These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Adrian Dixon
Arbitrary Spaceship Destruction
-affliction-
#1021 - 2012-10-12 16:00:11 UTC
Have the team considered changing the weapon timer on docking in stations from 60 seconds to something like 10 or 15min. This new longer timer would only be for stations in any security systems and not say for stargates or wormholes. I think this is a possible solution to station games.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1022 - 2012-10-12 16:11:53 UTC
Adrian Dixon wrote:
Have the team considered changing the weapon timer on docking in stations from 60 seconds to something like 10 or 15min. This new longer timer would only be for stations in any security systems and not say for stargates or wormholes. I think this is a possible solution to station games.


Unneeded in my opinion.... and far too inhibiting... 60s is about the amount of time it takes to warp across a moderate sized system... so if you escape a battle, you can warp to station and dock, and switch ships to a suite the situation, and rejoin the fight... If it were 10 or 15 minutes, this would not be a possibility.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1023 - 2012-10-12 16:18:20 UTC
MisterAl tt1 wrote:
Back to T3 eject.

Am I getting it right, that a carebear, who never shoots back, receives much privilege over the PVP-pilot, who risks his T3 ship by initiating or taking part in PVP ? Thus carebear will never loose his skill and PVPer will everytime, if T3 is killed.

I thiught this is a game about PVP and a logical result of the idea "more risk = more profit" is "less risks = more losses in case they come" (highsec officer-fitted ratters, e.g.). With the new mechanic carebears in T3 will LOL on the PVPers willing to fight in these ships.

Thank you, CCP it WAS a nice game.


Imagine a t3 gets tackled by a hunter....

If a carebear sits there and does NOT shoot back... .they have zero chance their t3 escaping, but can eject and get their Pod out and not lose SP.

If a PvP'er shoots back, they have a chance of escape, and but cannot eject if they fail to escape. [more risk (sp) but more profit (their t3)]

Just because you can skirt the t3 sp loss now, does not mean it was intended that way, nor that you should be able to!!! IMO, the ONLY way you should NOT lose sp from a t3 loss is if your opponents capture the ship.... In other words, if you eject, and they blow it up anyway... you should still lose sp....
Adrian Dixon
Arbitrary Spaceship Destruction
-affliction-
#1024 - 2012-10-12 16:23:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Adrian Dixon
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Adrian Dixon wrote:
Have the team considered changing the weapon timer on docking in stations from 60 seconds to something like 10 or 15min. This new longer timer would only be for stations in any security systems and not say for stargates or wormholes. I think this is a possible solution to station games.


Unneeded in my opinion.... and far too inhibiting... 60s is about the amount of time it takes to warp across a moderate sized system... so if you escape a battle, you can warp to station and dock, and switch ships to a suite the situation, and rejoin the fight... If it were 10 or 15 minutes, this would not be a possibility.


Good point Gizznitt. Perhaps 2 or 3 min would be more like it. I need to put more thought into it. My point is station games are terrible, the only thing these types of people commit to is tanking damage for 60seconds then docking when things are not going their own way.

Maybe shooting within 5km of station could increase the 60 seconds docking timer to 5min. That way fighting off station would preserve your 60 second docking timer and allow for a reship. Still I will put more thought into it.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1025 - 2012-10-12 17:02:00 UTC
Adrian Dixon wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Adrian Dixon wrote:
Have the team considered changing the weapon timer on docking in stations from 60 seconds to something like 10 or 15min. This new longer timer would only be for stations in any security systems and not say for stargates or wormholes. I think this is a possible solution to station games.


Unneeded in my opinion.... and far too inhibiting... 60s is about the amount of time it takes to warp across a moderate sized system... so if you escape a battle, you can warp to station and dock, and switch ships to a suite the situation, and rejoin the fight... If it were 10 or 15 minutes, this would not be a possibility.


Good point Gizznitt. Perhaps 2 or 3 min would be more like it. I need to put more thought into it. My point is station games are terrible, the only thing these types of people commit to is tanking damage for 60seconds then docking when things are not going their own way.

Maybe shooting within 5km of station could increase the 60 seconds docking timer to 5min. That way fighting off station would preserve your 60 second docking timer and allow for a reship. Still I will put more thought into it.


I just avoid shooting people on a station.... It's strategically dump to do so, as their backup can undock in anything, and most likely something to specifically counter you!

