounty system a purpose other then to give us a seperate bank account...And you

could even take it a step further and concord could control our bounties..

Everytime we kill one of their Deputies they raise our bounties


Not ISK bounties - Concord LP bounties

Suspects who kill Vigilantes get pirate LP
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#85 - 2012-07-16 02:56:32 UTC
So pretty much... log in alts, get them into remote sensor boosting logis, and sit by a gate in Jita with your main collecting free suspect bacon in your invincible insta lock bs?

OK.

Signatures should be used responsibly...
Ohh Yeah
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
Sedition.
#86 - 2012-07-16 03:00:53 UTC
Gogela wrote:
So pretty much... log in alts, get them into remote sensor boosting logis, and sit by a gate in Jita with your main collecting free suspect bacon in your invincible insta lock bs?

OK.


You mean to tell me there's a risk associated with being a suspect?

And you also truly believe with a vigilante/suspect system that you would sit there camping for long before a group of suspects rolled up and zonked you?
mkint
#87 - 2012-07-16 03:59:16 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Tyrozan
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Jason Xado wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
First part of the rework shipped in Escalation, so no, not vaporware. That stage was all behind-the-scenes (as detailed in the presentation at Fanfest, which is on Youtube somewhere); the next step is to start implementing the redesign.

Also, the current design explicitly allows you to return fire in all cases Smile


Any chance we can get some details?

The original idea of the changes was to eliminate the need for aggression maps and keep everything simple. The only way for that to work would be if the suspect couldn't fire back. Otherwise you would have to keep up with an aggression map.

Details would be welcome :-)

Edit: Well another way to do it without maps would be if the suspect could fire at anyone, which although entertaining, would probobly not be the best way to go :-)


We allow one-time mappings but we don't make them transitive, ie if you're a suspect and someone shoots you then you can always fire back, but if that person has a third party repping them, you can't shoot the logi because we don't allow aggression transfer like that (for obvious reasons).

-snip-
Edit: Remove rumors. - ISD Tyrozan

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
Mors Sanctitatis
Death of Virtue
#88 - 2012-07-16 04:02:41 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:


We allow one-time mappings but we don't make them transitive, ie if you're a suspect and someone shoots you then you can always fire back, but if that person has a third party repping them, you can't shoot the logi because we don't allow aggression transfer like that (for obvious reasons).


This is precisely what is wrong with all the existing game design in the first place.

CCP's game designers allow a "get out of jail free card" for anyone who is contributing to the fight and not explicitly shooting someone. Including the ability to jump through gates and/or dock up. It needs to stop.

The game design team is purposefully protecting stupid players by limiting aggression propagation to only those who shoot someone. It is horrible game design, it's wrong, and you know it. If it takes someone fifty losses to figure out that you will lose your ship for remotely repping someone, so be it. But **** not being able to shoot someone because they're in Cambodia instead of Vietnam. The aggression mechanics should be as inclusive as possible, not as exclusive as possible. When in doubt, flag them as an aggressor.

It's so simple. Why are you making it complicated?


Intelligence shouldn't be free.   Mining, reloaded.   ADDICTED.

Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#89 - 2012-07-16 04:11:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Antisocial Malkavian
Simi Kusoni wrote:

Similarly currently there is almost never any point PvPing purely for profit, because almost everything expensive is moved via neutral alts. Neutral mining and the like is also just as bad, many corporations will essentially disband on a war coming in, only to rejoin ot afterward. In the meantime mining with no ill effect in NPC corps.


I find this extremely funny cause CCP says the (never enforced) griefing rules say that if you do it for a non-gain reason, its called griefing (but life I said, never enforced)

Vimsy Vortis wrote:

So you will be able to put an application in to a corporation, go and engage war targets and if you're losing have your application accepted and everyone shooting you will instantly be concorded without warning.

That would be ******* funny tho

Gatosai wrote:
Drinoch wrote:
Cops and robbers...easy like faction warfare.

You make bounty hunters...We kill them alot

we get loyalty points and our bounties

We get LP and their frozen corpses

would be an interesting idea to have an npc corp you can sign on for to assit concord so that if u flag as a suspect these individuals that ally with concord can then take action insted of the entirity of local


THAT would be some funny **** if someone like Goons took it over
Cops killing the cops to keep the suicide gankers ships' alive

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.

Pipa Porto
#90 - 2012-07-16 04:16:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:
Simi Kusoni wrote:

Similarly currently there is almost never any point PvPing purely for profit, because almost everything expensive is moved via neutral alts. Neutral mining and the like is also just as bad, many corporations will essentially disband on a war coming in, only to rejoin ot afterward. In the meantime mining with no ill effect in NPC corps.


I find this extremely funny cause CCP says the (never enforced) griefing rules say that if you do it for a non-gain reason, its called griefing (but life I said, never enforced)



That rule doesn't seem to exist anymore (if it ever did).

http://support.eveonline.com/Pages/KB/Article.aspx?id=336
http://community.eveonline.com/pnp/terms.asp

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Y'nit Gidrine
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#91 - 2012-07-16 04:22:43 UTC
Ohh Yeah wrote:
Simi Kusoni wrote:

That is quite an idealistic scenario.

