These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Pipa Porto
#901 - 2012-10-09 03:03:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
OT Smithers wrote:
So... get better?

Why would you feel entitled to harrass these folks, steal their stuff, then kill them with absolutely no risk to yourself? You have every possible advantage going in: you can search for the ship you want to go after, you can check the character age, you know exactly how they will be tanked, you know what kind of damage they will likely be dishing out, you know that they do not have a point or neuts, you know that even if everything goes completely wrong the worst that will happen is that you might lose a bait frigate.

In other words, you want everything handed to you on a silver platter. You want the risk and skill free hrassment and slaughter of players who, by their choice to play in high sec, have indicated that they are not currently interested in PvP.

And now your tears are flooding this forum. You are going to lose one advantage. Whatever. Get over it or cancel.


First, I feel entitled to ninja loot and gank because this is EVE and doing so is a legitimate profession.

Second, you're forgetting the big whopper of an advantage that the missionbear has. They get to choose the engagement. The whole event starts when they decide "Oooh, I can just pop that harmless lickle frigate and get a free kill." Crimewatch 2.0 virtually ensures that they either get that free kill or escape.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Bart Starr
Aggressive Structural Steel Expediting Services
#902 - 2012-10-09 03:54:13 UTC
Its funny how the only element of Crimewatch that poses a slight inconvenience to Carebears and botters (the NPC timer), is the only part that seems to be currently under consideration for removal.

Crimewatch as a whole sucks, but the 15 minute NPC timer was the only thing I was somewhat happy to see.
Figures that they are now talking about eliminating it.

Destroying an entire non-standard profession, and one of the few threats still existing in highsec - thats perfectly A-OK.
Locking people inside their ships for no good reason - causing lag induced random poddings - Greyscale's down for it.

But cause a slight inconvenience to carebears and botters - who are simply mad because they won't be able to logoffski...

...Wow, CCP revises the NPC timer duration to 60 seconds so fast, your head spins.
(which isn't enough time to scan down, let alone kill a ratter, making it useless for hunting carebears)

Guess the carebears really do wear the pants....way to HTFU CCP devs. Roll
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#903 - 2012-10-09 04:31:46 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
No need to courier package them. You can't open a container that's in a jet can or wreck (or POS Hangar). How are you making mistakes of game mechanics this basic?

Here's a solution. Give the corp with the final blow looting rights on their kill. Shared rights with the dead guy (ofc).
This means that Suicide Gankers have to be in corps (which means they can be decced), they have to all be in the same corp (a nerf to ganking, but whatever), but can still loot their shit.

My better solution would be to try to redesign Crimewatch without starting with the mission statement "How can we make HS Safer?"
Last I checked, containers don't drop inside wrecks. They drop out in space next to the wreck. Which makes them easily lootable and/or scoopable. Or is that another basic mistake on my part?... What?

And I don't think that giving an entire corp loot rights on a kill makes much sense. It's like saying because you beat the shiite out of some guy, now you and all your friends can legally take his wallet, watch, and shoes. That's just crazy. I know, I know - real life examples and EvE don't mesh. It's just a game and all that. But still, that kind of rule would just be messed up beyond belief. It would turn empire space into a ganker's paradise. And I can't believe you are trying to use corp membership and war decs as a justification. They are both incredibly abusable mechanics. You're gonna have to try harder and come up with better ideas than that.
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#904 - 2012-10-09 04:38:31 UTC
Bart Starr wrote:
Its funny how the only element of Crimewatch that poses a slight inconvenience to Carebears and botters (the NPC timer), is the only part that seems to be currently under consideration for removal.

Crimewatch as a whole sucks, but the 15 minute NPC timer was the only thing I was somewhat happy to see.
Figures that they are now talking about eliminating it.

Destroying an entire non-standard profession, and one of the few threats still existing in highsec - thats perfectly A-OK.
Locking people inside their ships for no good reason - causing lag induced random poddings - Greyscale's down for it.

But cause a slight inconvenience to carebears and botters - who are simply mad because they won't be able to logoffski...

