I have never focused on gankers at all. That is what you do. If you do not read my posts carefully, please stop pushing words into my mouth. With this falsification of the purpose of the feature, you add nothing to the discussion. Thank you.
That is a good thing. Huge groups need more risks and danger. Since CCP curtailed wars against them and made it harder and harder to keep the big groups under constant wars, this feature would bring back necessary risk.
You have not posted a single example of how people would do that that the provided measures could not neutralize or counter easily. Every single aspect you brought forward that would create âuntold damage to corporationsâ can be prevented with the listed countermeasures and limitations.
As if cheap wars wouldnât be able to do the same. To war dec small corps that hold structures is cheaper than to kill pods in low sec. Yet another thing that you brought forward that is not a real issue.
So the same as in the past with planting corp thieves or spy alts that turn off POS or take over stations. Great, we have those times back. I do not see that as an issue.
There is no instant flagging. Read the first post. I have made that clear. You keep saying things that are not true and you keep using these false things to justify your wrong argument. That adds nothing to the discussion either.
Okay, there is another proposition based on this one.
Every corp gains a new setting whether criminal acts are tolerated or not. If criminal acts are not tolerated, nobody in this corp can switch safety to red, and if it is already red, then it changes to yellow. If criminal acts are tolerated, then all members of this corp are permanent suspects.
Changes apply after 24-hour period.
I donât think you understand how risk works. Who exactly are you going to attack?
Their PvE income? All of that is done on alts.
Their stations? Held by an alt corp.
Their industry? Done by alts.
Their hauling? Done by alts.
Their scouts? Done by alts.
The only thing in the crime-flagged corp will be the characters actively committing criminal acts, all of which will either be criminally flagged or in space where you can attack them at any time. There are very few scenarios where your proposal does anything to allow engagements against targets that werenât already targets in the current system, except where people exploit the rules to flag an entire corp into being easy gank targets.
That, however, is too sweeping. Just because I allow my corp mates to casually and irregularly engage in some pod kill in low sec should not mean that the corp should always be suspect. This is far harsher than what my suggestion would do.
There are so many groups that you can engage and so many people in criminal organizations fly around that do not engage in criminal acts but enjoy the spoils of others in their ranks doing it. You underestimate the availability of targets of those criminal organizations.
Furthermore, you are also only focused on high sec. This is not the only area where this feature enables more activity and it is not even the primary area where itâs supposed to do that. If you keep insisting on high sec so much, you are not reading my first post properly.
That is not how this works, however. If you keep doing that without break, you will reach the 50 necessary criminal acts. However, if you just do it casually or stop it for a while, the counter degrades slowly. Thatâs the point of it. The feature is not supposed to punish each and any criminal act, it is supposed to create risk for those who engage in it all the time.
I fail to see how either of those links have even the slightest relevance here. Both of those corps appear to be engaged in CONCORD-sanctioned wars and are not committing any acts which would be flagged.
You underestimate the availability of targets of those criminal organizations.
No. Unlike you I actually understand how alts work. All your proposal does is divide up the corp into two sections, a criminal corp that does all of the crime and a non-criminal corp that keeps all of their assets safe. They can freely exchange ISK, assets, intel, members, etc, as needed because theyâre composed of the same players.
Furthermore, you are also only focused on high sec.
Because highsec is the only place where flagging matters. Pretty much anyone who is regularly committing criminal acts and living in lowsec is already -5.0 or worse and can be shot at any time.
So, it is possible to go into negatives by letting one player to commit X criminal acts, waiting until counter drops to X-1 and then kicking said member from corp?
I am not surprised that you fail to see the point of these links. You asked what targets you would engage under this feature. I linked you 2 examples of how many targets there are available.
I understand how alts work but you do not understand how people act. The 2 links above demonstrate that clearly.
No, it is not. Flagging and sec status loss also matters in low sec. If you do not understand that, your approach towards the game is rather one-sided and ignorant. I posted some links further up where people were complaining why shooting non-fw people in FW plexes would cause sec status losses and I remember a few topics where people complained about sec status losses in low sec in general. With this feature, more people could engage in low sec with more people without impacting their sec status since they are hunting criminals and not some random passerbyâs.
No you didnât. Those corps are engaging in CONCORD-sanctioned wars and would not be flagged under your system.
