EVE General Discussion

I feel like im repeating myself here...

I don't mind the new agression they want to implement. It's the sec status hit for defending yourself.

Posting fast man, keep up! :)

True true, can agree with ya on that.

I'll make sure to pick my fights near gates and stations then. Let the chaos begin.

It doesn't matter where you're going to pick your fights, because MeanGriefer has three dozens Guardians, and you don't. Good luck convincing your miner buddies to throw themselves into the fray, because much more often than not, the people with actual guns on their ships will be on my side, and not yours.

"Promote pvp." What a joke.

The advent of the "suspect" system should encourage more PvP open opportunities.

I'm not thinking from the point of GCC in HS this wont change anything for suicide ganking as an activity, the end result is still the same.

The aftermath is how they will be treated due to their sec hit changes. And also the potential enrichment of some low sec gameplay should people try to seek out the more fervant criminal element.

In this sense it may encourage more PvP. It has the potential to enliven low sec quite a bit as a result.

Totally. ...and I think when salvaging first cam out everyone kind of expected the highsec mechanics to change... there should be risks to everything.

I just want to make sure highsec ganking is still possible.

I was at the preso and the roundtable afterwards. Here's my overall take on this.

The primary reason behind these huge, proposed changes is that Greyscale wants to programmatically rid the aggression trees of nodes which involve individual players. Basically, having to account for player-player and player-corp aggression is hard from a server logic perspective, so the primary motivation behind these changes are to make the implementation of Crimewatch simpler by making it all person-everyone.

In other words, it's not because these are necessarily "needed" mechanics changes from a gameplay perspective... it's the "easy button" from a coding perspective. This is an utter crock, and it's a cop-out. In addition to this, it's moving player "safeties" from player's own brain into a hand-holding client.

I've always considered Aggression Management a skill, nay, an art form, when it comes to highsec shenanigans - it's one of the precious few areas of EVE where you can out-fox or be out-foxxed with strategy, and even now it has always been up to any of the players involved to escalate a confrontation or to not.. If I flip your can, you AND/OR your corpmates could aggress me back, easily turning it into a 1-vs-n. Some choose to, some chose not to. So you're in a NPC corp and thus you have no corpmates to come to your aid? Well, that's the tradeoff you have for being in a non-dec'able NPC corp. Want to wish death on the flipper but all your SP are in Industry and can't field a proper ship to fight him with? It's not anyone's fault but your own that is how you chose to spend your skill queue time.

One of the most disturbing moments came when, under the proposed rules, the following scenario was given:

1) Player A flips the can of Player B and gains a Suspect flag, making A shootable by everyone

2) Players C-Z go to town on Player A as a result.

Here's the kicker - going into this preso, CCP Greyscale said that once Player A gets aggressed by Players C-Z, Player A will not be allowed to shoot his aggressors back. Yes, this is basically making anyone with a mere Suspect flag the equivalent of GCC, just without the sec drop and CONCORD spawn. Many people in the audience, including myself, collectively WTF'd and suggested that he's off his rocker... and he seemed a bit surprised at this reaction.

In the end, the proposed Crimewatch 2.0 gameplay changes have big problems. First, for being presented at a fanfest in a embryonic state, and second, the impetus behind them is to make the implementation of aggression mechanics easier (as in lazy-easier) and not really because they might make gameplay better. I don't think this is even close to being a sound basis.

What Crimewatch 2.0 needs to be is a reimplementation of current logic - ie, the current aggression mechanics. Yes, the current Crimewatch code is buggy and convoluted, it needs to be modularized, it needs latent bugs fixed and some additional non-gameplay-affecting features added such as KM's for self-destructs while under aggression. CCP Greyscale and Masterplan need to do this first. Then and only then should actual gameplay-affecting changes be considered.

/T

Are you ******* serious m8? That's the dumbest thing you've ever said - and that's saying a lot.

-Liang

Ed: Just to be clear: it should never be in doubt that the player will have the right to defend themselves while merely a suspect. The fact you haven't even decided if that's possible is just out of this ******* world.

Isnt that a faction issue though, for which you take appropriate reputation hits for actions and navies of empire states react accordingly?

Criminal aspects of security status are co-ordinated by the SCC (Concord) which is effectively a neutral commision for ensuring the safety of trade and other regulated interests from criminal activities.

Be interesting though if FW guys could respond to people who have low factional status perhaps?