...Wow, CCP revises the NPC timer duration to 60 seconds so fast, your head spins.
(which isn't enough time to scan down, let alone kill a ratter, making it useless for hunting carebears)

Guess the carebears really do wear the pants....way to HTFU CCP devs. Roll
Don't know if I am quite as upset as Bart is, but he does have a very good point. Logoffski should never be a valid form of escape.

If they are whining because they can now die during a L4 with scram rats if they dc, then maybe they shouldn't be trying to do them solo. Might actually put some bite into PvE content for once.
Pipa Porto
#905 - 2012-10-09 07:36:12 UTC
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
No need to courier package them. You can't open a container that's in a jet can or wreck (or POS Hangar). How are you making mistakes of game mechanics this basic?

Here's a solution. Give the corp with the final blow looting rights on their kill. Shared rights with the dead guy (ofc).
This means that Suicide Gankers have to be in corps (which means they can be decced), they have to all be in the same corp (a nerf to ganking, but whatever), but can still loot their shit.

My better solution would be to try to redesign Crimewatch without starting with the mission statement "How can we make HS Safer?"
Last I checked, containers don't drop inside wrecks. They drop out in space next to the wreck. Which makes them easily lootable and/or scoopable. Or is that another basic mistake on my part?... What?

And I don't think that giving an entire corp loot rights on a kill makes much sense. It's like saying because you beat the shiite out of some guy, now you and all your friends can legally take his wallet, watch, and shoes. That's just crazy. I know, I know - real life examples and EvE don't mesh. It's just a game and all that. But still, that kind of rule would just be messed up beyond belief. It would turn empire space into a ganker's paradise. And I can't believe you are trying to use corp membership and war decs as a justification. They are both incredibly abusable mechanics. You're gonna have to try harder and come up with better ideas than that.


Hey, I also want Wardecs to be fixed. Allow Decs to follow people who quit corps.

Like I said, a better solution would be to try developing Crimewatch 2.0 from the start without the mission statement "How can we make Lazy and Stupid Carebears safer?"

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#906 - 2012-10-09 07:37:58 UTC
Failwatch aka how CCP learned to love the carebears
CCP Masterplan
C C P
C C P Alliance
#907 - 2012-10-09 10:28:03 UTC
Bubanni wrote:
you should try to make it happen soon after the expansion then... also, I wanted to know if everyone gets on the killmail if a target is shot at on one side of a gate, but killed on the other side by a different player... (asked twice now without answere... player B shoots player A in on gate... and player A jumps out and gets killed by player C... does player B also get on the killmail then?)

This is something I'd like to do, but has technical implications. If I can make it work, I will, but no promises.

"This one time, on patch day..."

@ccp_masterplan  |  Team Five-0: Rewriting the law
Bubanni
Corus Aerospace
#908 - 2012-10-09 11:53:44 UTC
CCP Masterplan wrote:
Bubanni wrote:
you should try to make it happen soon after the expansion then... also, I wanted to know if everyone gets on the killmail if a target is shot at on one side of a gate, but killed on the other side by a different player... (asked twice now without answere... player B shoots player A in on gate... and player A jumps out and gets killed by player C... does player B also get on the killmail then?)

This is something I'd like to do, but has technical implications. If I can make it work, I will, but no promises.


Glad to hear :)

Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934
Nevryn Takis
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#909 - 2012-10-09 12:46:04 UTC
Okay reaad up to page 33 ... but posting anyway .. apologies if covered

On the subject of DC logoff vs intentional logoff.. [technical warning] CCP should be able to detect this by differentiating between a time out on the client sockect and an explicit message from the client (which should be sent either by hitting loggoff/quit or by closing the client using the window close button ) [/technical]

I'm also still not sure that the following scenario has been fully qualified
Bad guy A attack carebear B
Good samaritan C in a logi renders assistance to B by repping him.. C gets a suspect flag and is killable by everyone...
This is just plain wrong .. Only A should be able to retaliate against C which means that if C has mates in a fleet they can now kill A..