I'm just happy with logistics inheriting the weapons flags of ships they rep.... so if a log pilot undocks to "save" that ship on station, they themselves are exposed up to a full minute of fire. Sure, ships like a carrier can handle this... until they do it too often and their opponents cyno in supercaps... A 60s weapons timer is just about perfect...
Sirinda
Ekchuah's Shrine Comporium
#1026 - 2012-10-13 00:06:09 UTC
Having to train the same skill over and over and over again is the definition of insanity. Twisted

How 'bout a skill that has a chance to prevent SP loss, or maybe an implant with the same purpose?
Tarunik Raqalth'Qui
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1027 - 2012-10-13 01:43:53 UTC
Jarin Arenos wrote:
Camera Drone wrote:
Mizhir wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:


Tippia always comes up with flippiant answers that have very little basis in reality.
This 15 minute NPC timer means death for any ratter who has an internet outage.



If I remember correctly ships will warp out to a "safe area" if you disconnect, unless you are already pointed.


rats point, you know. especially sleepers

Which makes it more important than ever to clear the scram NPCs ASAP. But it reduces the issue of deaths due to legit network issues from "all the damn time" to a much narrower set of edge cases.

Unlike K-space rats, where the only scrams come from frigs which are rarely, if ever, triggers, scrams from Sleepers (and iSanshas too) can come from rats of any size, AND the scrambling rats can very well be the triggers for the next wave. (see an Unsecured Frontier Database, for an example that matters in this case: warp-scrambling triggers are present in higher-class sites as well, but in that case, disconnecting matters quite a bit less because even if you disco while scrambled, your fleetmates can still RR you for the duration of the timer)

So, while your advice is valid for the average mission or 0.0 anom bear, it has the potential to cause more trouble than it solves when fighting Sleepers.
Pipa Porto
#1028 - 2012-10-13 01:54:07 UTC
Sirinda wrote:
Having to train the same skill over and over and over again is the definition of insanity. Twisted

How 'bout a skill that has a chance to prevent SP loss, or maybe an implant with the same purpose?


There is one. Use a T1 or T2 ship.

Part of the cost of using a T3 has always been the loss of one of your Sub skills. The fact that you've been able to get around that cost so far is irrelevant.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Nyla Skin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1029 - 2012-10-13 08:10:05 UTC
Tippia wrote:
CCP Masterplan wrote:
Our current thinking on this is something like:

Assisting your own corp mates* in a Limited Engagement is always legally allowed (it won't be punished per se, but you'll still inherit any W/P/S/C flags they have)

But this is still something we're discussing
* Excluding NPC corps, and assisting Outlaws in high-sec
This really isn't a good idea since it brings those invulnerable logis back stronger than ever. At least before, you could try to chase logis away — neutral or not — but this just makes them plain untouchable and you can pile on as many as you like to make the LE participant untouchable as well.

Really, if you're in a corp, they can just bring more guns and active disruption to the party — ECM will work wonders and will enter the newcomer in an LE of his own, with all the personal risk that entails (minus “because of Falcon”).

I can understand your unwillingness to copy LEs, but really, that's a much smaller headache than adding untouchable ships to the fight. So really: disallow them too (giving them the same S-flags as everyone else) or start thinking up ways of copying LE flags… Straight


Chase what away? If the logis are corp mates to the ship being repped, they aren't neutral, are they?

In after the lock :P   - CCP Falcon www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies
Robin Barson
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1030 - 2012-10-13 12:00:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Robin Barson
CCP Masterplan wrote:
Our current thinking on this is something like:

Assisting your own corp mates* in a Limited Engagement is always legally allowed (it won't be punished per se, but you'll still inherit any W/P/S/C flags they have)

But this is still something we're discussing
* Excluding NPC corps, and assisting Outlaws in high-sec


Does that mean if I remote repair a corpmate who also remote repairs someone in a LE, both of us remote guys become suspects, but at least I do not lose security for repping a suspect in highsec? According to the table in the dev blog I'd lose sec for repping another repping logistics.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1031 - 2012-10-13 15:36:48 UTC
Nyla Skin wrote:
Tippia wrote:
CCP Masterplan wrote:
Our current thinking on this is something like:

Assisting your own corp mates* in a Limited Engagement is always legally allowed (it won't be punished per se, but you'll still inherit any W/P/S/C flags they have)

But this is still something we're discussing
* Excluding NPC corps, and assisting Outlaws in high-sec
This really isn't a good idea since it brings those invulnerable logis back stronger than ever. At least before, you could try to chase logis away — neutral or not — but this just makes them plain untouchable and you can pile on as many as you like to make the LE participant untouchable as well.

