These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
OT Smithers
A Farewell To Kings...
Dock Workers
#681 - 2012-10-05 12:59:38 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?


The only flags you get for shooting at a legal WAR target:

A. Weapons tag -- just as it is today. You cannot redock / jump for 60 sec
B. PvP flag -- if you log in space you will remain in space for 15 minutes
DJ Xaphod
Eve Radio Corporation
#682 - 2012-10-05 13:06:50 UTC
I'm interested to see what happens if you repair or transfer cap to someone who isn't globally flagged but is nonetheless a valid target for someone else.

≡>≡ Radio, Bringing Music to the Masses. http://eve-radio.com I play Rock & Metal Monday Nights 2200 GameTime
Lathaniel
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#683 - 2012-10-05 13:08:38 UTC
ok why do you hate interdictors so much? first you bug them then fix it then you go and change this sigh
OT Smithers
A Farewell To Kings...
Dock Workers
#684 - 2012-10-05 13:31:11 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?



It's about removing a whole bunch of really lame asshatery folks have been using to exploit the current system. In high-sec in particular, games like you are talking about are penalized in two obvious ways:

1. Your prey will be better able to evaluate the threat. If you arrived in a Rifter that's what you will have to stay in.
2. It will now be possible for mission runners in high sec mission-hubs to have anti-ninja protection on stand-by. White Hat corporations will be able to set up shop in mission hubs offering protection (for a fee of course) to mission runners. If you flag suspect on one of their protected corps, they will then be able to warp in and kill you.

You will be able to recieve remote assistance from anyone you like as well, but anyone providing that assistance will inherit your suspect tag.
Zahn Seul
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#685 - 2012-10-05 13:33:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Zahn Seul
Changes look great, I love it. Simpler, sensible and readily understandable, without changing the actual operation too much.

The difficult obstacle is, as you point out, limited engagements and allowing the dastardly among us to defend themselves. What about a system which gives an ID to each engagement, with a "green light" system indicating "okay to attack target" or even better, a global check to tell a pilot when some other pilot is "green light." to engage. You would then have two types of flags, the global flags, and a single "Incident" flag.

So say Evil Jack loots from Nice Bob's jetcan in hisec. Evil Jack can now be shot by all because he is a suspect. Nice Bob shoots Evil Jack to defend his loot. Evil Jack is naturally scared of becoming a criminal. Say when Evil Jack steals the loot, the "suspect" act gets an "incident ID" number. Let's say given the location, time and whatever is relevant it's ID#43. Evil Jack gets the global "suspect flag" when he steal from Nice Bob's jetcan, and the incident ID #43 is genrated. He gets that flag too. Nice Bob shoots Evil Jack and gets a weapon flag, and also inherits the suspect flag #43. He is now "in" the incident #43. He does not get a "suspect flag" because he's done nothing wrong, but because he's flagged with the same Incident ID as Evil Jack, he is "green light" for Jackto shoot. Nice Bob will not progress to criminal for defending himself.

Now, corps should probably be able to help each other, but you don't really want one junior member of your corp to steal from another and put your whole corp in a virtual 15 minute wardec, that would be abuuuuuused! Maybe lets take it one logical step further. Let's say there's an "Opt-In" system. "Yellow Light" and "Green Light."

Evil Jack steals from Nice Bob generating event flag ID 43. Nice Bob's corp- mate Amicable Bert is hanging around nearby Their friend, but not corp-mate Mundane Malcolm is also there. Evil Jack is yellow-light to Nice Bob and his whole corporation, so he can opt in, and so can Amicable Bert. Nice bob and Amicable Bert are nothing to Evil Jack. Nice Bob shoots Evil Jack and is now Green Light, in the fight. He is now Green Light to Evil Jack. They fight like hardcore pvp folk fight. Evil Jack's corp-mate Nefarious Ned warps in. Now, because Nice Bob is Green Light for incident #43, Nefarious Ned can help Evil Jack, and can shoot Nice Bob (who is yellow flag, opt in to him). He decides to go get some popcorn however, and Amicable Burt is really annoyed! He could shoot Evil Bob if he wanted (Evil Jackhas engaged in the incident) but Nefarious Ned, while he could opt-into the fight has gone to get popcorn. Nefarious Ned comes back, and shoots Nice Bob. He is now Green Light to incident 43, and Yellow Light to all Nice Bob"s corpies. He is no-flag to Mundne Michael, because he's not in Bob or Burt's corporation. Evil Jack, however, having a global 'suspect flag' is able to be attacked by Mundane Michael. But, if Mundane Michael choses to do that, he is now Green Light to any of Evil Jack's corp mates who are involved in the incident, and yellow light to any who are not. You could extend this to alliance of course.

