These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Introducing the new and improved Crimewatch

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kano Takada
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#521 - 2012-10-04 23:16:08 UTC
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:
CCP Masterplan wrote:

This is not just oddly intentional, it is very intentional. If we didn't want to penalise T3 death, we simply wouldn't have the skillpoint-loss mechanic in the first place


I really don't get why losing an 800mil ship is not enough of a penalization.

Also, what is the point of ejecting if you can't do it when there is an emergency. Isn't that what an "escape pod" is for?

Perhaps you should just make T3s not have this penalty, their cost is already huge, losing them is already penalty enough when you pop.



Ahahahahaha

If you cant afford to lose it then dont fly it.

And escape pod is to save your 'clone' not your skillpoints, which at max is like a 4day train.TwistedTwisted
WickedBlade
Bringing Solo Back
#522 - 2012-10-04 23:34:19 UTC
CCP Masterplan wrote:
T RAYRAY wrote:
Regarding the eject discussion, please ensure that it is only the Weapon flag that prevents eject. If the PVP flag prevents eject it will be used the grief people caught at belts by perma-pointing a ship until downtime, the pointed pilot could not eject but would be bound to the ship even while logged off until DT kicks off the tackler.

Confirming that ONLY the Weapon flag will impose restrictions on ejecting.


I like everything in this blog except the changes to ejecting. There are more reasons to eject then just to save your SP while flying a T3 & this prevents all of them. Bad change IMHO.
Tsukinosuke
Id Est
#523 - 2012-10-04 23:37:27 UTC
Kano Takada wrote:
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:
CCP Masterplan wrote:

This is not just oddly intentional, it is very intentional. If we didn't want to penalise T3 death, we simply wouldn't have the skillpoint-loss mechanic in the first place


I really don't get why losing an 800mil ship is not enough of a penalization.

Also, what is the point of ejecting if you can't do it when there is an emergency. Isn't that what an "escape pod" is for?

Perhaps you should just make T3s not have this penalty, their cost is already huge, losing them is already penalty enough when you pop.



Ahahahahaha

If you cant afford to lose it then dont fly it.

And escape pod is to save your 'clone' not your skillpoints, which at max is like a 4day train.TwistedTwisted


unnecessary copy-paste old EvE motto with ridiculous comment.. if you are using a clone to save your skill points and have to upgrade it, how could you talk like this nonsense?
Actually, random skill remove is ridiculous as much as you.. Tranining frozen for a period of time should be enough if there must be a punishment of choosing a new Tech ship to fly..

anti-antagonist "not a friend of enemy of antagonist"
DJ Xaphod
Eve Radio Corporation
#524 - 2012-10-04 23:37:33 UTC
I do think that the Limited Engagements would benefit greatly from further exploration; I think any system that is based entirely on a relationship between one character and another will suffer from being far too simplistic considering the mechanics of combat in Eve.

To go from the example in the blog:
B is a suspect or criminal.
A attacks B.
C then helps A out with cap or shields or whatever.
C is now suspect flagged and can be shot by D-Z.

This doesn't seem to be very evenly balanced to me, and in my opinion what would make more sense would just be to add C to the limited engagement.

I understand that this would likely be more complex to code, but in this instance I feel the necessity warrants this additional complexity.

One of the main benefits of this system is that it gives more people the ability to dip their toes into PVP, but in this particular instance you're essentially requiring pirate-hunters to eschew the benefits of logistics, and I think that's a mistake.

≡>≡ Radio, Bringing Music to the Masses. http://eve-radio.com I play Rock & Metal Monday Nights 2200 GameTime
Alx Warlord
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#525 - 2012-10-04 23:40:23 UTC
Kano Takada wrote:
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:
CCP Masterplan wrote:

This is not just oddly intentional, it is very intentional. If we didn't want to penalise T3 death, we simply wouldn't have the skillpoint-loss mechanic in the first place


I really don't get why losing an 800mil ship is not enough of a penalization.

Also, what is the point of ejecting if you can't do it when there is an emergency. Isn't that what an "escape pod" is for?