I understand how alts work but you do not understand how people act.
You clearly donât because you keep talking about being able to engage targets as if your system will magically make new targets available to you.
Flagging and sec status loss also matters in low sec.
They really donât. Anyone who is doing enough crime in lowsec for your system to be relevant is going to go below -5.0 very quickly. And they are unlikely to bother fixing their sec status because tags are expensive and the fix doesnât last very long before youâre perma-flagged again. The only people who do crime in lowsec and bother to keep positive sec status are the ones who maybe take a shot at an occasional target of opportunity once a month and your system wouldnât flag them.
I posted some links further up where people were complaining why shooting non-fw people in FW plexes would cause sec status losses and I remember a few topics where people complained about sec status losses in low sec in general.
So what? You posted whines from FW farmer trash. Risk-averse trash like that wonât engage anyone anyway, the complaints over sec status loss are just a flimsy pretense to beg for mechanics that discourage PvP players from interfering with plex farming.
Your entire concept is based on the idea making it easier to engage those who engage criminal acts (i.e. acts that earn you a criminal flag). You even clarified that losec aggression (aside from pods) does not count.
What is the most common criminal act?
Suicide ganking.
If youâre not focusing on suicide gankers, then who exactly are you focusing on? Losec PvP-ers? You can already freely engage a lot of them, and most are more than willing to fight anyone they can. Youâre talking about making a very tiny sliver of players (losec PvPers with security standing above -5) freely engagable without taking s sec status hit, and youâre doing it in a way that has wide-reaching impact well beyond said sliver of players.
Also, itâs worth pointing out that intended impacts donât matter nearly as much as actual impacts. Iâve pointed out several unintentional impacts, and yes, even going back to re-read your original post (which has been added to, seemingly while the discussion is going on, to counter peopleâs issues) and there is still nothing there about any kind of âwait periodâ between when the threshold is met and when the flag becomes active so that corp leadership can kick the offenders out. And even if there was, how exactly does that wait period interact with the counter? If a corp racks up 45 criminal offenses by one player and that player gets kicked, does the count reset or does it stay at 45? Does the server keep a record of which players committed how many criminal acts, or is it just a global count for the corporation? (Neither of these points are specified at the time of this post)
Also:
Does the count reset when the flag wears off? You donât specify.
Things like this need to be specified. Vague gameplay, especially involving crminal flags and corp membership, are a horrible idea. Like I said before, you seem to have a solid idea of how you want this to work in your head (even if I disagree with that idea), but youâve left an awful lot unspecified.
So, taking the alternative approach, someone in a legit pirate corp, not trying to subvert any other corp, sneak in, etc., could commit a string of criminal acts on a single flag (admittedly, only in losec) which would lessen total count the corp receives, right?
Not only is this idea totally unnecessary (you can already engage people freely in losec, you can already engage suicide gankers in hisec, etc.) itâs also so poorly defined that even my loopholes have loopholes.
See, you do not get it. You asked what targets would be available to engage under my feature flag. I linked you 2 wars where the attackers grab all sorts of ships and targets all the time despite the groups being at war for weeks in some cases. What you fail to see is that there are lots of targets. Your alts argument only works with people who care and, as clearly demonstrated by the 2 links, lots of people do not care.
Under my feature, these people would all be flagged and could all be engaged.
I linked the 2 wars above. The targets are magically available.
Thank you for proving my point. Those people are exactly those who would benefit from this feature. They would have more people available to shoot without losing security status. At least something you understood.
I contest that claim. I am very certain that more pods die in low sec than ganks happening in high sec.
Are you for real? It is literally the last sentence of the big text paragraph in the original portion of the feature description.
â
Because it is a specific thing and something I was looking to get discussed in the process of this topic? Since you brought it up: I would say that it should just tick down slowly. I am sure the server keeps track of each pilotâs individual count of criminal actions but can imagine that it would be quite a burden on the server to turn that into usable data. That is why I think a global count for the corp would be best. That opens up the corp to the risk or the hostile person activating another alt and continue, but this is an acceptable risk. Naturally, one could see how this would turn out in practice.
That is another specific thing that I already mentioned somewhere in the topic. When the flag wore off, the count also resets.
And that is why this is a discussion topic in a discussion forum. Thank for bringing up these points.
