[Devposts] - Crimewatch, highsec PvP, and neutral RR

[Tsubutai]

Somewhat interesting eve-o thread on the redevelopment of the crimewatch system and its implications for highsec pvp here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default...posts&t=133044

To put these posts into context, the discussion deals with the planned reworking of the system that governs aggression/GCC timers in Empire space. At Fanfest, a new version was discussed in which there would be three possible states: innocent, suspect, and felon. Innocents have done nothing wrong and cannot be shot in highsec without the shooter getting CONCORDokkened. Suspects have stolen from someone or done something similar that is criminal but doesn't incur a response from CONCORD; they can be shot freely by anyone without CONCORD getting involved. Felon status is equivalent to the current GCC - CONCORD will kill you in highsec, sentries will shoot you in lowsec. The original version of this reworked system drew a lot of criticism because while it allowed suspects to be shot by anyone in highsec, it didn't allow them to shoot back.

the current design [for the new crimewatch system] explicitly allows you to return fire in all cases

We allow one-time mappings but we don't make them transitive, ie if you're a suspect and someone shoots you then you can always fire back, but if that person has a third party repping them, you can't shoot the logi because we don't allow aggression transfer like that (for obvious reasons).

...

As to "invicible logis", in the current design yes, that is the case, but only in the scenario where you've already done something to become a suspect. There's a point at which we have to say "look, you've done something 'illegal', this fight isn't going to be fair, sorry" if we want to avoid the complexity of the current system.

With the things that will get you into this state in the first place (such as neutrals repping war targets), we're deliberately giving you the ability to do the "bad thing" and take a hit for it rather than simply mechanically banning it, because that's the way we like to do things round here. There does however come a point where we're bending so far over backwards to make the consequences of doing the "bad thing" fair that we have to either stand up or fall over, and in these cases we're currently leaning towards saying "if you don't enjoy it, maybe you should consider not getting into that situation so often in the first place".

TL,DR, their plan replaced a situation in which you could be shot at without having the right to shoot back with a new version in which neutral RR is protected by CONCORD. :CCP:

[Durzel]

Don't steal from people in highsec, problem solved? What do I win?

But seriously, I think it's an interesting change. People stealing from others (I can't think of anything else "offensive" that doesn't GCC you) have an expectation that they can be shot at, if they're flipping miners or mission runners they're actually looking for someone to shoot them. Only it might not be the person they wanted

I kinda like it... it's straight up a nerf to mission loot theft, but frankly as things stand the odds are completely stacked against the bear anyway. If they shoot back they lose their PVE ship, if they reship to a PVP ship (how likely is this in practice?) the other guy can just dock or wander off and annoy someone else.

It doesn't change anything regards suicide ganking (good) but it does increase the risk for people who are just flipping miners and mission bears for their ~elite pvp~

we're currently leaning towards saying "if you don't enjoy it, maybe you should consider not getting into that situation so often in the first place".

..just about sums it up.

[whispous]

The not being able to shoot the logi is total bollocks and unfair. IT IS NOT the guy taking loot who has the choice, it's the carebear's choice to fight or not. Pathetic.

[Mike deVoid]

He mentions later on that are considering a system that would avoid protect neutral RR with concord. Shooting a suspect gives you a 'vigilante' flag. Anyone repping a vigilante gets a suspect flag.

[Ohh_No]

He mentions later on that are considering a system that would avoid protect neutral RR with concord. Shooting a suspect gives you a 'vigilante' flag. Anyone repping a vigilante gets a suspect flag.

Nah. I proposed the two-flag system. Repping a vigilante would also give you a vigilante flag, so as more people assist suspects/vigilantes or join the fighting, they get sorted onto 'teams' in a sense. You get an escalating number of suspects and vigilantes, who can all shoot each other, and individual aggro timers are avoided altogether. People generally approved, pointed out some flaws and possible solutions. Sent the link to Elise, who may or may not have directed it to Greyscale, because he replied and said a vigilante flag was a bad idea. He didn't want "you and thirty of your suspect-flagged friends undocking and ganking [a vigilante]". They want a system where the suspect is always clearly disadvantaged, and where suspects can't fight alongside one another besides many suspects all RRing one suspect in a DPS ship. Absolutely fucking retarded.

[Sponk]

Don't care much tbh.

[Zeekar]

The not being able to shoot the logi is total bollocks and unfair. IT IS NOT the guy taking loot who has the choice, it's the carebear's choice to fight or not. Pathetic.

Well he could not steal?

[Jack Dant]

https://forums.eveonline.com/default...83#post1640183

We had a discussion this morning about the specific case of people RRing vigilantes. We're currently considering treating it like all other "neutral RR" situations under the new system, ie suspect-flagging you if you RR a vigilante, as this seems to iron out a lot of the wrinkles here and makes it more consistent with the rest of the design.