Perhaps you should just make T3s not have this penalty, their cost is already huge, losing them is already penalty enough when you pop.



Ahahahahaha

If you cant afford to lose it then dont fly it.

And escape pod is to save your 'clone' not your skillpoints, which at max is like a 4day train.TwistedTwisted


I just hope that in the NEXT expansion that will be industry oriented, ships get less expensive and thy fix the POS system ( something like this post on my signature would be good.... would reflect on ship prices drop and more pvp)

Please read these!

New POS system New SOV system
Bart Starr
Aggressive Structural Steel Expediting Services
#526 - 2012-10-04 23:42:10 UTC
What I don't understand is this:

Why is it illegal to board a new ship for 60 seconds with a weapons timer?

Suppose a ninja in a frigate is attacked by a mission runner.

Ninja is able to survive the new NPC AI - and no outside help arrives for the mission runner.

Ninja is capable of holding the mission runner - but not breaking the tank. (a common situation)

Boarding a new ship (with more DPS) is key to breaking the mission runner.
What happens to the bait ship is largely unimportant.

Lets go pre-Orca oldschool:
Suppose an alt brings a Typhoon to the mission space, and ejects.
Under CW 2.0, the ninja is not allowed to board the Typhoon.
Why is this?

Even in the context of Crimewatch, this restriction makes no sense.

-Ninja's bait ship isn't leaving the field of battle or evading the consequences of combat. (locked = not scoopable)
-His Typhoon clearly isn't going anywhere until the battle is over.
-There is no 'hiding and escaping' going on, just bringing more firepower to the table to kill the carebear.

Its a simple matter of the carebear starting a fight that didn't end up being the fight intended.

Yet, for some reason - its now illegal.

I see a lot of smokescreens about T3's and 'evading consequences with Orcas.'
But none of this justifies arbitrarily preventing a player from boarding a new ship for 60 seconds.

But it seems that this is really about completely defanging ninjas (those who bait mission runners into shooting.)

Because forcing a ninja to turn off his guns for 60 seconds before being allowed to bring more DPS to the fight - well, the mission runner is going to dock up.

Is this really about providing consequences for 'criminals'? Or really - just coddling carebears?
MisterAl tt1
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#527 - 2012-10-04 23:43:07 UTC
/me is emiting some long sentences containing mostly swearing...

"Stealing from a container will expose you to potential attacks from all players (but not from sentry guns). " - CCP is effectively killing the ninja-looters? I have come in this game stealing peoples loot and I don't see why the hell newbies cannot do that? Say "chao" to on of the player-invented newbie profession. A sandbox is such a sandbox, right?

And now, the top of the pie! The cherry!
"It is possible to be prevented from switching ships or ejecting (whilst in space) by your actions"
""This is not just oddly intentional, it is very intentional. If we didn't want to penalise T3 death, we simply wouldn't have the skillpoint-loss mechanic in the first place"
First CCP claims "Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line.", then nerfs HMLs, now this. Are you crazy there??? With all this each and any T3 will be worthless ships at high price. I do live in wormholes as I see this as the only sane environment in EVE to live, I fly T3 cos I like them and I find it nice to fly ships that are actully produced by my corporation, not to pay some nullsec blobers for each and every ship.

That IS a challange to eject in the right moment, so that your ship is not taken by the winning party. That is a chance to get a free T3 when catching one and, people, have you ever been in WH? Everyone flies T3 here and I bet many have this idea "I will eject in time".

With all these "innovations" you are killing wormholes! Noone would need T3 in numbers they are produced now. Prices go low, T3 reservers go down the toilet, people escape wormholes since the best ships to fly there (at least now) go beyond the floor. Do you know guys in WH also like to PVP? Do you know how difficult it is to find PVP here? You want WH-pvpers to be left in the middle of a scorched desert? Or are you clearing up for octopus0like farmers with a bunch of capitals who log in here just to farm?

Sorry for bla-bla-bla post, I'm seriously angry.

I have to seriously consider canceling accounts with all such "changes". And no, you won't have my shinies.