Really, if you're in a corp, they can just bring more guns and active disruption to the party — ECM will work wonders and will enter the newcomer in an LE of his own, with all the personal risk that entails (minus “because of Falcon”).

I can understand your unwillingness to copy LEs, but really, that's a much smaller headache than adding untouchable ships to the fight. So really: disallow them too (giving them the same S-flags as everyone else) or start thinking up ways of copying LE flags… Straight


Chase what away? If the logis are corp mates to the ship being repped, they aren't neutral, are they?


Your corp-mate logistics can easily be neutral to to the "opponent"......

Imagine your corpmate Chloe attacks Suspect Steve, which is legal to do because of the suspect flag. Steve probably receive the suspect flag without ever interacting you you, chloe, or any your corp mates,perhaps because someone activated kilrights on him, or he stole from a miner in system, or maybe 5 minutes ago he shot a ship in lowsec.

Then, from going by CCP's statement, you, who are in corp with Corpmate Chloe, can come rep Chloe and remain completely neutral to Suspect Steve, so Steve's only options are to shoot chloe with enough firepower to overcome your reps, or to run away... This is broken...

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1032 - 2012-10-13 15:41:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Gizznitt Malikite
Robin Barson wrote:
CCP Masterplan wrote:
Our current thinking on this is something like:

Assisting your own corp mates* in a Limited Engagement is always legally allowed (it won't be punished per se, but you'll still inherit any W/P/S/C flags they have)

But this is still something we're discussing
* Excluding NPC corps, and assisting Outlaws in high-sec


Does that mean if I remote repair a corpmate who also remote repairs someone in a LE, both of us remote guys become suspects, but at least I do not lose security for repping a suspect in highsec? According to the table in the dev blog I'd lose sec for repping another repping logistics.


If you remote repair a NON-corpmate in a LE engagement, you get a suspect flag....
If you remote repair a suspect, you gain a suspect flag....

So, it depends on the relationship of your corp mate to the person they are repping in the LE. If he is repping another corp mate (that is NOT flagged as Suspect), he will not gain a suspect flag, and neither will you. If he is repping a "neutral", he will get a suspect flag... and the you will get one too...

Note, CCP is installing "switches" which, if you activate them, will prevent you from committing an act that gives you a Criminal or Suspect flag.... and there may even be another warning of some type....
Nyla Skin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1033 - 2012-10-13 16:40:39 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:


So, it depends on the relationship of your corp mate to the person they are repping in the LE. If he is repping another corp mate, he will not gain a suspect flag, and neither will you. If he is repping a "neutral", he will get a suspect flag... and the you will get one too...

Note, CCP is installing "switches" which, if you activate them, will prevent you from committing an act that gives you a Criminal or Suspect flag.... and there may even be another warning of some type....


Try reading better:

Quote:
Assisting your own corp mates* in a Limited Engagement is always legally allowed (it won't be punished per se, but you'll still inherit any W/P/S/C flags they have)

In after the lock :P   - CCP Falcon www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies
Adree Jericho
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1034 - 2012-10-13 21:53:18 UTC
Because it needs to be said and said often:

Thank you CCP Masterplan!

If you view his forum posts in total, his responses to this thread alone are approaching and will likely exceed three pages of just him clarifying things. This is a complicated issue, and he's working overtime to give us what we want to know.

Remember a year-ish ago when CCP said they were going to talk to us more often?

Yup, they're doing that.

<3
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#1035 - 2012-10-14 01:04:08 UTC
@devs what was the reason why the no-eject-if-weapon-timer rule was introduced?

only because of the t3s or something else?

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Nendail Smith
Lockheed Nighthawk
#1036 - 2012-10-14 01:06:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Nendail Smith
Maybe this was already mentioned, I'm sorry I haven't taken the time to read all 53 pages. Is it possible (Despite the tears) to attach a value to the kill rights?

The kill rights should not go away until equal or greater isk is destroyed. Otherwise people will go kill people, if the kill rights go public they will jump in an alt, kill themselves in a nub ship and cancel the kill rights. Putting a value that has to be reached on a kill right before it expires along with the time limit would help this.

Further I'd like to see kill rights extended to 60 days, but I know that won't fly. Just thought I'd toss it out there. I've played on all three sides of this equation. Being ganked/jumped, ganking and jumping others, as well as living with kill rights. 30 days is just not really enough if you ask me.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#1037 - 2012-10-14 01:17:47 UTC
Adrian Dixon wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Adrian Dixon wrote:
Have the team considered changing the weapon timer on docking in stations from 60 seconds to something like 10 or 15min. This new longer timer would only be for stations in any security systems and not say for stargates or wormholes. I think this is a possible solution to station games.


