EVE General Discussion

You particularly quoted the suspect flag in your reward system example. In the case of war targets, sure, the wreck would be legitimately mine. Uh, see below.


They already don't have the right to that big pile of loot. I'd say about 95% of the time, I end up scooping the wrecks of my war targets. This is because I already had a very good reason to plan for securing the loot that my enemies leave behind. But you know something interesting? The suspect flag isn't going to prevent someone from taking the loot and docking. Nor is it going to prevent someone from using the align method to scoop it and warp before the server even processes their aggression status (it takes a second or two for a thief to become red, so you can't instantly tackle a thief even if you see wreck contents disappear with no one else around). So this war target wreck ownership thing doesn't really do a whole lot to guarantee me ownership of its contents. The only thing that will change is that they won't be able to remain on the field for longer than a few moments.

Minor reward, yes; jackpot, no. Can you name any other rewards, or is this the only one?

I only cared about the changes for low sec.

The high sec changes are sufficiently simplified. Anyone thinking that those professions are dead for can flipping clearly hasn't thought it through. All it really means is when you have a successful can flip, that the miner will go full Suspect to everyone for taking his ore back.

Which will be a lot better tears in the end, because taking your ore back will now be a lethal consequence. (Pending the information on the "Criminal switch" to turn on and off the ability to do crimes.)

The only thing this changes is that major trade hubs and locations are marginally safer from asshattery. And dead end quiet high sec systems are now more likely to be the homes of can flippers and naughty people.

Can PVP'ers get our own server without concord at all? This just isnt the same game anymore

In what way? You can still commit them and you can still make money form it. They have neither been made trivial nor unnecessary, and they most certainly aren't impossible.

We don't have a problem with the suspect flag affecting theft. We have a problem with the suspect flag practically making theft a useless tool for baiting people into pvp. That has been our argument from the very beginning. We never lamented for theft being more difficult per se.


Then you should ask these wardeccers whether or not they prefer this change at the expense of what the suspect flag takes away. I guarantee you that people will side with me on this. I welcome anyone who does wars to comment on this. It's like your friend tells you he's annoyed by someone and the next day you come over with a bloody axe and that person's head in your hands and "oh God I said I didn't like him I never said I wanted him to be brutally murdered Jesus **** what have you done" you get the idea.

We already have methods to deal with the competition. We don't need enemy wreck ownership. Especially since the only places that it would help us are around stations and sometimes gates, where the thief has a guaranteed chance of escaping anyway. In all of my time killing people in high-sec, I don't think I've even once thought "dang, wish those wrecks belonged to me too." I either got the loot, or it was stolen in such a manner that prevented retaliation.

You've basically just served a red herring.

People do that? Oh that sounds awesome... that should be allowed.

He never said "impossible." He said "pointless," which is more or less the case for small-scale efforts involving the crimes.

Will we still be able to suicide-gank haulers, for example? Sure. Will it still be profitable? Yeah. We'll just need to use sufficient numbers to prevent interference. So, the primary effect will be to encourage blobs. Sure, you can say that we won't need to use blobs, just like for example we don't need to use CNRs to grind level fours, but numbers will still be the single most important factor in the success of these operations.


I think the system we have right now is the best one. The addition of can-flagging was one of the best changes CCP implemented into the game. And now they're saying "sorry guys, it would be way too hard for us to code something like that."

Just like CONCORD billboards, right CCP?

Thats what people did before Orcas were invented.
Bait a mission runner into attacking, lock it down, then bring a Phoon out to the mission space with an alt.
Jump into the Phoon and crack the Mission runner.

Nothing abusive about it at all, because both ships remain in space, vulnerable to counterfire.

Otherwise, baiting is kind of pointless. A small ship is incapable of killing a CNR, while a larger ship cannot draw aggro.
Forcing the ninja to disengage for 60 seconds allows the mission runner to dock up at his leisure.

The carebear picked the fight, I don't see why he should be guaranteed a window of escape.... or why the ninja is artificially restricted from jumping into a ship with sufficient firepower to crack a Battleship tank.

I agree with B). Hiding a ship in mid combat was cheap. But this can be fixed without locking people into their ships, and preventing boarding.

Disagree with A). Grabbing another ship is not an abuse.
Just because a mission runner engages a ninja flying a Vigil doesn't mean the carebear is entitled to 'only' fight the ninja in a Vigil.

After all - the mission runner CHOSE to engage the ninja. And a Vigil doesn't have a prayer of cracking a BS tank.

Hiding the Vigil in an Orca is probably not really fair, but forcing the Vigil to stop scrambling the mission runner for 60 seconds before he can jump into a ship with enough firepower to break a BS? On top of all the prior Orca nerfs, new crimewatch suspect flag, AND the new AI?

I could live with Crimewatch if it cleaned up some of the code mess and simplified things.
But all this is 'make highsec radically more safe for carebears'.

I don't remember seeing people clamor for this, but looks like we got it. Makes me wish the DEVs continued to waste their time on Space Barbies.

I guess the bigger picture is this:
Whatever the other side-benefits of Crimewatch 2.0, in the end....

Highsec is now objectively and demonstratably safer.

Ganking is a larger pain in the ass, so less people will do it.
Baiting/canflipping is destroyed, so less people will do it.

Is this what people were clamoring for? Safer carebearing in highsec?

I would argue that highsec is already too safe AND too profitable. We see 90% of the population crammed there as it is. Why make the situation worse?