One issue I've not seen addressed yet and which the current MasterPlan proposals do not cover is making deliberate bumping an aggressive act. Currently it's a PvP exploit used in 2 situations
1) By the goons to kill freighters because no-one can assist in their defence without getting concorded (exploit of game mechanics)
2) By a growing group of extorsionists (primarily in Gallentee space) who bump miner all day long if they don't pay protection money whilst hiding behing an NPC corp so they can't be war-decd). Any attempt to attack the bumping ship either with drones or by a fleet mate results in them getting concorded.

The one grey area is bumping that occurs when multiple ships undock at the same time and one or more of them try and align for warp out. This should be easily solvable by ann undock timer, of say 10 seconds, so that any collision between 2 ships with a valid undock timer doesn't not result in the generation of a suspect/criminal flag.
Mika Takahoshi
Doomheim
#910 - 2012-10-09 13:17:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Mika Takahoshi
Is it just me, or are the new rules, despite being less complicated, actually more confusing? Let me see if I understand this correctly:

Bob is mining in hisec when Alice flips Bob's can. Alice now has a suspect flag, anyone can legally shoot Alice.

Bob retaliates by shooting at Alice, as he's legally allowed to do. Because this is allowed, Bob gets no suspect flag, but he does get an LE condition that allows Alice to legally shoot back, which she does. Bob quickly realizes he's in over his head and calls out, "HALP!"

Mika is flying along and responds. Showing up on the scene, she sees Alice and Bob going at one another, and that Alice is flashy, but Bob is about to asplode. Mika sees she has two ways to try to help Bob. She can either fire her guns at Alice, hoping to pop her before Bob goes boom. Or she can fire her armor rep at Bob, helping Bob stay alive long enough to pop Alice first.

Expected result: Assisting Bob in either way makes Mika a valid target for Alice (and possibly her corp).

Actual result: Shooting Alice works as expected. Healing Bob makes Mika a valid target for the entire universe.

Bwah?! That's beyond confusing, that's utterly baffling.

I think the reasonable expectation for any player is that firing an armor rep at a target makes you a valid target to everyone for whom your target is a valid target. To the degree any system deviates from that, it becomes confusing.

If I'm correct in my understanding of the new system, you're going to see a lot of very, very confused people waking up in a fresh clone wondering "WTF just happened?" The rules may be simple enough, but it varies from common sense to such a huge degree that it's going to cause massive confusion regardless of how simple it is.

No one who isn't a rules lawyer is going to walk into this situation expecting to become a valid target for anyone that Bob isn't a valid target for. Why would you, when all you're doing is helping Bob? It makes. No. Sense. I'm sure there's some reason behind it, but whatever it is, this is very, very confusing...
Mika Takahoshi
Doomheim
#911 - 2012-10-09 13:25:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Mika Takahoshi
[delete]
Besbin
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#912 - 2012-10-09 13:32:21 UTC
Maybe I suggest that Somebody(tm) (ping CCP Punkturis) commits a level of effort to the naming of the flags? Firstly I think the present names are very Programmer Speak and secondly they don't follow Eve lore. I acknowledge the value in using the present terms in a development fase, since it makes understanding the underlying mechanisms far easier, but the final TQ version, there could maybe be some slight terminology adjustments.

An address to the first issue is to call it a "Criminal" flag rather than a "Criminal Flag". Very soon this will become "I'm CFd!" or something like that in player speak and that's, pardon my french, fairly ridiculous. Not an optimal suggestion, so please elaborate on it.

In regards to the second issue "Criminal" and "Suspect" fits a diegetic approach nicely, but "PVP Flag", "NPC Flag" and, worst of all, "Weapons Flag" are technical terms. The way to approach the naming would be to put on CONCORD glasses and brainstorm on what they would call it and make the naming grounded in "effect" rather than "cause" (i.e. it's not like it's a problem that someone discharges his weapon, it's rather the effect or choice target of this discharge that CONCORD would rule against. Likewise "PVP" and "NPC" makes no sense in story world terms).

Just my 0.25 ISK.