/me is emiting some long sentences containing mostly swearing...
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#528 - 2012-10-04 23:51:32 UTC
DJ Xaphod wrote:
I do think that the Limited Engagements would benefit greatly from further exploration; I think any system that is based entirely on a relationship between one character and another will suffer from being far too simplistic considering the mechanics of combat in Eve.

To go from the example in the blog:
B is a suspect or criminal.
A attacks B.
C then helps A out with cap or shields or whatever.
C is now suspect flagged and can be shot by D-Z.

This doesn't seem to be very evenly balanced to me, and in my opinion what would make more sense would just be to add C to the limited engagement.

I understand that this would likely be more complex to code, but in this instance I feel the necessity warrants this additional complexity.

One of the main benefits of this system is that it gives more people the ability to dip their toes into PVP, but in this particular instance you're essentially requiring pirate-hunters to eschew the benefits of logistics, and I think that's a mistake.


No..... Your method encourages the use of logistics... and I think this new system is about discouraging the use of logistics (which is used too much by risk-adverse pewpewers as is!!).

If the pirates bring along logi, and that logi reps the pirate, then it can ALSO be shot by D-Z... so both teams are on the same foot, except logistics (especially in highsec), is suddenly much more risky to use!!!
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#529 - 2012-10-04 23:56:06 UTC
Bart Starr wrote:
What I don't understand is this:

Why is it illegal to board a new ship for 60 seconds with a weapons timer?

Suppose a ninja in a frigate is attacked by a mission runner.

Ninja is able to survive the new NPC AI - and no outside help arrives for the mission runner.

Ninja is capable of holding the mission runner - but not breaking the tank. (a common situation)

Boarding a new ship (with more DPS) is key to breaking the mission runner.
What happens to the bait ship is largely unimportant.

Lets go pre-Orca oldschool:
Suppose an alt brings a Typhoon to the mission space, and ejects.
Under CW 2.0, the ninja is not allowed to board the Typhoon.
Why is this?

Even in the context of Crimewatch, this restriction makes no sense.

-Ninja's bait ship isn't leaving the field of battle or evading the consequences of combat. (locked = not scoopable)
-His Typhoon clearly isn't going anywhere until the battle is over.
-There is no 'hiding and escaping' going on, just bringing more firepower to the table to kill the carebear.

Its a simple matter of the carebear starting a fight that didn't end up being the fight intended.

Yet, for some reason - its now illegal.

I see a lot of smokescreens about T3's and 'evading consequences with Orcas.'
But none of this justifies arbitrarily preventing a player from boarding a new ship for 60 seconds.

But it seems that this is really about completely defanging ninjas (those who bait mission runners into shooting.)

Because forcing a ninja to turn off his guns for 60 seconds before being allowed to bring more DPS to the fight - well, the mission runner is going to dock up.

Is this really about providing consequences for 'criminals'? Or really - just coddling carebears?



Interesting point.... Although I consider this a small sacrifice to prevent people from evading t3 skill loss and evading ship losses using orca's & carriers.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#530 - 2012-10-05 00:00:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Gizznitt Malikite
MisterAl tt1 wrote:
/me is emiting some long sentences containing mostly swearing...

"Stealing from a container will expose you to potential attacks from all players (but not from sentry guns). " - CCP is effectively killing the ninja-looters? I have come in this game stealing peoples loot and I don't see why the hell newbies cannot do that? Say "chao" to on of the player-invented newbie profession. A sandbox is such a sandbox, right?

And now, the top of the pie! The cherry!
"It is possible to be prevented from switching ships or ejecting (whilst in space) by your actions"
""This is not just oddly intentional, it is very intentional. If we didn't want to penalise T3 death, we simply wouldn't have the skillpoint-loss mechanic in the first place"
First CCP claims "Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line.", then nerfs HMLs, now this. Are you crazy there??? With all this each and any T3 will be worthless ships at high price. I do live in wormholes as I see this as the only sane environment in EVE to live, I fly T3 cos I like them and I find it nice to fly ships that are actully produced by my corporation, not to pay some nullsec blobers for each and every ship.

That IS a challange to eject in the right moment, so that your ship is not taken by the winning party. That is a chance to get a free T3 when catching one and, people, have you ever been in WH? Everyone flies T3 here and I bet many have this idea "I will eject in time".