But anyway, I think you misunderstood what I meant by "meaningful". I meant to kill for financial gain, for power or to hurt a rival. As opposed to fighting for the sake of fighting, so for example killing people to stop them doing exploration sites in your area would be for a purpose. But that's currently impossible in Eve, because war decs are massively limited and easily avoidable.

Similarly currently there is almost never any point PvPing purely for profit, because almost everything expensive is moved via neutral alts. Neutral mining and the like is also just as bad, many corporations will essentially disband on a war coming in, only to rejoin ot afterward. In the meantime mining with no ill effect in NPC corps.


Of course it was idealistic. A more realistic situation would have been

1. Someone flags themselves on the 4-4 undock with tons of neutral RR on standby
2. People aggress the suspect, he reps himself with 5 guardians who all get flagged as suspects
3. People use THEIR neutral RR and all become flagged as vigilantes
4. Stuff dies

But I think the meaningfulness of this form of PvP would be to encourage people to start fighting and understand PvP. There's no meaningfulness to high-sec war decs about 90% of the time, but players new to PvP do it so they can ease into fighting others. This gives these players an opportunity to learn how PvP works, and offers a simple no-individual-kill-right-timers solution to high-sec aggression.


Such a system would be incredibly abuseable.

Person A is mining into a can. Person B flips half of the can, and becomes a suspect. Person A then retaliates and shoots Person B and becomes a vigilante. Person C then warps into the belt and steals he rest of Person A's can, and thus also becomes a suspect. Person C can now shoot Person A even though Person A has done nothing to Person C.

And then you have confusing situations such as this:

Person A drops a can. Person B and Person C flip Person A's can and become suspects. Person C then proceeds to flip Person B's can. Is Person C a suspect, vigilante or both? Can he now attack everyone? Or perhaps he can attack no one?

Not to mention that the above system presumes that there are exactly two sides to a fight.
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#92 - 2012-07-16 04:26:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Antisocial Malkavian
mkint wrote:

Obvious reasons being Grayscale's known associates.


If they ever planned on enforcing that instaban for rumor thing this might be a bad comment lol

Mors Sanctitatis wrote:


The game design team is purposefully protecting stupid players


CONCORD purposefully protects criminals, whats your point lol

Try shooting an obvious ganker before he attacks.

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.

Pipa Porto
#93 - 2012-07-16 04:38:16 UTC
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:
mkint wrote:

Obvious reasons being Grayscale's known associates.


If they ever planned on enforcing that instaban for rumor thing this might be a bad comment lol

Mors Sanctitatis wrote:


The game design team is purposefully protecting stupid players


CONCORD purposefully protects criminals, whats your point lol

Try shooting an obvious ganker before he attacks.


CONCORD provides consequences for anyone shooting anyone who has yet to do something wrong. Innocent until actually guilty.

If people don't like that, they can move to where CONCORD isn't.

Besides that, how do you suggest Concord tell the difference between some newbie in a Catalyst warping to a belt to rat and a ganker in a catalyst warping to a belt to shoot Hulks?

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#94 - 2012-07-16 04:43:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Gogela
Ohh Yeah wrote:
Gogela wrote:
So pretty much... log in alts, get them into remote sensor boosting logis, and sit by a gate in Jita with your main collecting free suspect bacon in your invincible insta lock bs?

OK.


You mean to tell me there's a risk associated with being a suspect?

And you also truly believe with a vigilante/suspect system that you would sit there camping for long before a group of suspects rolled up and zonked you?


Who have you been fighting? LOL PL... ballsy fight w/ the Malice frigs today btw. Sorry about your flag ship (I'm not really sorry, watching it blow up was funny Lol)

*sigh* this is probably a troll but I'll bite. My logi reppers are going to be untouchable regardless. I could have 10 there. Officer fit... why not? They'll never have a flag. So now it's just me sitting on that gate. So let's say a guy jumps in w/ the flag and he looks good. An easy kill. Little do I know there's 10 of his buddies on the other side of the gate, right? Well... first of all I'll be able to tank them. I have a bunch of logis feeding me cap shield and armor. WTF do I care if he has friends? Second, we're taking Jita. How long will it be before a few other random bored pilots roll up to the gate and start sniping this fleet of suspects that are attacking me? The longer I sit there the more will come... not because they like me but just to test this or that fit on free meat... and I'll be sitting there a while. ...at lest until I run out of ammo.... at which point I can have an alt bring me more. I could do it all day.

I'm just saying it'll become a feature of high traffic gates. Huge empire gate camps will form. They will just hang out, hirr lemming bubble camp style... but in empire. Quote me on that.

Signatures should be used responsibly...
Powers Sa
#95 - 2012-07-16 04:46:58 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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".

I really dislike this post, but I'll get constructive criticism when I get off of work.