As long as that person does not lose the current criminal flag, yes. If they lost it and created a new flag, it would add another point to the counter.
No they wouldnât, because they are engaging in CONCORD-sanctioned wars that do not involve committing any criminal acts. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Or did you not bother to read your own killboard links beyond âthey killed a lot of stuffâ?
Thank you for proving my point. Those people are exactly those who would benefit from this feature. They would have more people available to shoot without losing security status. At least something you understood.
JFC why is this so complicated for you? They would not get any more targets because only people who are already -5.0 would be flagged by your system. Flagging a corp as a âcriminal corpâ that can be engaged without losing sec status is irrelevant when everyone in the corp is already below -5.0 and can be engaged at any time without losing sec status under the current system. The tiny handful of additional targets your system would create are insignificant compared to the amount this mechanic would be abused to perma-flag a target you want to kill and remove their CONCORD protection.
That is why I think a global count for the corp would be best.
Excellent. So I can join your corp with my alts, commit 100 criminal acts before you can kick me, and even when you kick my alts the global corp counter will remain for an extended period of time and all of your members are free targets.
You do not get it. Not just people who are -5 would be flagged but the entire corp or alliance. I made this ample clear in my first post. Not everyone in corps that has -5 and below people is -5 as well. CONDI and Hell Dawn and even CODE. are good examples for that. Not even remotely all people in INIT. are -5 but thanks to the low sec smartbomb campers from Tundragon in Oulley, all of INIT would be valid targets to shoot. This is not really hard to understand. This is exactly why the above killboard links show exactly what is going to happen if this feature was a thing. The number of additionally available targets is not tiny. Just by undocking in Amarr and looking at the Hell Dawn Tornado campers, I can see more targets that I can engage than before this feature.
First of, I can kick you before you have the opportunity to do that. Secondly, if I as a CEO//director/other officer wouldnât want that to happen, I could just set the FF toggle to yellow so that you or anyone else could not even start to go criminal but could still shoot ships and engage criminals and criminal organizations to their hearts content. and even if you managed to pull off enough criminal acts before I could respond, the corp still does not go into the flaggged state right away but after a waiting period in which I could kick all your alts that had engaged in criminal acts and the flag would not become active. And I could also check your stats before I allow you into the corp in the first place. You brought in completely new chars without any history? Well, then I better leave my FF toggle set to yellow so that you cannot âhave funâ. As a responsible and diligent CEO/director/other officer this is a normal thing to do. You really need to learn to read what people write before you come up with your dramatizing fantasies.
Additionally, it has not been specified if criminal acts keep piling up indefinitely after the 50/100 count. Personally, I would say they should but for the sake of balance, you could apply the principle of sov indices. Level 5 only goes up to another 100% and then stops. Similarly, the criminal count could only go up to 98/148 and decay with 1 criminal act per hour so that the flag wears off after 2 days. Thank you for bringing that up. Iâll add it to the first post so that other people see it right away.
Your system makes all people go suspect all the time even if the corp does not even engage in criminal acts. This is not well-defined or ungameable. I could have your switch set to green most of the time and once I have assembled a nice mining fleet on a moon, I set it to yellow under the pretense of a staging a fun fleet for everyone and have my friends come in and go nuts on you. This is possible with your system and the same social loopholes that Bronson accuses my system of having. Under my system this is much harder to achieve as people would see if other corpies/alliance mates start to go crazy with criminal acts. That is why I instantly rejected your proposal. You maybe want to flesh out your system before you call it ungameable and better.
You need to read the âunder the pretense of staging a fun fleet for everyoneâ to make unsuspecting people not care about the flag change. The exact same kind of social engineering Bronson keeps talking about when he tries to poke holes into my feature. What makes it worse in your case is that it only comes with 1 warning, whereas in my case it will be several notifications to make people extra aware of what is going on.
Moreover: Your system locks people out of their activities forever until someone changes the flag again. Under feature, youâd have to wait at most 2 days and have a responsible corp official take appropriate steps to prevent that kind of bad behavior.
Because these problems are different.
In my feature corporation leader controls, how criminal his corporation is. In your feature, corporation members control that, and if CEO does not want his corp to be suspect, he needs to repeatedly comb out any criminal offenders, which is not nice. Given that not all corps will do that, major alliances will be permanently suspect.