With all these "innovations" you are killing wormholes! Noone would need T3 in numbers they are produced now. Prices go low, T3 reservers go down the toilet, people escape wormholes since the best ships to fly there (at least now) go beyond the floor. Do you know guys in WH also like to PVP? Do you know how difficult it is to find PVP here? You want WH-pvpers to be left in the middle of a scorched desert? Or are you clearing up for octopus0like farmers with a bunch of capitals who log in here just to farm?

Sorry for bla-bla-bla post, I'm seriously angry.

I have to seriously consider canceling accounts with all such "changes". And no, you won't have my shinies.

/me is emiting some long sentences containing mostly swearing...


Your statement is ridiculous...

You're threatening to quit because CCP won't let you eject from a ship to evade SP loss when your specifically flying a ship that has the penalty of SP loss when you lose it?? And do you really think the changes to HML's, which are no longer going to be effected by TD's, and can be enhanced by TC's and TE's are going to hurt the t3 market.... get real...

And quick FYI.... You can still eject from that t3 and save your SP.... simply don't shoot your aggressors and you wont have the Weapons Flag, which means you can eject all you like!!!!

*edit* and stealing from a can makes you engageable by all players... which in no way inhibits or prevents you from doing it.... you just have to be smarter about it...
Nalha Saldana
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#531 - 2012-10-05 00:04:59 UTC
Swidgen wrote:
CCP Explorer wrote:
EVE is not a simple game, but at least there will now be charts describing how it behaves! Big smile

Please make sure the GMs are aware of these charts, how things are supposed to work, and that all these flags and timers are Logged. You're doing a re-design of a huge part of the game. "The Logs Show Nothing" will no longer be an acceptable excuse What?

Also, wardecs. Since war targets are always legal to shoot at, what flags will combat trigger and for how long? The Charts Show Nothing. The word "wardec" doesn't even appear on them. Will parties at war still be able to employ neutral remote-reppers without any consequences?


If I understood it correctly shooting a war target is like shooting a legal target and gets you into a Limited Engagement with him so any 3rd party remote effects would make the 3rd party a suspect.
MisterAl tt1
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#532 - 2012-10-05 00:11:07 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

Your statement is ridiculous...

You're threatening to quit because CCP won't let you eject from a ship to evade SP loss when your specifically flying a ship that has the penalty of SP loss when you lose it?? And do you really think the changes to HML's, which are no longer going to be effected by TD's, and can be enhanced by TC's and TE's are going to hurt the t3 market.... get real...

And quick FYI.... You can still eject from that t3 and save your SP.... simply don't shoot your aggressors and you wont have the Weapons Flag, which means you can eject all you like!!!!

*edit* and stealing from a can makes you engageable by all players... which in no way inhibits or prevents you from doing it.... you just have to be smarter about it...

Go live in WH for a year and then tell me stories.
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#533 - 2012-10-05 00:11:48 UTC
I understand you are trying to fix the orca swap trick in both highsec and on gates, but the way you have it implemented is rather ham-fistedand breaks a bunch of other things, like ejected from a ship before a sabre bubbles you
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#534 - 2012-10-05 00:13:54 UTC
Nalha Saldana wrote:
Swidgen wrote:
CCP Explorer wrote:
EVE is not a simple game, but at least there will now be charts describing how it behaves! Big smile

Please make sure the GMs are aware of these charts, how things are supposed to work, and that all these flags and timers are Logged. You're doing a re-design of a huge part of the game. "The Logs Show Nothing" will no longer be an acceptable excuse What?

Also, wardecs. Since war targets are always legal to shoot at, what flags will combat trigger and for how long? The Charts Show Nothing. The word "wardec" doesn't even appear on them. Will parties at war still be able to employ neutral remote-reppers without any consequences?


If I understood it correctly shooting a war target is like shooting a legal target and gets you into a Limited Engagement with him so any 3rd party remote effects would make the 3rd party a suspect.


Actually, Limited Engagements only occur when a player attacks a GLOBALLY flagged character...