That would make all neutral RR suicidal, wouldn't it? I approve.

They are putting the final nail in the coffin of can flipping, which is a bit sad. But it was pretty much dead since they introduced the Orca.

[Daneel Trevize]

I think Ohh Yeah(Ohh_No here?)'s got it right needing the 2 flags, and Tippia's being a massive retard, but there's a lot of pages of :words:.
And whenever someone points out Greyscale's bad change history, ISD removes all trace.

CCP seem to be sitting this mostly out while thinking either:
shit, these guys really know how to hunt for exploits in mechanics, our overly-simple proposal doesn't cover everything that could develop;
or crap, people still want PvP in highsec, while we just want to attract more noob churn where players might still spend their 'career' only shooting rats and never leave >0.5?!

[Durzel]

That would make all neutral RR suicidal, wouldn't it? I approve.

Certainly on busy stations.

Though unless CCP sort the timers properly (it's still possible to have hidden ones) then it'll be pretty risky shooting anything that isn't GCC.

[Snake]

Are they going to make logi have aggression timers?

[Kalar Freno]

I think Ohh Yeah(Ohh_No here?)'s got it right needing the 2 flags, and Tippia's being a massive retard, but there's a lot of pages of :words:.
And whenever someone points out Greyscale's bad change history, ISD removes all trace.

CCP seem to be sitting this mostly out while thinking either:
shit, these guys really know how to hunt for exploits in mechanics, our overly-simple proposal doesn't cover everything that could develop;
or crap, people still want PvP in highsec, while we just want to attract more noob churn where players might still spend their 'career' only shooting rats and never leave >0.5?!

I don't think you're being entirely fair here. CCP seems to have a very definite design goal here. They want high-sec (i.e. risk averse) players to punish suspects. They therefore want to introduce a system where Joe Highsec sees a suspect and can shoot him knowing what he's getting himself into. He knows that no-one else can attack him, and that the suspect can't be RRed or aided in any other way without concord getting involved. 'Vigilante' flags violate that goal, and effectively allow free instantaneous wardecs to come into being which again doesn't seem to be in line with CCPs idea of high-sec PvP (though it does seem to be popular).

As for "wanting" PvP in high-sec, I don't have a good idea about exactly what high-sec players "want" (apart from to be able to attack unwilling near-defenceless targets for easy killmails/loot), so I'm not surprised CCP also seem to be unclear about it.

[Daneel Trevize]

It seems the problem is that becoming suspect makes you open to all of eve, aka turns high into nullsec for you, but you can't do much proactively back. And this happens even for in-corp logistics repping someone, not just shitty neutral RR.

Also there's the 'need' to keep a gang + RR able to deaggro on a gate without leaving the logi behind. It's not like the whole lot gets away if you can tackle them on the other side anyway.

Why isn't this shit simpler?

Edit: CCP is basically retarded to expect true high-sec carebears to turn on suspects. There will be corps/gangs that roam about purely to choose to take on naive secondary-suspects, or to not without having to flag themselves beforehand. If a suspect can't have their corpmates defend themselves while getting dogpiled, that's shit. And if they can, bears won't be that 2nd wave of suspects.

CCP need to stop bullshitting that bears are a realistic consideration in who'll pick up flags. If they want to allow people to shoot or support each other in highsec without being concorded, and without being at war, they need to just build the system for that, one that deters shit like neutral RR. Everyone else will just learn to avoid being concorded or flagging themselves as FFA.

I got the impression there's a technical reason they want to remove the graph/map of aggression between individuals too, some implementation concerns clouding the mechanics.

[Trindermon]

**IGNORE ME** i am demic.

[Jack Dant]

As far as I understand it, the idea is repping someone who is a suspect or fighting a suspect gets you a suspect flag.

This kills neutral RR in PVP in highsec for pretty much everyone. Even if someone decides to use it on station so they can dock the logis, you can counter it with your own neutral ECM, so stuff might actually die for once.

The suspect system will kill can flipping, because fighting on a belt with a suspect flag will be suicide. But bait and switch with mission runners might still work, but be more risky because the guy can just ask in local for help.

I wonder if they have anything in mind for "t1 frig 1v1 outside station" (with a 500m isk link ship in fleet, of course), or they'll let that die too.

I'm also curious about what changes if any this will bring to lowsec...

[Alistair]

a new version in which neutral RR is protected by CONCORD. :CCP:

There is no such thing as "Neutral" Remote Rep.

If you Rep someone in a fight, you are by definition not neutral.

CCP needs to stop letting standings dictate aggression/concord functionality on this.