Do you like winning t2 frigs and dictors for Dirt Cheap?https://eveninggames.net/register/ref/dQddmNgyLhFBqNJk

Remeber: Gambling addiction is no laughing matter unless you've lost a vast space fortune on the internet.
Ohh Yeah
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
Sedition.
#96 - 2012-07-16 04:50:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Ohh Yeah
You're right. With the currently-proposed system, your logis will never be flagged - might as well officer fit them. The currently-proposed system is idiotic.

When you shoot at suspects, you should be flagged as a vigilante, and when you assist a vigilante, you should be flagged as a vigilante. So now you're sitting there with your 1 battleship and 10 logi, maybe some other vigilante friends. You honestly believe that there won't be corps or large groups of players who do nothing but flag as suspects and come zonk you on the gate? Maybe even make it a good fight?

But absolutely, as long as the logis never get flagged as per CCP Greyscale's flawless logic, you could 100% sit on the Perimeter gate with an instalocking tackler, a BS, and RR and blap dudes all day long.

Edit: I also like how you made a post and then went back and edited it afterwards to add insults about my alliance losing ships worth a fraction of their AT budget.
mkint
#97 - 2012-07-16 04:55:52 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Tyrozan
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:
mkint wrote:

Obvious reasons being Grayscale's known associates.


If they ever planned on enforcing that instaban for rumor thing this might be a bad comment lol


-snip-
Edited to remove rumor only. - ISD Tyrozan

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
Ohh Yeah
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
Sedition.
#98 - 2012-07-16 05:01:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Ohh Yeah
Y'nit Gidrine wrote:

Such a system would be incredibly abuseable.

Person A is mining into a can. Person B flips half of the can, and becomes a suspect. Person A then retaliates and shoots Person B and becomes a vigilante. Person C then warps into the belt and steals he rest of Person A's can, and thus also becomes a suspect. Person C can now shoot Person A even though Person A has done nothing to Person C.

And then you have confusing situations such as this:

Person A drops a can. Person B and Person C flip Person A's can and become suspects. Person C then proceeds to flip Person B's can. Is Person C a suspect, vigilante or both? Can he now attack everyone? Or perhaps he can attack no one?

Not to mention that the above system presumes that there are exactly two sides to a fight.



I'll address both concerns:

1. Engaging a suspect should carry the consequence of the suspect's friends possibly showing up and blapping you. This goes both ways, as the suspect - in the current design of Crimewatch as per CCP Greyscale - can now be shot by any player in EVE. The only amendment that a Vigilante/Suspect system makes is that those who engage suspects now run the risk of retaliation rather than being able to gang up on a single suspect without him being able to fight back with equal numbers. If you're going to allow suspects to be shot by all of EVE, then those who shoot suspects should be killable by all other suspects. Batman doesn't fight one super-villain without all of the other super-villains plotting against him at the same time.

2. Simple. Flipping the can of a neutral makes you a suspect. Stealing from a suspect (or any other hostile action) makes you a vigilante. If person B flips player A's can and become suspect, and player A steals from player B, he is performing a hostile action against a suspect, making him a Vigilante. Any action you perform against one 'faction' will automatically put you in the other, and any assistance will put you with them.

The system does presume that there are exactly two sides to a fight. If you're looking for more robust, multi-sided engagements, go to low-sec or 0.0. This is a polarized solution to reduce aggression confusion. The only difference between this and CCP Greyscale's current plan is that those who shoot suspects are vulnerable to attack by other suspects. His plan creates situations where 30 suspects could be in a gang, but if a hostile gang only shoots one of them, the other 29 can only sit and watch their friend die.
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#99 - 2012-07-16 05:06:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Antisocial Malkavian
Pipa Porto wrote:
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:
mkint wrote:

Obvious reasons being Grayscale's known associates.


If they ever planned on enforcing that instaban for rumor thing this might be a bad comment lol

Mors Sanctitatis wrote:


The game design team is purposefully protecting stupid players


CONCORD purposefully protects criminals, whats your point lol

Try shooting an obvious ganker before he attacks.


CONCORD provides consequences for anyone shooting anyone who has yet to do something wrong. Innocent until actually guilty.


Yeah cause the police totally wouldnt bother a known bank robber who is taking guns out of his car and walking into a bank

Real life comparisons work real well here lol

Pipa Porto wrote:


Besides that, how do you suggest Concord tell the difference between some newbie in a Catalyst warping to a belt to rat and a ganker in a catalyst warping to a belt to shoot Hulks?


remove CONCORD

Bet you werent expecting that...

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.

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#100 - 2012-07-16 05:19:29 UTC
Mors Sanctitatis wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:


We allow one-time mappings but we don't make them transitive, ie if you're a suspect and someone shoots you then you can always fire back, but if that person has a third party repping them, you can't shoot the logi because we don't allow aggression transfer like that (for obvious reasons).


This is precisely what is wrong with all the existing game design in the first place.

I'd like to point out for the billionth time that with the current game mechanics you will never be in a situation where you are shooting someone who is being assisted by logi and you can't shoot the logi. Once again because repetition helps people remember, it is currently the that logistics will always be flagged towards whoever is shooting at the person they are assisting.

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