These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Fanfest: Crimewatch

First post First post
Author
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
#461 - 2012-03-23 21:51:48 UTC
Garmon wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:

I would appreciate being able to shoot back without being Concorded.


At this point I'd say that's just something that has been overlooked, I'm very sure that when this will actually be implemented, that wont be the case, but I thought you just lost sec status, not get concorded


Well, considering CCP Greyscale said he very specifically threw that option out to the player base to gauge the response, I have to say its less of an oversight and more of a trollface. But yes, it seems impossible that wouldn't be allowed.

Quote:

I cant decide if this would be good or not, I'd think not
...
So what I am trying to say is, turning highsec into amamake would be bad


The problem is that unless they work with directed graphs of personal aggression, there's really not a lot of room inbetween. Go read Greyscale's response for exactly why that's a hard problem.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#462 - 2012-03-23 21:55:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Grumpy Owly
Liam Mirren wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:
So by your recognition of both it obviously implies more than one option, yet interestingly there are in fact more than 2. And hey presto look, CCP Greyscale confirming how they were in fact options merely discussed as a part of a brainstorming process at a roundtable for which no conclusions were drawn.

But of course you need to revert to your innacurate portrayed sensationalist journalism in preumably the hope to discredit CCP in the process as it might help your stance on an issue, yet of course we all now know the truth on the matter. Great way to show your integrity and credibility in reporting things especially after it was a contentious point for which clarity was sought.

The obvious conclusion is that now they are considering a limited engagement option due to those player discussions.


Remember a while ago a DEV stated that NEX store would not have game altering options in it (and actually a few months earlier another DEV stated we would never even HAVE a NEX store), and then they changed their minds about it trying to sneak it in, right up till the point we the players started yelling and revolting? Yeah, that's happening right now, again.

Back then all the problems would have been avoided if CCP would have stated outright that they would NOT introduce "gold ammo", but they didn't for the simple reason that they were thinking about it. Same thing applies here, until greyscale states that "no, not being allowed to shoot back without issues if you're being shot at would be a stupid idea, whatever we're trying to come up with, trust us it won't be THAT" we must assume that, at the very least, they have it on the table.

And that in and of itself shows us that they lack an understanding of what EVE is and should be, which is pretty much worrying for a DEV. Greyscale has replied several times to this thread, I'm sure he noticed our rage is about the "not being able to shoot back" bit, so I'm sure that he's smart enough to simply reply to it with a basic statement that they aren't thinking about that. But he hasn't.


More scaremongering and suposition.

Nothing wrong with brainstroming an idea an gauging reaction to many options, especially when interpretation of player choices is not always black and white or for complete confirmation of their understanding they have to pose devil advocates questions to ensure they are on the correct wavelength. This was actually quoted by CCP as to why the question was posed.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
#463 - 2012-03-23 21:56:30 UTC
Grumpy Owly wrote:

How do you know that all three of these options werent discussed? Presumably by the player involvement and the fact they changed their view to the limited engagement choice suggest some player discussions as it was quoted as based on player discussions?


Given the fact that nobody got back to us with any of those details (including the genuine CCP lovers like me), I have to say its wishful thinking to believe that he discussed any of those options with the community. Furthermore, he specifically said that he threw that option out there to gauge the player reaction.

Which has been exceedingly poor.

Quote:

CCP Greyscale wrote:
What we're actually considering right now, based on player suggestions, is to formalize the concept of a "limited engagement", which is effectively needed for both wardecs and some kind of duelling system, and carry that across to here too. To whit, anyone who engages a suspect becomes part of a "limited engagement" with the suspect on one side and all their aggressors on the other side, and any further interference by anyone else in that engagement gets a suspect flag.


Either way, because it was clarified doesn't allow you to propogate an incorrect and untruthfull awareness or understanding about the scope or direction of the development.


