These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Che Biko
Alexylva Paradox
#1281 - 2012-12-07 21:55:23 UTC
CCP Masterplan wrote:
Assisting anyone who is in an LE will get you a Suspect flag if the other parties in the LE can't already shoot you back.
Based on this I get the idea that the EVE checks if the OP ("other parties in the LE") can legally shoot the 'assistent'.
Why can't EVE then do the same in reverse, check if the assistant can legally shoot the OP, and then create a separate LE's between the OP and the assistant if OP are legal targets for the assistantQuestion

Coordination Channel for Consolidated Space Rescue Cooperation

Open Letter to the Aidonis Foundation Directorate
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1282 - 2012-12-07 22:03:09 UTC
Che Biko wrote:
CCP Masterplan wrote:
Assisting anyone who is in an LE will get you a Suspect flag if the other parties in the LE can't already shoot you back.
Based on this I get the idea that the EVE checks if the OP ("other parties in the LE") can legally shoot the 'assistent'.
Why can't EVE then do the same in reverse, check if the assistant can legally shoot the OP, and then create a separate LE's between the OP and the assistant if OP are legal targets for the assistantQuestion


They probably could... but why bother....

I mean, you can already jam out and gang up on a suspect... do you really need to bring logi's too?
Che Biko
Alexylva Paradox
#1283 - 2012-12-07 22:25:44 UTC
Wether one needs to bring logi's depends on the fleet composition and the adversaries, I suppose.

I just would prefer a situation where any hostile action towards the OP has the same consequence, wether it is shooting them, jamming them, or assisting their opponents.
I see no reason why assisting pilots should be singled out and get suspect flag, if the ones directly engaging the OP don't get one. If it is possible to create separate LE's, then I think the suspect flag is uncalled for.

Coordination Channel for Consolidated Space Rescue Cooperation

Open Letter to the Aidonis Foundation Directorate
Despicable Rogue
#1284 - 2012-12-08 01:18:21 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite

In every case, the Logi pilot would be better off having the choice to join one or more LEs rather than simply becoming a globally attackable "Suspect" by defending the victim of an attack by "Criminals." In every case, the Logi pilot who is part of the LE(s) would be subject to attack by the counterparties of the ships he is repping. In every case, any additional LE "Safety" switching is the responsibility of the Logi pilot and only puts him in a better situation that becoming a "Suspect." Being a legal target for one or a few is far better than being a legal target for everyone in Eve.
Zetura Omo
The Association
#1285 - 2012-12-08 12:11:53 UTC
Would like to interject this aspect to Crimewatch and would like a Dev response!

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=179095&find=unread

Tomasu Saisima
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1286 - 2012-12-15 00:13:34 UTC
There was talk about the option to improve security status with officer tags. But i haven't read anything else about it since.... Any word on this?
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1287 - 2012-12-15 00:20:58 UTC
Tomasu Saisima wrote:
There was talk about the option to improve security status with officer tags. But i haven't read anything else about it since.... Any word on this?


No new information yet...
Rutger Gist
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1288 - 2012-12-17 03:26:13 UTC
I'm pretty unhappy with this Crimewatch system.

I no longer receive a negative security status for looting wrecks. I also thought that salvaging another's wreck was also going to give a negative security status.

The other issue I don't like is that I must proactively change my status to "Suspect" before I can loot, instead of my looting triggering that status automatically.

The we still have the issue of Concord and now the Free to Attack from the "Suspect" or 'Criminal" status. If I can be attacked by anyone, than why is Concord still patrolling High Security space? Now there are two layers of protection, where before there was only one.

Concord should be severely limited in .5 - .6 space. Perhaps no more than gate guns and frigate response. Concord should be beatable as well.

I did not realize that Crime Watch would essentially end all crime in High Sec and push everyone out into low sec. EVE is supposed to be a harsh and dangerous place, it is not feeling like the place that I grew to love since 2004!!
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1289 - 2012-12-17 03:54:52 UTC
Rutger Gist wrote:
I'm pretty unhappy with this Crimewatch system.

I no longer receive a negative security status for looting wrecks. I also thought that salvaging another's wreck was also going to give a negative security status.

The other issue I don't like is that I must proactively change my status to "Suspect" before I can loot, instead of my looting triggering that status automatically.