So, LE's are not applicable to legal engagments....

In truth, this dev blog completely omitted what happens in LEGAL fighting (ie. from war decs, killrights, corp mates), and more importantly, how flags will be delegated to Neutral parties that provide assistance in these fights.

^^ This needs to be addressed!!!!!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#535 - 2012-10-05 00:21:17 UTC
Bart Starr wrote:
Why is it illegal to board a new ship for 60 seconds with a weapons timer?
Because the ability to do so is being abused to unduly protect against ship losses and to stay in a fight that has long since been lost.

Have a look in any of the more heavily travelled (and camped) lowsec pockets and you'll quickly see the extent of the problem. It has nothing to do with protecting highsec carebears and everything to do with removing undue protection from people who want the best offence without the risk and costs that come with it.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#536 - 2012-10-05 00:25:26 UTC
Michael Harari wrote:
I understand you are trying to fix the orca swap trick in both highsec and on gates, but the way you have it implemented is rather ham-fistedand breaks a bunch of other things, like ejected from a ship before a sabre bubbles you


Perhaps the self destruct timer should be reduced to a few seconds....

Essentially, the pros and cons of preventing ejecting:

Pro:
--- T3 Skill losses will become much more common place (as was INTENDED).
--- You can't save ships by scooping them into an orca/carrier hangar bay...
--- People can't eject from a ship to potentially avoid embarrassing losses.

Cons:
--- In nullsec, people sometimes hold your ship in place and bring in a dictor to get your pod.... you typically can't prevent this by eject/warping... (although more pod losses are a pro IMO).
--- If people typically can't eject from their ship, capturing ships will become much less common (I've caught many ships because of this tactic, including freighters and BS's... I'll miss them).
--- People can't switch ships to "bait'n'switch" a mission runner that was successfully baited into aggressing when they shouldn't have...

What are we missing???
In my opinion, those pros outweigh those cons!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#537 - 2012-10-05 00:27:18 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
What are we missing???
In my opinion, those pros outweigh those cons!
…and with the idea of lock-to-prevent scoop, and revised W-flagging rules to go with it, some of those cons would be gone anyway.
Ulair Memmet
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#538 - 2012-10-05 00:31:44 UTC
Changes look very good to me, but i something bothers me:

Quote:
Weapons Flag: This flag is activated by using offensive modules against another player (or simply by activating certain non-targeted weapons such as smartbombs).


Does this mean, when i'm sitting 10km away from the gate and (for whatever reason) activate my smartbomb/ECM-Burst without hitting anything, will i still get a Weapons Flag (=> will not be able to jump for 1 minute)? The activation itself is triggering the flag? This sounds kinda illogical to me.
Nalha Saldana
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#539 - 2012-10-05 00:34:40 UTC
Ulair Memmet wrote:
Changes look very good to me, but i something bothers me:

Quote:
Weapons Flag: This flag is activated by using offensive modules against another player (or simply by activating certain non-targeted weapons such as smartbombs).


Does this mean, when i'm sitting 10km away from the gate and (for whatever reason) activate my smartbomb/ECM-Burst without hitting anything, will i still get a Weapons Flag (=> will not be able to jump for 1 minute)? The activation itself is triggering the flag? This sounds kinda illogical to me.


Yes that is correct, you get weapons but not pvp flag. Kinda makes sense because you (in most cases) were obviously trying to do something.
Ulair Memmet
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#540 - 2012-10-05 00:39:05 UTC
Nalha Saldana wrote:
Ulair Memmet wrote:
Changes look very good to me, but i something bothers me:

Quote:
Weapons Flag: This flag is activated by using offensive modules against another player (or simply by activating certain non-targeted weapons such as smartbombs).


Does this mean, when i'm sitting 10km away from the gate and (for whatever reason) activate my smartbomb/ECM-Burst without hitting anything, will i still get a Weapons Flag (=> will not be able to jump for 1 minute)? The activation itself is triggering the flag? This sounds kinda illogical to me.


Yes that is correct, you get weapons but not pvp flag. Kinda makes sense because you (in most cases) were obviously trying to do something.


But i didn't Big smile