So what I'm propagating isn't untruthful or incorrect. It was the way CCP Greyscale presented it at Fanfest, and that's what all the ~rage~ was about. Which was what the person asked. Which is why I said what CCP's initial course of action was. Why is this hard to you?

Seriously - all of my posts surrounding the mechanic were positive until it became apparent that his intended course of action was to not allow me to shoot back when I am PVP flagged. Fortunately, he seems to have backed down from that a bit.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Harrigan VonStudly
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#464 - 2012-03-23 22:04:14 UTC
Gentlemen and ladies. What we want to be careful of is if CCP is "saying" it then we should be discussing it. And I'm sure they would want us to discuss. Please keep in mind that they have a habit of slipping things in unmentioned. Final blow on a rat only gets the sec increase, one of other unmentioned "features/changes".

Discussion is good. Carry on

o7
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#465 - 2012-03-23 22:06:01 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:

How do you know that all three of these options werent discussed? Presumably by the player involvement and the fact they changed their view to the limited engagement choice suggest some player discussions as it was quoted as based on player discussions?


Given the fact that nobody got back to us with any of those details (including the genuine CCP lovers like me), I have to say its wishful thinking to believe that he discussed any of those options with the community. Furthermore, he specifically said that he threw that option out there to gauge the player reaction.

Which has been exceedingly poor.

Quote:

CCP Greyscale wrote:
What we're actually considering right now, based on player suggestions, is to formalize the concept of a "limited engagement", which is effectively needed for both wardecs and some kind of duelling system, and carry that across to here too. To whit, anyone who engages a suspect becomes part of a "limited engagement" with the suspect on one side and all their aggressors on the other side, and any further interference by anyone else in that engagement gets a suspect flag.


Either way, because it was clarified doesn't allow you to propogate an incorrect and untruthfull awareness or understanding about the scope or direction of the development.


So what I'm propagating isn't untruthful or incorrect. It was the way CCP Greyscale presented it at Fanfest, and that's what all the ~rage~ was about. Which was what the person asked. Which is why I said what CCP's initial course of action was. Why is this hard to you?

Seriously - all of my posts surrounding the mechanic were positive until it became apparent that his intended course of action was to not allow me to shoot back when I am PVP flagged. Fortunately, he seems to have backed down from that a bit.

-Liang


It clearly says that there intended direction is "based on player suggestions" as such that has to imply some discussion. You only need a modicum of intelligence to connect the dots on that one.

Fine be mad about the questioning if you like. I simply see it as a complete investigation of player reaction and understanding and if anything suggests a more professional investigative process as they want to see the complete picture as was quoted.

I'll leave it to kneejerk sensationalists like yourself who want to see bad in everything to make a poor decision about such a intergral process in brainstorming exercises.

For me I'm happy about the the actual adopted direction regarding this mechanic.
Liam Mirren
#466 - 2012-03-23 22:06:36 UTC
Grumpy Owly wrote:
Nothing wrong with brainstroming an idea an gauging reaction to many options, especially when interpretation of player choices is not always black and white or for complete confirmation of their understanding they have to pose devil advocates questions to ensure they are on the correct wavelength. This was actually quoted by CCP as to why the question was posed.


You don't brainstorm ideas that are moronic, unless you think they aren't.

Also, fanfest happens once every year, so they have VERY limited time to interact with their customers like that, one would think that the info you're trying to get from players would be about stuff you're actually interested in. They don't have the time to waste it on dumb questions.

Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.

Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#467 - 2012-03-23 22:11:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Grumpy Owly
Liam Mirren wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:
Nothing wrong with brainstroming an idea an gauging reaction to many options, especially when interpretation of player choices is not always black and white or for complete confirmation of their understanding they have to pose devil advocates questions to ensure they are on the correct wavelength. This was actually quoted by CCP as to why the question was posed.


You don't brainstorm ideas that are moronic, unless you think they aren't.

Also, fanfest happens once every year, so they have VERY limited time to interact with their customers like that, one would think that the info you're trying to get from players would be about stuff you're actually interested in. They don't have the time to waste it on dumb questions.