/Besbin
Meytal
Doomheim
#913 - 2012-10-09 15:16:37 UTC
The explanation against flagging ships sounds far more complicated than it should be:

. You have flags, you may not "store vessel" or "board ship".
. You have flags, and eject from ship. The act of ejecting transfers flags and timers to the ship. This means only ships can receive flags, not all objects.
. The ship remains unboardable, unscoopable, and virtually untouchable except for shooting at it, for the duration of flags. There are no "merging" of flags; the ship is a sitting duck until flags disappear.

If the real problem is the exploit-like condition described of scooping/storing ships to avoid loss, you don't need to be the bull in the china shop with the fix.

If the real problem is SP loss in T3s, address it as part of the T3 overhaul; it doesn't belong in Crimewatch. Someone already mentioned how to do this by using the same mechanics that track ownership for lossmails. I will admit to loving T3s and would be sad for this to be the case, but if you're going to force SP loss, then focus on that specifically.

Don't prevent ejections. That solves a different and non-existent problem while creating others. It might mean a little more time needs to be taken to implement the fix for the specific areas affected, but it also means an over-generalized approach doesn't cause other unforeseen problems later on down the road.

It's unrealistic to expect that the ganker will always be targeted before he accomplishes his goal (remember, this has to cover Hisec too). So while the provision of preventing scooping of ships that are targeted should definitely be added for completion, it should not be depended upon to stop this.


Preventing bubblers from using gates after bubbling, say to chase targets to the next system, seems a tad unfair. While, granted, it won't affect us in w-space, it seems silly for it to affect Null, considering no one really polices Null aside from players and pirates.

Now if you make a bubble prevent gate activation, that would be interesting, and a little more fair to both sides :)
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#914 - 2012-10-09 15:42:02 UTC
Nevryn Takis wrote:
Okay reaad up to page 33 ... but posting anyway .. apologies if covered

On the subject of DC logoff vs intentional logoff.. [technical warning] CCP should be able to detect this by differentiating between a time out on the client sockect and an explicit message from the client (which should be sent either by hitting loggoff/quit or by closing the client using the window close button ) [/technical]

I'm also still not sure that the following scenario has been fully qualified
Bad guy A attack carebear B
Good samaritan C in a logi renders assistance to B by repping him.. C gets a suspect flag and is killable by everyone...
This is just plain wrong .. Only A should be able to retaliate against C which means that if C has mates in a fleet they can now kill A..

One issue I've not seen addressed yet and which the current MasterPlan proposals do not cover is making deliberate bumping an aggressive act. Currently it's a PvP exploit used in 2 situations
1) By the goons to kill freighters because no-one can assist in their defence without getting concorded (exploit of game mechanics)
2) By a growing group of extorsionists (primarily in Gallentee space) who bump miner all day long if they don't pay protection money whilst hiding behing an NPC corp so they can't be war-decd). Any attempt to attack the bumping ship either with drones or by a fleet mate results in them getting concorded.

The one grey area is bumping that occurs when multiple ships undock at the same time and one or more of them try and align for warp out. This should be easily solvable by ann undock timer, of say 10 seconds, so that any collision between 2 ships with a valid undock timer doesn't not result in the generation of a suspect/criminal flag.


1.) Anyone can easily "fake" a DC logoff.... for example... unplug the ethernet cable.

2.) Why is it wrong for the logi to become attackable by everyone?? Pilot C can still help player B by just shooting or ewaring bad guy A, then only player A could retaliate. However, player C chose to repair player B instead. I think the logi's should become vulnerable to everyone, as it highly discourages their use in highsec, and will result in greater ship losses by everyone... its straight up win, win...
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#915 - 2012-10-09 16:13:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Gizznitt Malikite
The general problems with the current suspect flag, is it allows everyone to focus fire on a single suspect, whereas a group of suspects cannot focus fire back (unless their desired target is dumb enough to aggress them all simultaneously). This essentially means, when you go suspect, your only legitimate fighting tactics is to go solo, or to bring logi friends. DPS friends are useless, as they have to sit there and wait and wait and wait until the people on field start shooting them.

Why don't you just create a Good Samaritan Flag???