The we still have the issue of Concord and now the Free to Attack from the "Suspect" or 'Criminal" status. If I can be attacked by anyone, than why is Concord still patrolling High Security space? Now there are two layers of protection, where before there was only one.

Concord should be severely limited in .5 - .6 space. Perhaps no more than gate guns and frigate response. Concord should be beatable as well.

I did not realize that Crime Watch would essentially end all crime in High Sec and push everyone out into low sec. EVE is supposed to be a harsh and dangerous place, it is not feeling like the place that I grew to love since 2004!!


First off, when you set your safety setting to allow suspect or ciminal activity, it doesn't immediately flag you... It enables you to perform activities that would flag you....

After you switch your safety setting... you don't get flagged until you steal, or until you do something ot earn it... So I don't understand your issue with looting triggering automatically, because it does trigger automatically (once you turn the safety off).

And salvage was Never considered personal... and always open to anyone with a salvager...

As for the lack of sec status penalties... why is that a big deal?
As for the Concord response time.... In 0.5-0.6, the response is 16-20s if you know what you are doing... why is that not enough time?
Roman Grigoriev
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1290 - 2012-12-21 06:09:27 UTC
good system, but a crime must be crime always. not on concord territory only, but in lowsec systems too. for example, i know much ppl, that killing solo researches in warp holes, but they havnt a status "pirate" for that crime. after exitting from holes they are clean like sheeps. imo its must be fixed too - any terminate of capsule of "clean" pilots in any places must set a tag "pirate", not on 15 min only, but 15 days as minimum. yeh, its may be flagged a half of server, but its can take much money for newbee pirate hunters;)
Rutger Gist
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1291 - 2012-12-24 13:53:06 UTC
Hope to get a Dev response on this...

1. Since Crimewatch, stealing from a yellow wreck gives a "Suspect" flag, but no security standing penalty. Working as intended?

2. Tthe problem with the system of having everyone able to attack a "Suspect" is that no one does. This is because they know that they too will be "Suspect" flagged and open to attack from everyone.

Solution: If I steal from individual / corp owned wreck "ABC", only individuals from ABC can attack me. Addtionally, there could be a skill book (Social) "Deputized" that would allow a capsuleer to freely attack anyone with a negative standing in High Sec space. However, the deputized skill book can not be used by anyone who has a negative standing themselves.

Level 1: Deputized in Systems 10.0 - 9.0

Level 2: Deputized in Systems 8.0

Level 3: Deputized in Systems 7.0

Level 4. Deputized in Systems 6.0

Level 5: Deputized in Systems 5.0

This way the supposed, more experienced deputies would patrol the lower security status systems.

3. We need more opportunities for crime in EVE (in general) and in High Sec more specifically.

Solutions: Advanced Hacking and Smuggling

Advanced Hacking would allow the user to unlock secured containers. Levels would match up with the size of the container (ie. Level 1 = Small secured Container, etc.)

Smuggling.... In every system there are drugs or dog tags or other commodities that are banned.

1. Create a system where these items can be sold in exchange for LPs in certain NPC faction corporations.

2. Add smuggling as an offense to the Crimewatch system (Suspect Flagged)

3. Add skill books and modules for Hiding Contraband and Detecting Contraband.

4. Allow those with Deputized Skill to also seek out Suspect Flagged Smugglers.

In the end, what I'm hoping for is a return to EVE, that sense that EVE is a cold, harsh place. I'm not calling for a return of the Hi Sec suicide ganker, I'm asking for a return for some of the criminal activity (and the creation of a new one) that will create a new element of play style and freedom.

Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#1292 - 2012-12-24 14:25:51 UTC
Rutger Gist wrote:
2. Tthe problem with the system of having everyone able to attack a "Suspect" is that no one does. This is because they know that they too will be "Suspect" flagged and open to attack from everyone.


Nope. They're entered into a limited engagement with the suspect, so the suspect can fight back. But it doesn't open up the attacker to any other aggression.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
mossbit
Fortune's House
#1293 - 2013-02-14 15:03:51 UTC
Are there any plans to increase the Limited Engagement timer (15 minutes p;ease)? As it stands 5 minutes is barely enough time to switch ships and warp back.
CCP Masterplan
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1294 - 2013-02-14 17:37:44 UTC
The 5 minute length is somewhat designed around exactly that. It should be long enough to give people time to chase each other down, get in range, and initiate a fight, but not too long that you can shut someone down for too long by camping them.

Remember that the countdown is restarted every time one party attacks the other, so as long as you're fighting each other somewhat frequently, the LE can last almost as long as you like.

(And if your 1v1s are timing out too easily, remember that next week we're adding a duel challenge, so you can set up an LE as easy as starting a convo)

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

@ccp_masterplan  |  Team Five-0: Rewriting the law
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#1295 - 2013-02-14 17:44:16 UTC
CCP Masterplan wrote:
The 5 minute length is somewhat designed around exactly that. It should be long enough to give people time to chase each other down, get in range, and initiate a fight, but not too long that you can shut someone down for too long by camping them.

Remember that the countdown is restarted every time one party attacks the other, so as long as you're fighting each other somewhat frequently, the LE can last almost as long as you like.

(And if your 1v1s are timing out too easily, remember that next week we're adding a duel challenge, so you can set up an LE as easy as starting a convo)


I find the LE timer is too short for me as a -10.

If someone shoots me, and I need to jump system and recoup and come to the fight, the timer expires and they have the initiative once again.

I think 1-2 minutes extra would greatly help the LE timer be what it needs to be without becoming detrimental to game play.

Keep in mind, by the time you disengage from a fight, you have 1-2 minutes to warp away and get docked or whatever. So you have 3 minutes to get back in the fight.

I find I always want an extra 1-2 minutes to get the fight going again with the LE timer.

Where I am.
mossbit
Fortune's House
#1296 - 2013-02-14 18:04:06 UTC  |  Edited by: mossbit
1-2 minutes would be enough I think... I'm not saying let us camp but the timer should allow for enough time for example to switch system and ship and get back in time. 15 minutes was a bit long but 10 minutes would be about right :)

Eve pvp is largely based around advantages and the LE timer should really allow for a reversal to happen.
Juniorama
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1297 - 2013-02-15 16:00:49 UTC
So, if I understand this correctly, I can have an LE with 20 of my friends. Invite some random person to a dual and he will be none the wiser of the 20 other people he will be entering into a limited engagement with if he chooses to accept.

Sounds like a great way to have risk free "consensual" pvp.
CCP Masterplan
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1298 - 2013-02-15 16:05:09 UTC
No, you don't understand this correctly. Each LE is between exactly two people. One person can be in multiple LEs. Entering in to a duel with someone means that ONLY that person gets rights to attack you (Of course anyone else who could normally attack you anyway like corpmates, wartargets etc is not unaffected by this)

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

@ccp_masterplan  |  Team Five-0: Rewriting the law
Jiska Ensa
Estrale Frontiers
#1299 - 2013-02-15 23:26:10 UTC
So, about this issue where a pirate attacks a neutral in low-sec, and the neutral doens't shoot back, and then another neutral remote-reps him and takes the suspect flag....

And for that matter, neutrals attacking suspects in low-sec can't be repped by logi withotu logi taking Suspect as well...

Working as intended?
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#1300 - 2013-02-16 13:42:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Herr Wilkus
Concur that the 5 minute timer is too short, it should be longer, preferably equal in length to the 15 minute suspect flag, as it was before.

After we had to patiently explain to the DEVs why 'not allowing suspects to shoot back' was a seriously bad idea,
the proposed LE compromise was advertised at a standard '15 minute' length, and that seemed fair.

Why was it changed to 5 minutes at the last minute?

Reminds me of the bait and switch they did with the miner buff, originally going way over the top - created an outcry and threadnaughts, pretended to backtrack a bit - but then just went with the original plan anyway, and we can see what a smashing 'success' that was. Yes, I'm being sarcastic.

Makes me wonder why they bother even asking for input in the first place, other than for appearances.

Is Masterplan seriously shedding public tears for the players who choose an LE by shooting at a suspect? Because they might have to wait a WHOLE fifteen minutes to avoid the consequences of engaging that suspect? Shouldn't engaging a suspect have a consequence as well?

Orca swaps were removed by PVP timers, forcing 'ninjas' to disengage and reship.
Giving them 5 minutes to get a new ship, and run through up to 5 gates? (assuming the target doesn't simply dock up, as usual.)

Leaving aside the fact that a suspect now engages on highly uneven ground to begin with.

Carebear coddling at its worst. Its also clear Greyscale and Masterplan put a great deal of thought into how to destroy the 'mission runner baiting' profession.