Actually in brainstorming there are no dumb questions or dumb ideas. As its possible for other thoughts processes to be clarified and a more awareness about a position sought. Its a poor missconception that you need to have a pre-conceived idea for a brainstorming exercise and if anything that attitude defeats the purpose of it.

Considering that the future blogs and these forums extend that model I suppose helps. So happy for the topic to be discussed even if recognised as silly. But not have it portrayed as the direction in that kind of context. A distinction has to be made in context for a complete picture to be understood as a result. And as such I feel justified in challenging and keeping people "honest" as a result of that.
Liam Mirren
#468 - 2012-03-23 22:13:57 UTC
You're being dumb again, I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. Seems I was too optimistic.

Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.

Liang Nuren
No Salvation
#469 - 2012-03-23 22:14:42 UTC
Grumpy Owly wrote:

It clearly says that there intended direction is "based on player suggestions" as such that has to imply some discussion. You only need a modicum of intelligence to connect the dots on that one.

Fine be mad about the questioning if you like. I simply see it as a complete investigation of player reaction and understanding and if anything suggests a more professional investigative process as they want to see the complete picture as was quoted.

I'll leave it to kneejerk sensationalists like yourself who want to see bad in everything to make a poor decision about such a intergral process in brainstorming exercises.

For me I'm happy about the the actual adopted direction regarding this mechanic.


You seem to think I'm some sort of anti-CCP sensationalist. The record doesn't really support that and I've been an extremely active pro-CCP blogger since my return in November. I'm about as close to a massive CCP Fanboy as you can get as a 6 year Eve-O vet.

No, what happened was Greyscale threw out a really ******* stupid idea that was so stupid it was one step shy of /trollface to see what the player reaction was. It is not "knee jerk sensationalism" to help provide that reaction.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Liam Mirren
#470 - 2012-03-23 22:16:34 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
You seem to think I'm some sort of anti-CCP sensationalist. The record doesn't really support that and I've been an extremely active pro-CCP blogger since my return in November. I'm about as close to a massive CCP Fanboy as you can get as a 6 year Eve-O vet.

No, what happened was Greyscale threw out a really ******* stupid idea that was so stupid it was one step shy of /trollface to see what the player reaction was. It is not "knee jerk sensationalism" to help provide that reaction.

-Liang


I could have written that

+1

Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.

CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#471 - 2012-03-23 22:23:51 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

What we're actually considering right now, based on player suggestions, is to formalize the concept of a "limited engagement", which is effectively needed for both wardecs and some kind of duelling system, and carry that across to here too. To whit, anyone who engages a suspect becomes part of a "limited engagement" with the suspect on one side and all their aggressors on the other side, and any further interference by anyone else in that engagement gets a suspect flag.



Not so sure about consensual war decs, but the limited engagement / duel and flagging interference from others as a global suspect is the way to go, ship it.


Doesn't need to be consensual, just needs to be limited Smile

Blind Navigator wrote:
The system roughly sketched in the presentation will either be insanely complicated or will have massive loopholes.


Example "Suspect Baiting"
A can flips and becomes suspect.
B-D shoot the suspect as he is flagged "anyone can shoot him"
A1-A20 "neutral" logis warpin and keep A safe while he kills unsuspecting B-D.


Example "Inherited Flipping"
A1 flips a can of a mining fleet.
B-G miners pop A1's Ibis.
H orca loots the can after can flipper is popped. But can has been flipped so H becomes suspect.
A2 warps cane on other account and has an easy go at the orca while B-G can only watch.


"suspect-baiting" "inherited flipping" will cause more tears than current system

Fixing such holes in the system will make it even harder for new playe and in the end easier for pirates.

Not a bad thing imo but I dont think its what CCP is trying to accomplish.


Suspect-baiting is the reason we're trying to avoid having to go down the road of giving people suspect flags for aggressing suspects. Inherited flipping is prevented by the safety system.