So, that sounds stupidly complex to me. I suspect I've done a crap job of explaining what I mean. But basically any crime creates an incident ID, and anyone partaking of the opportunity to blap a participant in that crime also inherits participation in the incident, but not the associated 'global' flags. I think that's a sensible logic
Griffin Omanid
Knights of the Zodiac
#686 - 2012-10-05 13:50:56 UTC
Sounds nice, the new system make it better to assist other players, who got attacked. But its obviously a little bit harder for ganker to strike now, cause they need to be sure that no other combat ship is near them when they attack a miner.

Also one on one fights no longer will be in front of some stations, they have to fly to a save spot to use can flipping to start a battle.

Proposal T2 BS Class Juggernaut
Lyric Lahnder
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#687 - 2012-10-05 13:52:01 UTC
Two questions

1. Will this help with undock games at all?

2. Nothing was mentioned about how these flags effect contraband or the responses from npc police, will we finally have the promised system for smuggling boosters etc. this winter?

Noir. and Noir Academy are recruiting apply at www.noirmercs.com I Noir Academy: 60 days old must be able to fly at least one tech II frigate. I Noir. Recruits: 4:1 k/d ratio and can fly tech II cruisers.
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
#688 - 2012-10-05 13:58:42 UTC
Solstice Project wrote:
Steijn wrote:
Quote:
NPC Flag: This flag is activated when a player uses offensive modules against an NPC (or vice-versa). Having this flag will prevent a ship from being removed from space if the pilot logs off. This flag functions in all areas of space.


thats just shafted anyone who does missions and not PVP because they have a weak internet connection.

It's fair because COMBAT is COMBAT, no matter against whom.
The PvPer could have a weak internet connection too, but of course,
mission runners want a special piece of the cake everybody gets ...


The reason MIGHT just be that people refrain from voluntarily participating in PvP as long as they are subject to a potentially weak internet connnection?

I've lost numerous drones to disconnections already. If I start losing SHIPS, I will unscubscribe. It's as simple as that, really.
OT Smithers
A Farewell To Kings...
Dock Workers
#689 - 2012-10-05 14:09:39 UTC
Havegun Willtravel wrote:
I'll reserve judgement unitl Super Friends blog comes out, but atm it's being implied that just the simple act of shooting first results in Kill Rights. Shocked

So if someone who's -4.9 charges me in a low sec belt and I do the intelligent thing and shoot, no matter the outcome they get kill rights ?

Thus, even in low sec, the only way i can avoid looking over my sholder for a month is to flip a can ? Or put myself at a distinct disadvantage by always having to wait for someone else to shoot first ?

Sorry, but if left unchanged you've very severly damaged low sec pvp.

The existing system, quite frankly, works perfectly. If you never get a chance to defend yourself ( ie: you get blobbed ) you can get payback 1 v 1. These proposed changed completely inbalance that.

I can see a great many people who principaly live in high sec, but who do random roams into LS, stopping under these circumstances. The risk to their main activities would be to great to warrant giving out kill rights to every target.

Low sec doesn't need fewer people pvp'ing it needs more, and this is a recipe for to kill that.


** Edit: Perhaps I've answered my own question. " Performing an action against another player that gets you a Criminal flag will also award a kill-right " On a more careful reading, Criminal flag would only apply to High sec agression ? So a failed suicide gank would carry the consequence of dealing killrights, but low sec agression would fall under the new PvP/LE flag and kill rights would apply only if the target couldn't/didn't defend themselves ?


Respectfully, you are over-complicating this. It is simpler, it's intuitive, and in-game it will be OBVIOUS who you can and cannot engage and what the repurcussions will be. It only becomes complicated when one tries to write it all out in text form.
OT Smithers
A Farewell To Kings...
Dock Workers
#690 - 2012-10-05 14:20:36 UTC
Rhavas wrote:
My detailed take on these changes is on my blog, here.

Here's the TL;DR -

In my opinion, CCP has made a solid start, at least at the things I use regularly. I particularly am very happy with the changes to separate Suspect from Criminal in Lowsec (although I think further tweaks to gate guns are required to fully address the issue) I would like to see them do the following to polish it off before release:
[list=1]
  • Remove the eject lock, at least for T3s. Forcing people to stay in and lose skills is BS, and cuts off a great “steal the T3″ gameplay mechanic.

    • Debatable. The loss in SP is one of the disadvantages that accompany the many advantages you gain from flying a T3.

    Quote:
  • Reduce the Criminal timer to 5 minutes plus a full 15-minute Suspect timer after that.

    • The GCC (criminal) flag is 15 minutes now. Why reduce it?