When flagged as a good Samaritan you become a legal target for all Suspects ?and Criminals?

Commit a minor crime (steeling in highsec, or illegal ship aggression in lowsec), and become a suspect.
Commit a major crime (illegal aggression in highsec, or pod aggression in lowsec), and become a criminal.
Attack a suspect or criminal, become a Samaritan.

Remote assist a Samaritan, become a Samaritan.
Remote assist a suspect, become a suspect.
Remote assist a criminal, become a criminal.
Remote assist a neutral, remain neutral.

Then, redefine Limited Engagements: A limited engagment happens when two players aggress each other in a LEGAL battle!
Anyone that provides assistance to an out of corp/alliance player engaged in a limited engagement is flagged a suspect.

For order of precedence: Criminal > Suspect > Samaritan.

This balances the field between Suspects and Samaritans, it solves neutral parties butting into legal engagements, and the only remaining grey area is from killrights.

*edit* To make this system more balanced... you might need to make it a criminal action to go from Samaritan to Suspect... but I'll think on this.
Rengerel en Distel
#916 - 2012-10-09 16:30:07 UTC
Bart Starr wrote:
Its funny how the only element of Crimewatch that poses a slight inconvenience to Carebears and botters (the NPC timer), is the only part that seems to be currently under consideration for removal.

Crimewatch as a whole sucks, but the 15 minute NPC timer was the only thing I was somewhat happy to see.
Figures that they are now talking about eliminating it.

Destroying an entire non-standard profession, and one of the few threats still existing in highsec - thats perfectly A-OK.
Locking people inside their ships for no good reason - causing lag induced random poddings - Greyscale's down for it.

But cause a slight inconvenience to carebears and botters - who are simply mad because they won't be able to logoffski...

...Wow, CCP revises the NPC timer duration to 60 seconds so fast, your head spins.
(which isn't enough time to scan down, let alone kill a ratter, making it useless for hunting carebears)

Guess the carebears really do wear the pants....way to HTFU CCP devs. Roll

You keep saying carebear, but I think you mean nullbear. An npc timer does nothing to highsec people, since they can simply dock up, unlike those in null. If anything, the change was to protect those ratters in null complaining about their carriers having to warp around for 15 min when local flashed. So perhaps instead of complaining about CCP caving into highsec players, you should read the 40 or 50 pages of nullbears complaining they'll have to use safespots while flying around in null now.

With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
Nevryn Takis
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#917 - 2012-10-09 16:31:55 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Nevryn Takis wrote:
Okay reaad up to page 33 ... but posting anyway .. apologies if covered

On the subject of DC logoff vs intentional logoff.. [technical warning] CCP should be able to detect this by differentiating between a time out on the client sockect and an explicit message from the client (which should be sent either by hitting loggoff/quit or by closing the client using the window close button ) [/technical]

I'm also still not sure that the following scenario has been fully qualified
Bad guy A attack carebear B
Good samaritan C in a logi renders assistance to B by repping him.. C gets a suspect flag and is killable by everyone...
This is just plain wrong .. Only A should be able to retaliate against C which means that if C has mates in a fleet they can now kill A..

One issue I've not seen addressed yet and which the current MasterPlan proposals do not cover is making deliberate bumping an aggressive act. Currently it's a PvP exploit used in 2 situations
1) By the goons to kill freighters because no-one can assist in their defence without getting concorded (exploit of game mechanics)
2) By a growing group of extorsionists (primarily in Gallentee space) who bump miner all day long if they don't pay protection money whilst hiding behing an NPC corp so they can't be war-decd). Any attempt to attack the bumping ship either with drones or by a fleet mate results in them getting concorded.

The one grey area is bumping that occurs when multiple ships undock at the same time and one or more of them try and align for warp out. This should be easily solvable by ann undock timer, of say 10 seconds, so that any collision between 2 ships with a valid undock timer doesn't not result in the generation of a suspect/criminal flag.


1.) Anyone can easily "fake" a DC logoff.... for example... unplug the ethernet cable.