Unneeded in my opinion.... and far too inhibiting... 60s is about the amount of time it takes to warp across a moderate sized system... so if you escape a battle, you can warp to station and dock, and switch ships to a suite the situation, and rejoin the fight... If it were 10 or 15 minutes, this would not be a possibility.


Good point Gizznitt. Perhaps 2 or 3 min would be more like it. I need to put more thought into it. My point is station games are terrible, the only thing these types of people commit to is tanking damage for 60seconds then docking when things are not going their own way.

Maybe shooting within 5km of station could increase the 60 seconds docking timer to 5min. That way fighting off station would preserve your 60 second docking timer and allow for a reship. Still I will put more thought into it.

If they could actually warp and dock in a minute, why didn't they?

Oh right.

Let's make it so you can't dock in that station for 3 minutes or until you've already docked and undocked from a different station.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
#1038 - 2012-10-14 01:29:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Roll Sizzle Beef
Bienator II wrote:
@devs what was the reason why the no-eject-if-weapon-timer rule was introduced?

only because of the t3s or something else?


Saw your point in the locked GD thread. I agree in the loss of options in scenarios of slow death. That self destruct should carry a perk to the denial of more items to the enemy. A self destruct should also give a capsular time to escape as he planed it. 3-5 sec invul time for lag. Yet SP loss was part of the cost for flying such a tough SOB if it went down. Yet it is kind of a hard punch for those who have made use of the eject maneuver for so long.
Yet I wouldn't mind giving said pilots a real safety net for a cost. What would you think of a hardwire implant that protects your head from a rapid t3 disconnect, slot 10. Or even a high tier only combat booster , slot 1. that will protect your head for a op.
Pipa Porto
#1039 - 2012-10-14 04:44:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
Nyla Skin wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:


So, it depends on the relationship of your corp mate to the person they are repping in the LE. If he is repping another corp mate, he will not gain a suspect flag, and neither will you. If he is repping a "neutral", he will get a suspect flag... and the you will get one too...

Note, CCP is installing "switches" which, if you activate them, will prevent you from committing an act that gives you a Criminal or Suspect flag.... and there may even be another warning of some type....


Try reading better:

Quote:
Assisting your own corp mates* in a Limited Engagement is always legally allowed (it won't be punished per se, but you'll still inherit any W/P/S/C flags they have)


Weapon/PvP/Suspect/Criminal.

Only the Criminal and Suspect flags allow other people to shoot you. LE membership is not a transferable flag (they've made this very clear as they don't want to bother mapping encounters).

With CCP's insistence on not wanting to map encounters, repping a Corpmate could either result in becoming a Suspect or in remaining neutral. CCP, as usual, is choosing the more broken option.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Robin Barson
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1040 - 2012-10-14 06:59:52 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Robin Barson wrote:
CCP Masterplan wrote:
Our current thinking on this is something like:

Assisting your own corp mates* in a Limited Engagement is always legally allowed (it won't be punished per se, but you'll still inherit any W/P/S/C flags they have)

But this is still something we're discussing
* Excluding NPC corps, and assisting Outlaws in high-sec


Does that mean if I remote repair a corpmate who also remote repairs someone in a LE, both of us remote guys become suspects, but at least I do not lose security for repping a suspect in highsec? According to the table in the dev blog I'd lose sec for repping another repping logistics.


If you remote repair a NON-corpmate in a LE engagement, you get a suspect flag....
If you remote repair a suspect, you gain a suspect flag....

So, it depends on the relationship of your corp mate to the person they are repping in the LE. If he is repping another corp mate, he will not gain a suspect flag, and neither will you. If he is repping a "neutral", he will get a suspect flag... and the you will get one too...

Note, CCP is installing "switches" which, if you activate them, will prevent you from committing an act that gives you a Criminal or Suspect flag.... and there may even be another warning of some type....


I am not worried about getting a suspect flag for repping another suspect, but about the security hit. According to the table in the dev blog you lose sec if you rep a suspect in highsec. Since everyone who reps someone in a LE becomes suspect, you'll lose sec if you rep a logi in highsec, even if you do it to defend a friend agains thieves.

Or the other way round: you do not get a sec hit for stealing in highsec, but you get a security hit for repping a thief, even when those two are in the same corp? I am no thief, but I like that there are some who steal things. How boring would it be if there was no theft in eve? Not in highsec, because thieves cannot fight without sec loss, and in low or null there is no point in stealing anyway.