Steve Ronuken wrote:
Might have missed this suggestion (I read the dev comments, and about the first 10 pages)

Suggestion:

Four stage flagging.

a: Innocent. The regular state for people. Can attack anything, but they will lose this status.
b: White Hats: People that can attack anything below, without changing status. And can be attacked without consequence by those below. But not innocents. No sec status hits for kills.
c: Grey hat: Suspects. Can attack white hats without changing status, or sec status.
d: Black hats: GCC



Avoids 1-1 tagging, and allows people to fight back, without everyone just becoming suspects.


Given that it's trivially easy to get a suspect flag, the white hat "protection" of not being attackable by innocents is pretty easily voided, unfortunately.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#472 - 2012-03-23 22:24:41 UTC

Alua Oresson wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:


Psychotic Monk wrote:
I see some exploitable flaws in killing low sec-status dudes for status. Not that that makes me against it. Just don't be suprised when I abuse it. But I also see it generating fights as white knights chase dudes like me around. I am all for this.


Current plan is that the bonus you get for killing someone is halved for every time you've previously killed that person in the last 28 days, with the "halved" subject to further balancing. That should prevent at least the most obvious exploit cases.


Might I suggest that the bonus is "halved" per account that you get a kill on? Not that ANYONE would grind themselves to -10 on a new char quickly, then pod, recycle character, repeat.



Point taken, but at the same time it's very problematic to give people any clue as to which characters share the same account. This is something that will need further thought.

Liam Mirren wrote:

You don't brainstorm ideas that are moronic, unless you think they aren't.


That's an inefficient way to run a brainstorming session. Sometimes a dumb idea leads you to a smart idea. In this case we have right here, the discussion around the dumb idea lead to a much better solution that we wouldn't have found if we'd spent all our effort trying to make the almost-smart idea actually work.

Liang Nuren wrote:
No, what happened was Greyscale threw out a really ******* stupid idea that was so stupid it was one step shy of /trollface to see what the player reaction was. It is not "knee jerk sensationalism" to help provide that reaction.

-Liang



That was twenty pages ago and we've already solved the problem, can we move on? Smile
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#473 - 2012-03-23 22:25:07 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Greyscale, have you considered the possibility that the current can-flagging mechanics are already adequate? I know you want to add on to the game, but sometimes new additions do more harm than good. Having a system where a can-flipper gets aggro toward the can owner's corporation is quite fair and balanced. Extending that aggro to the whole alliance might also be tolerable. But extending it to every single player in high-sec is ridiculous.

Also, note how we're not criticizing the RR and security status proposals. It's this specific change that we have an issue with, and quite frankly, it should be dropped without further discussion. I feel like my words are falling upon deaf ears, however. I shudder to think what kind of surprises Sunday will bring.


Can you lay out for me the specific things you guys are currently trying to achieve involving can-flagging mechanics, so I can properly see the problem from your perspective?

That's the thing, we're not trying to achieve anything. We simply feel that the current system, in which the can-flipper becomes flagged to the can owner's corporation, is already fair. Think about it; a single person is exposing himself to hostility from the can's owner, as well as any number of that owner's corp members. This is, essentially, an already unfair fight, if you only consider numbers and not pilot skill.


I agree it's completely fair, and in an ideal world we wouldn't have to change it. Unfortunately, in the real world it leads to broken design patterns that there's really no good way to fix, which is why we're planning on changing it. It's not any one indvidual simple case that's at fault, it's what happens when you try to deal with the abusable edge cases (in particular anything involving logistics) that everything breaks down.

Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#474 - 2012-03-23 22:25:29 UTC
hi greyscale how do you feel about this idea:

if you get shot at, you should be able to shoot back

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#475 - 2012-03-23 22:26:35 UTC
Diva Ex Machina wrote:
Revajin wrote:
Wait wait wait. Let me get this straight. If you steal from a can now you are considered a criminal and anyone can attack you rather than just the can owner?