2.) Why is it wrong for the logi to become attackable by everyone?? Pilot C can still help player B by just shooting or ewaring bad guy A, then only player A could retaliate. However, player C chose to repair player B instead. I think the logi's should become vulnerable to everyone, as it highly discourages their use in highsec, and will result in greater ship losses by everyone... its straight up win, win...

Yes I know you could fake the DC logoff but in reality who's going to be in a position in the middle of a firefight to yank their ethernet cable out the wall..

As to why the logi shouldn't become a legal target to every one .. simple because the logi hasn't committed a crime. In this case the logi is acting as a samaritan.. If the logi chose to aid the bad guy then he should become a legal target. The logi should inhert the flags of the party he aids not a global flag...
Pipa Porto
#918 - 2012-10-09 16:43:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Why don't you just create a Good Samaritan Flag?


Because that wouldn't serve their intended purpose of making HS safer.


Specifically, they're worried that people might get their ships asploded after shooting naughty people.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#919 - 2012-10-09 16:56:22 UTC
Nevryn Takis wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Nevryn Takis wrote:
Okay reaad up to page 33 ... but posting anyway .. apologies if covered

On the subject of DC logoff vs intentional logoff.. [technical warning] CCP should be able to detect this by differentiating between a time out on the client sockect and an explicit message from the client (which should be sent either by hitting loggoff/quit or by closing the client using the window close button ) [/technical]

I'm also still not sure that the following scenario has been fully qualified
Bad guy A attack carebear B
Good samaritan C in a logi renders assistance to B by repping him.. C gets a suspect flag and is killable by everyone...
This is just plain wrong .. Only A should be able to retaliate against C which means that if C has mates in a fleet they can now kill A..

One issue I've not seen addressed yet and which the current MasterPlan proposals do not cover is making deliberate bumping an aggressive act. Currently it's a PvP exploit used in 2 situations
1) By the goons to kill freighters because no-one can assist in their defence without getting concorded (exploit of game mechanics)
2) By a growing group of extorsionists (primarily in Gallentee space) who bump miner all day long if they don't pay protection money whilst hiding behing an NPC corp so they can't be war-decd). Any attempt to attack the bumping ship either with drones or by a fleet mate results in them getting concorded.

The one grey area is bumping that occurs when multiple ships undock at the same time and one or more of them try and align for warp out. This should be easily solvable by ann undock timer, of say 10 seconds, so that any collision between 2 ships with a valid undock timer doesn't not result in the generation of a suspect/criminal flag.


1.) Anyone can easily "fake" a DC logoff.... for example... unplug the ethernet cable.

2.) Why is it wrong for the logi to become attackable by everyone?? Pilot C can still help player B by just shooting or ewaring bad guy A, then only player A could retaliate. However, player C chose to repair player B instead. I think the logi's should become vulnerable to everyone, as it highly discourages their use in highsec, and will result in greater ship losses by everyone... its straight up win, win...

Yes I know you could fake the DC logoff but in reality who's going to be in a position in the middle of a firefight to yank their ethernet cable out the wall..

As to why the logi shouldn't become a legal target to every one .. simple because the logi hasn't committed a crime. In this case the logi is acting as a samaritan.. If the logi chose to aid the bad guy then he should become a legal target. The logi should inhert the flags of the party he aids not a global flag...


I think the logi is committing a crime. Its interfering with a legal engagement between two players. Just because you have the right to shoot someone does NOT mean you have the right to rep their opponent.
Pipa Porto
#920 - 2012-10-09 17:14:50 UTC
Nevryn Takis wrote:
Yes I know you could fake the DC logoff but in reality who's going to be in a position in the middle of a firefight to yank their ethernet cable out the wall..


Supercap Pilots, for one. Plenty of time to notice you're going to die before dying.

Quote:
As to why the logi shouldn't become a legal target to every one .. simple because the logi hasn't committed a crime. In this case the logi is acting as a samaritan.. If the logi chose to aid the bad guy then he should become a legal target. The logi should inhert the flags of the party he aids not a global flag...


Sure he has. The crime of interfering with a limited engagement.

And CCP has mentioned that they're trying to do away with inherited flags.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto