These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Getting Rid of the Undesirables (for good this time)

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Shederov Blood
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
#781 - 2012-10-18 03:38:55 UTC
Bart Starr wrote:
If their goal was really to 'simplify things', they would have really kept things simple and avoided 1 to 1 flags entirely...

1). You attack a suspect, you become a suspect OR
2.) suspects can be freely attacked by anyone and vigilantes receive no flag. (ie, still have Concord protection)

But #1 wouldn't make Carebears safe enough for CCP, because criminals would be counter ambushing them.
CCP wanted to provide carebears with 1 vs 'unlimited' gang raep fights at the expense of the 'suspects'.

And #2 is going too far, even by CCP's post Incarna standard.
From what I recall, when Crimewatch2 was first announced, #2 is pretty close to what at least one of the Devs wanted.

Who put the goat in there?
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#782 - 2012-10-18 03:40:20 UTC
Shederov Blood wrote:
Bart Starr wrote:
If their goal was really to 'simplify things', they would have really kept things simple and avoided 1 to 1 flags entirely...

1). You attack a suspect, you become a suspect OR
2.) suspects can be freely attacked by anyone and vigilantes receive no flag. (ie, still have Concord protection)

But #1 wouldn't make Carebears safe enough for CCP, because criminals would be counter ambushing them.
CCP wanted to provide carebears with 1 vs 'unlimited' gang raep fights at the expense of the 'suspects'.

And #2 is going too far, even by CCP's post Incarna standard.
From what I recall, when Crimewatch2 was first announced, #2 is pretty close to what at least one of the Devs wanted.

It wasn't "close," it was the exact same thing. Well, actually, you're right, it was different.

The devs also wanted suspects to be attacked by sentry guns.

^_^;;

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Unit757
North Point
#783 - 2012-10-18 03:52:21 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

And once again we go back, full circle, to that well-proven argument that gankers and pvpers are too afraid of losing their ships.

Then again, what is the issue with crimewatch?

With Crimwatch? The suspect flag, obviously. Flagging people to everyone in the universe for petty crimes is a ridiculous concept. Thieves already get flagged to entire corporations when they steal. By flagging them to the entire universe, CCP is basically admitting to coddling their furry friends, since they're unable to defend themselves and their property even when they outnumber the bad guys.

"Aw, you munchkins can't take care of the Rifter that flipped your ore? Don't you worry your precious little heads about it, we'll just make the meanies fair game to everyone on the server so you won't have to worry about watching out for yourself in a competitive, sandbox MMO. :3"

It's a shame too, because some other parts of Crimewatch are really good, like the neutral RR nerf (and this is coming from a devout high-sec pvper).



We'll, I think we can be a little more specific here. The suspect flag itself is great, in low-sec. In high sec, it's stupid.
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#784 - 2012-10-18 04:53:29 UTC
Shederov Blood wrote:
Bart Starr wrote:
If their goal was really to 'simplify things', they would have really kept things simple and avoided 1 to 1 flags entirely...

1). You attack a suspect, you become a suspect OR
2.) suspects can be freely attacked by anyone and vigilantes receive no flag. (ie, still have Concord protection)

But #1 wouldn't make Carebears safe enough for CCP, because criminals would be counter ambushing them.
CCP wanted to provide carebears with 1 vs 'unlimited' gang raep fights at the expense of the 'suspects'.

And #2 is going too far, even by CCP's post Incarna standard.
From what I recall, when Crimewatch2 was first announced, #2 is pretty close to what at least one of the Devs wanted.

Keep poasting.

No, seriously, you're GORGEOUS.......

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#785 - 2012-10-18 05:40:22 UTC
I don't care about the changes myself, but, if anyone fires on me, im shooting back. Plain and simple. Don't put out a half assed system where I can be shot through a mechanism I can't control and then tell me in certain systems im forbidden from defending myself. Its not gonna happen under threat of anything. Banning or otherwise.
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#786 - 2012-10-18 05:48:21 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
I don't care about the changes myself, but, if anyone fires on me, im shooting back. Plain and simple. Don't put out a half assed system where I can be shot through a mechanism I can't control and then tell me in certain systems im forbidden from defending myself. Its not gonna happen under threat of anything. Banning or otherwise.

Shooting back has never been a problem under any mechanic past or present.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#787 - 2012-10-18 06:32:14 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Random neutrals can easily join in shooting your war targets by joining your corp and no longer being neutrals.

That's also funny. I remember telling CCP SoniClover that exact line, and then he started talking about PUGs.

"As for the corporation side, there is a difference between a corporation goal and an impromptu gang action. Corporation goal implies pre-planning and long-term strategy, neither of which fits very well into the public kill right system. So what I'm saying is that corporations are great for getting people to work together for many things, especially long-term goals, but don't support some forms of co-operative gameplay all that well, like impromptu pick-up group activity."

That was for the killrights if I recall correctly, which oddly enough even if done as a single person LE would allow each individual equal opportunity to invoke it.

Which by the way I agree on the point that FFA killrights was a very bad design.

It's not just for killrights, it's for every time anyone does anything bad. Steal something? Oh look everyone can join the "shoot the thief PUG". Have killrights? Oh look everyone can join the "shoot the guy who might've done something as innocuous as pointing a pod for ransoming in lowsec up to 30 days ago PUG".

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#788 - 2012-10-18 06:33:25 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Shederov Blood wrote:
Bart Starr wrote:
If their goal was really to 'simplify things', they would have really kept things simple and avoided 1 to 1 flags entirely...

1). You attack a suspect, you become a suspect OR
2.) suspects can be freely attacked by anyone and vigilantes receive no flag. (ie, still have Concord protection)

But #1 wouldn't make Carebears safe enough for CCP, because criminals would be counter ambushing them.
CCP wanted to provide carebears with 1 vs 'unlimited' gang raep fights at the expense of the 'suspects'.

And #2 is going too far, even by CCP's post Incarna standard.
From what I recall, when Crimewatch2 was first announced, #2 is pretty close to what at least one of the Devs wanted.

It wasn't "close," it was the exact same thing. Well, actually, you're right, it was different.

The devs also wanted suspects to be attacked by sentry guns.

^_^;;

And they wanted sentry guns in lowsec to keep scaling up so "even carriers would be killed within a certain amount of time", whatever that time was. 4 minutes? 10? I forget.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#789 - 2012-10-18 06:41:09 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Shederov Blood wrote:
Bart Starr wrote:
If their goal was really to 'simplify things', they would have really kept things simple and avoided 1 to 1 flags entirely...

1). You attack a suspect, you become a suspect OR
2.) suspects can be freely attacked by anyone and vigilantes receive no flag. (ie, still have Concord protection)

But #1 wouldn't make Carebears safe enough for CCP, because criminals would be counter ambushing them.
CCP wanted to provide carebears with 1 vs 'unlimited' gang raep fights at the expense of the 'suspects'.

And #2 is going too far, even by CCP's post Incarna standard.
From what I recall, when Crimewatch2 was first announced, #2 is pretty close to what at least one of the Devs wanted.

It wasn't "close," it was the exact same thing. Well, actually, you're right, it was different.

The devs also wanted suspects to be attacked by sentry guns.

^_^;;

And they wanted sentry guns in lowsec to keep scaling up so "even carriers would be killed within a certain amount of time", whatever that time was. 4 minutes? 10? I forget.

Able to kill triage carriers within 4 minutes, 30 seconds. I did the math in that thread, and arrived at an average dps figure of about 15,000 for that time frame, I think, which would also mean that toward the end of those four and a half minutes, the sentries would be hitting for almost six figures per volley, due to exponential growth. Also, I don't believe they have canceled this proposal. I might be wrong though.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#790 - 2012-10-18 08:27:52 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:

It's not just for killrights, it's for every time anyone does anything bad. Steal something? Oh look everyone can join the "shoot the thief PUG". Have killrights? Oh look everyone can join the "shoot the guy who might've done something as innocuous as pointing a pod for ransoming in lowsec up to 30 days ago PUG".

I have no issue with FFA for crimes. The aggressor has to take the initiative for an act which triggers s suspect flag. They have every opportunity to assess the risk of the act they are taking.

I have an issue with the killrights implementation as it is a second sudden FFA time where you don't bear any real control or warning. Random free for all is a bad implementation in my opinion. I also have issue with frontloading killrights as the aggression itself already carries a penalty. Yes, looting needs a workaround for obvious reasons, but I see no issue with offering individuals in different corps with a desire to cooperate in retaliation a way to do so more directly. PUG's aren't the only out of corp groupings that occur.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#791 - 2012-10-18 08:47:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
If they'd had any care for the bountyhunter profession whatsoever, they wouldn't have thought up this "public killright" system, and they certainly wouldn't contemplate continuing to support it when the "technical issues" are "solved", they would "solve" the "technical issues" to put out a functioning system to begin with.

No, this is just a continuation of the work they're doing with the crimewatch 2.0 system, where you can be shot by everyone whenever you do Bad Things. Crimewatch 2.0 takes care of when you do bad things (i.e. canflip someone, start shooting a mining barge, freighter etc, so "defense gangs" can flub ganks (I think this is doable today, since I think stealing anything or shooting anyone means they're shootable by their entire corp, but CCP apparently feels this isn't sufficient so they've upgraded this activity to a PUG)), and now the killright system takes care of when you have done bad things (and minor things like pointing a pod in lowsec, of all things vOv) long ago (by letting everyone create PUGs at will with you as their dungeon in space). They really, really want to tighten the screw on anyone doing anything even remotely related to "unauthorized PVP", and while I've seen them post a lot about what the system will do, I've never seen them refute the assertion that the main thing they're doing with these sets of changes is to try to make hisec much, much safer.

All this while completely and utterly ignoring what I presume is one major cause for all this "increased hisec PVP", which is the fact that outside of fleet fights, nullsec sucks dicks to actually live in, which means there's hardly anybody left in nullsec to gank because everyone who's not dumb has moved their isk-making alts to hisec (or are farming FW like the hilariously broken wealth faucet it is). Then again, CCP treating the reaction instead of the cause is nothing new.

Actually, speaking of minor things, will webbing my own freighter cause the webbing guy to generate a killright and be shootable by everyone? Will unironic 1v1s even be feasible (i.e. without other people shooting the initial aggressor) without going to some system where there's nobody else around?

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
but I see no issue with offering individuals in different corps with a desire to cooperate in retaliation a way to do so more directly. PUG's aren't the only out of corp groupings that occur.

No, there's fleets for that.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#792 - 2012-10-19 19:19:50 UTC
"You are wrong. "Making high sec more secure" is not and has never been a goal of the new bounty system design. You may disagree with the design and you may have better ideas, but you are plain wrong with your assumptions about our goals and intentions."

- CCP Tallest

It's a real shame that we never took issue with the bounty system. It seems to me that the orders from the top are to simply ignore all the feedback about the new kill rights, despite it being predominantly negative.

Start training those destroyer alts if you haven't already.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#793 - 2012-10-19 19:26:26 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
No, there's fleets for that.

I'm more than willing to admit that I don't have all the answers or knowledge when it comes to how this game functions so I'm simply going to ask. How does one party assist another out of corp yet allied party who has had an act committed against them which allows retaliation currently?