Remote Repping someone in a fight should work the same as if teh Remote Repper fired upon the unfriendly combatant in that fight.

[Ohh_No]

I think Ohh Yeah(Ohh_No here?)

Yeah, same person. I went over the two-flag system with Elise and posted it in our CSM forum section on the PL forums. It's a pretty sound plan that minimizes exploits due to people not knowing what the fuck is going on. You'd have to make it impossible for suspects to RR vigilantes and vice versa, or you'd be able to abuse that pretty easily. Another formality to make the system is less abuseable is requiring the player to dock after their 15 minute timer had expired in order for the flag to go away - else it simply stays on. That way you can't lock up a vigilante or suspect, and then have their flag immediately expire right in front of you. Make them at least dock to get rid of the flag once their 15 minutes is gone.

Edit: Sperging: CCP seem to think that their current design of letting suspects get dogpiled without other suspects/corpmates being able to shoot back defines a clear advantage for the carebears. Maybe it does when the suspect is a Rifter flipping cans, but I'll be fucked if CCP don't expect THAT GUY who gets in a throwaway BS, brings all of his friends (See: 10-15 Guardians) and just absolutely fucking meatgrinders fucking everything. He'd be un-fucking-stoppable. Sure all of the Guardians will go suspect flagged, but what the fuck are you going to do about it? You aggress them, they can rep each other, and now they can put a flight of EC-300s on you legally. This system will cater to neutral RR, as the only form of help a suspect can get is logistic support from his friends/other monitor. Mark my words when I tell you that the suspect roaming gang will be a single gank-fit battleship and a dozen logistics. That's fucking retarded.

[Durzel]

Bears won't shoot suspects en massé I doubt, or maybe they will and put themselves at risk from retribution. You could purposefully get a suspect flag and wander around low traffic areas hoping someone will shoot you so you can have a 1v1, without having to worry about dropping cans and hoping someone will flip it for a fight, etc.

Granted in the busy systems or pipes you're going to be bbq'd if you're a suspect and aren't dragging around a rep brigade to assist you.

[Durzel]

This kills neutral RR in PVP in highsec for pretty much everyone. Even if someone decides to use it on station so they can dock the logis, you can counter it with your own neutral ECM, so stuff might actually die for once.

Does it? It kills neutral RR in completely random fights, but neutral RR that reps wartargets or aggressed targets transfers aggression in the same manner as this would.

I don't really see how suspect-ness applies in wars, why would a war target become a suspect in a permitted fight (i.e. WT vs WT, WT vs assister, etc).

Entirely seperately from this - I hope - neutral RR should get an aggression timer at least equivalent to whoever they are repping. If some guy is shooting someone up and you rep them - you inherit their 60 sec combat timer AND the 15 min aggression timer. That's entirely seperate from suspect/vigilante stuff I think?

[Ohh_No]

This kills neutral RR in PVP in highsec for pretty much everyone. Even if someone decides to use it on station so they can dock the logis, you can counter it with your own neutral ECM, so stuff might actually die for once.

Does it? It kills neutral RR in completely random fights, but neutral RR that reps wartargets or aggressed targets transfers aggression in the same manner as this would.

I don't really see how suspect-ness applies in wars, why would a war target become a suspect in a permitted fight (i.e. WT vs WT, WT vs assister, etc).

Entirely seperately from this - I hope - neutral RR should get an aggression timer at least equivalent to whoever they are repping. If some guy is shooting someone up and you rep them - you inherit their 60 sec combat timer AND the 15 min aggression timer. That's entirely seperate from suspect/vigilante stuff I think?

Yeah that's the thing. Greyscale posted that the team decided using RR on a friendly involved in a war-dec will immediately flag the RR as a suspect. So, in a legal fight between two parties, using a logistics ship will be flagged as a criminal action and let you get shitfucked by the entirety of EVE.

That makes a whole lot of fucking sense. What a fuckwit.

Edit: Sperging more: It's like CCP thinks there's a huge issue with neutral logistics at it's very core. All anyone ever asked was "give them a one minute aggression timer so they can't just bail in low armor or when they cap out". When CCP refused to listen to the playerbase, those cries slowly became "Fuck neutral RR, it's a completely shit mechanic and fuck everything about it". Unfortunately, it seems like CCP only heard the second complaint and are discouraging the use of an entire ship class as a result. Having your logistics out of corp isn't that big of a deal. Once you engage with them a SINGLE TIME, your hostiles know who they are, and about how many. I don't give a fuck if the targets I'm shooting show up with neutral logistics, because as soon as they rep, they're no longer neutral. I do give a fuck that I can't do anything about them and they just dock and undock like a gay couple.