Why are can flippers mad about this?


From what I understand the rage is against the idea that the can flippers won't be able to fight back against anyone who attacks them and that shooting someone who attacks you after you flip them will result in a sec status hit.


This.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
#476 - 2012-03-23 22:33:17 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Point taken, but at the same time it's very problematic to give people any clue as to which characters share the same account. This is something that will need further thought.


Its probably not worth the ~effort~ it would take to worry about accounts. It wouldn't matter either - even my small corp could reasonably come up with 20-30 -10 characters to repeatedly kill to keep our sec status up. Now imagine if Goonswarm wanted to do it.

Quote:

Liam Mirren wrote:

You don't brainstorm ideas that are moronic, unless you think they aren't.


That's an inefficient way to run a brainstorming session. Sometimes a dumb idea leads you to a smart idea. In this case we have right here, the discussion around the dumb idea lead to a much better solution that we wouldn't have found if we'd spent all our effort trying to make the almost-smart idea actually work.


It seems you could have gotten the same kind of suggestions without suggesting the primary solution was that people wouldn't be able to defend themselves. ;-)

Quote:

Liang Nuren wrote:
No, what happened was Greyscale threw out a really ******* stupid idea that was so stupid it was one step shy of /trollface to see what the player reaction was. It is not "knee jerk sensationalism" to help provide that reaction.

-Liang


That was twenty pages ago and we've already solved the problem, can we move on? Smile


Yes, as long as you promise to behave! I plan to get a blog post out with updates when I get home in a couple hours. Just say it one time for clarity:

"People who are flagged for PVP will be able to defend themselves without being Concorded. We will find a way to make this realistically happen."

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Garmon
Gods Holy Light Bringing You're Penance
#477 - 2012-03-23 22:35:31 UTC
Andski wrote:
hi greyscale how do you feel about this idea:

if you get shot at, you should be able to shoot back


baltec1 wrote:
Diva Ex Machina wrote:


From what I understand the rage is against the idea that the can flippers won't be able to fight back against anyone who attacks them and that shooting someone who attacks you after you flip them will result in a sec status hit.


This.




CCP Greyscale wrote:

That was twenty pages ago and we've already solved the problem, can we move on? Smile



How you must hate these forums Greyscale
I like Duncan
Garmon
Gods Holy Light Bringing You're Penance
#478 - 2012-03-23 22:36:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Garmon
Liang Nuren wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Point taken, but at the same time it's very problematic to give people any clue as to which characters share the same account. This is something that will need further thought.


Its probably not worth the ~effort~ it would take to worry about accounts. It wouldn't matter either - even my small corp could reasonably come up with 20-30 -10 characters to repeatedly kill to keep our sec status up. Now imagine if Goonswarm wanted to do it.






Stupid question : Is it possible to get to -10 through suicide ganking with the new system?

I may have heard wrong, but I thought the only way possible is through killing capsules

Saying that, why would you bother going through so much effort to fix your security status?
I like Duncan
Liam Mirren
#479 - 2012-03-23 22:39:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Liam Mirren
Garmon wrote:
Stupid question : Is it possible to get to -10 through suicide ganking with the new system?

I may have heard wrong, but I thought the only way possible is through killing capsules

Saying that, why would you bother going through so much effort to fix your security status?


Yes as it's not classed as a "minor offense" you can go all the way down to -10 (at least that's what I've gotten from the fragmented "info" we have).

Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.

Diva Ex Machina
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#480 - 2012-03-23 22:40:06 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:


Liang Nuren wrote:
No, what happened was Greyscale threw out a really ******* stupid idea that was so stupid it was one step shy of /trollface to see what the player reaction was. It is not "knee jerk sensationalism" to help provide that reaction.

-Liang



That was twenty pages ago and we've already solved the problem, can we move on? Smile


Yes let's.

Thanks for clarifying CCP's position on the issue.