    Quote:
  • Eliminate any affect to sec status below -2.0 (see Hans Jagerblitzen’s original election proposal) for triggering the Suspect timer. Only Criminal acts should drive you under -2.0.

    • This is essentially already in place.

    Quote:
  • Do not trigger Criminal flags unless the pod dies. Shooting it without killing keeps you at Suspect only.

    • Why? Let me reverse this. Today you get GCC (criminal flag) the second you activate your modules. As soon as you turn on your guns Concord is coming. In any case this is a bad idea. It would allow you to scram a pod and lock them permanently in place.

    Quote:
  • Review neutral RR approach flagging approach to ensure loopholes are closed.

    • More on the eject lock in a separate reply.


    The neutral RR changes are okay, and too long delayed as is. The eject and dock changes are fine and as they should be.
    Akturous
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #691 - 2012-10-05 14:21:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Akturous
    I'm liking these changes a lot. I'd like it even more if I didn't get a sec hit when attacking an illegal ship in low sex and therefore got no sentries, but being able to warp off and murder some other poor victim without waiting 15min now is tit_s. Not liking the change to ejection when flagged, waiting 30s is sufficient and if there's one mechanic that's worse than ecm in this game, it's losing skill points when dying, that whole thing was a terrible idea and I can see your on a slow vindictive road against t3's, just be careful.

    As for there being no way to do a 1v1 in HS now, F%$% YEAH!!!! You want to buff low sex, this is the way it should stay, if people want to pvp, make them come to low sec (I'm ronery).

    Quick question, will sentry guns still attack drones? Eliminating this (which makes total sense) would make drone boats far more viable for gangs. It would also eliminate my favourite holding point on something in my rapier without dying to gg's trick which is to release a swarm of ecm drones and watch their cheap arses being popped while I take no damage.

    Speaking of ecm drones, how about getting rid of those....

    Vote Item Heck One for CSM8
    OT Smithers
    A Farewell To Kings...
    Dock Workers
    #692 - 2012-10-05 14:22:44 UTC
    Bart Starr wrote:
    Tippia wrote:
    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.


    I might need more details here.

    I can understand why ejecting from a ship, then stuffing it into an Orca could be considered an abuse.

    What I am talking about is simply boarding a new ship.

    If scooping ships into an Orca is a problem, fix it.
    And fix it in lowsec, not just in highsec (like was done previously).

    Fixing it by almost completely removing the ability to eject (which totally screws people who are disproportionately affected by explosion/session change lag....) - or telling players that they can't board a new ship for 60 seconds after shooting (for what purpose? why? - its not an abuse)

    Universal 'suspect' flag. Fine, whatever, as a ninja I can deal.
    Safety condoms? This, more than anything will probably kill the profession by making MR aggression extremely rare.
    But preventing someone from jumping into a new ship (even if the old ship remains a target in space....) WTF. Makes no sense.

    Unless the whole concept of mission runner baiting is 'the abuse' that they are trying to phase out.
    In which case, I wish they would have the guts to say it outright.....I can find other things to do with my time.


    You might not be aware of this, but if you turn off your wallet and email notification flashes your pod lag largely goes away. Everyone still gets it sometimes, but it does go a long way towards eliminating this problem.
    OT Smithers
    A Farewell To Kings...
    Dock Workers
    #693 - 2012-10-05 14:27:58 UTC
    Rhavas wrote:


    I agree with Michael on this one (as noted above). Find a different way to prevent ship-scooping and bait-and-switch (use the PVP flag).

    Not having the choice to bail out and leave capturable stuff rather than a killmail is bad. Choices are good.


    You still have that option.... just turn off your guns for 60 seconds. OR, alternatively, offer the hull as ransom.

    Quote:
    Losing skillpoints by force rather than choice in a T3 is bad. Choices are good.


    You made the choice when you boarded the ship. There's actually a warning pop-up advising you of the risk.

    Quote:
    Skill loss will not become more common, T3 PVP pilots, especially Skill 5 pilots, will become less common. That's bad.


    Not really, no. If you want the advantages you have to accept the risks.

    Quote:
    The weight here is on a ham-handed nerf to the ninja crowd, but cascades to many other Unforseen (Bad) Consequences.


    After reading almost thirty pages of questions and complaints I am still not seeing this "bad." Rather, I am seeing CCP simplifying a complex system, improving PvP and increasing PvP opportunities, and eliminating a fair number of exploits and loopholes risk-averse players currently use to kill with impunity.

    That, and a whole lot of folks who need to reread the initial post.
    BrewGuy
    Drunken Debauchery
    #694 - 2012-10-05 14:33:21 UTC
    I like that this system was made similar and I applaud the work done here. I think it would be nice to have some flags impact insurance payouts for ships. As I see it, you should have your insurance payouts impacted when your ship is destroyed while you have certain flags such as the criminal flag. It wouldn't really have much of an effect on more expensive ships with poor payouts, but may cause some folk to rethink using a t1 fitted/fully insured ship for ganking. I don't think we should remove ganking in high sec, but it would be nice if we could do more to make people rethink its value.
    OT Smithers
    A Farewell To Kings...
    Dock Workers
    #695 - 2012-10-05 14:47:54 UTC
    Proddy Scun wrote:
    Hmmm...my overall impression is that CrimeWatch 2 has very little to do with controlling crime --

    and a WHOLE lot to do with FORCING PVP encounters to a decisive conclusion if I understand correctly.

    (Ignore - Totally confused PVP flag with weapons flag - read line too low in chart)

    #1 Once an aggressor shoots a target ship that target can no longer duck back into a station regardless of whether its a legal target or not. So you are also warp jammed -- you better have the superior combat ship.


    The target can dock at any time so long as it has not activated its weapons. JUST LIKE IT IS TODAY.

    Quote:
    #2 Haulers can no longer escape ambushes by jumping gates. Mainly affects freighters and Orcas. Other haulers can simply warp away from GCC attackers which now have front-loaded warp disable. Although being unable to dock at stations will keep especially valuable cargoes vulnerable to additional attackers for 60 seconds.


    You only get a weapon's flag when you engage your weapons. You do NOT get a weapons flag simply because someone shoots at you. Again, this is not changed.

    Better, you won't need to memorize it or even understand it. In game it will be perfectly clear.

    Quote:
    Mining players who do escape combat encounters are prohibited from switching ships and returning as part of intruder response


    Incorrect. A miner who does not activate his weapons can dock, eject, switch ships, or do anything he likes immediately. The ONLY "restriction" he has is one he has today, he is PvP flagged, which means if he pulls the plug his ship will remain in space for 15 minutes.
    OT Smithers
    A Farewell To Kings...
    Dock Workers
    #696 - 2012-10-05 14:53:00 UTC
    Rek Seven wrote:
    I like these proposed changes but I'm not to clear on the whole ejection thing...

    Let's say you are in null sec or w-space doing a pve site and you get jumped and tackled by someone. You then spot a HIC and a small fleet on d-scan and you decide that you can't win the fight so it's better to save your pod and eject. Are we still going to be able to do this?

    Am I right in thinking that because you have been shooting NPC's and maybe the player in an attempt to get away, you won't be able to eject from your ship for 60 seconds?

    All those tengu pilots that get jumped in a sleeper site are really going to feel it when they loose their ship, skill points and their pod... I don't thing all players should be punished just because some people are using the ejection mechanic to exploit the game.


    If you activate your weapons against another player (not sure about the rat thing, but it is possible) you are stuck in that hull for 60 seconds.
    OT Smithers
    A Farewell To Kings...
    Dock Workers
    #697 - 2012-10-05 15:03:27 UTC
    Proddy Scun wrote:
    Mizhir wrote:
    Dierdra Vaal wrote:
    Do I understand it correctly that if two players are in a Limited Engagement, and a third player reps one of the two, the third player becomes attackable by everyone and not just the people in the LE?


    Thats how I understand it. But one of the two players will be attackable by everyone aswell since he was already flagged for something in the first place. The LE just allows him to defend himself without committing more crimes.



    Suspect flag for assistance to good guy is foul idea.


    You do not get a suspect flag for helping the good guy. You get a weapons flag (and depending upon the situation a PvP flag).


    Quote:
    Why not just copy the flags from the ship assisted?


    That's basically what they are doing.




    OT Smithers
    A Farewell To Kings...
    Dock Workers
    #698 - 2012-10-05 15:12:11 UTC
    Reicine Ceer wrote:
    But what if i want to lock two people fighting off a station/gate/etc, just to see how the fight is balancing up? I got bored reading at page 13 so have not seen this answered yet.... would it give me a criminal/suspect flag just because i want to watch two randoms fight?


    Of course not.
    Denidil
    Cascades Mountain Operatives
    #699 - 2012-10-05 15:14:01 UTC
    neutral RR is dead, yay!

    Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design.
    OT Smithers
    A Farewell To Kings...
    Dock Workers
    #700 - 2012-10-05 15:15:37 UTC
    Tychus Von wrote:
    TheBlueMonkey wrote:
    SunTsu Rae wrote:
    Hint to CCP , drop the non-eject clause . . . . . Attention



    but retraining the same skills everytime you lose a ship is fun Roll


    I don't see you loosing BS 5 each time you get killed in navy apoc...


    If you don't like the skill loss don't fly the bloody ship.