Ship/Cargo Scanner to give penalty e.g. suspect timer

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
,
41

But what you (or me, for that matter) personally consider hostile or not is irrelevant. Depending on the circumstances, you might consider hostile someone target locking you. A miner might consider it hostile being bumped or having another miner start mining on purpose the very same rocks he’s mining. An explorer or combat site runner might consider it hostile someone warping to the site he’s doing to outdo him. A mission looter/salvager might consider it hostile a ninja salvager that comes to salvage his wrecks. And so on. Yet by design none of those activities warrant a suspect timer…

In EVE someone has to actually damage your assets somehow in order for whatever he’s doing to you to warrant a suspect timer. Merely harvesting intel on you does not meet that requirement and hence is very unlikely to ever be considered worth a suspect timer, no matter how hostile you consider those actions to be. And I’m pretty sure CCP likes to have forms of stealthy gameplay and is very unlikely to make such a change for that very reason alone anyway.

What EVE does is give you the means to conceal that info if you want, so it cannot be harvested (again giving preference to stealthy forms of gameplay to deal with that kind of situations), but that’s it. And that’s how it should be, really, if you don’t want anyone to scan you, just fit and fly your ship accordingly.

LOL, what? Of course potential is potential until it happens… or not… That’s precisely what “potential” means… How does that make the distinction between certainty and potential useless? Makes no sense…

No. That you’re scanned doesn’t imply you’ll be suicide ganked. That’s precisely why you’re scanned in the first place. Otherwise there would be no point in scanning potential targets…

It’s also a reason why it doesn’t warrant a suspect timer… and why you don’t understand that’s how things should be… because you don’t see the difference between actual damage being done and the potential damage that may or may not be done after the info has been processed…

Yeah, I figured as much, but it’s not an opinion, it’s an explanation of why things are the way they are and scanning is unlikely to ever warrant a suspect timer.

And this just shows you’re totally not getting it. The amount of damage that could potentially be done is utterly irrelevant. Crimewatch timers have nothing to do with the amount of damage done, only with the type of aggression.

Keeping the amount of damage that could be done to you within tolerable levels is a decision you have to make before undocking. It has absolutely nothing to do with which Crimewatch timers should be used for what.

You better be able to wait… And the reasons you cannot wait are obviously not what you say they are… You don’t even understand why that change wouldn’t give the victim a fighting chance at all… unless the scanner is bait and does actually want to be engaged, that is…

1 Like
42

You will get killed by concord for shooting anyone yellow boxing you… So the one scanning is still protected by concord for scanning your ship with the intent to kill… And if you just toss out RL you are missing the point. Its ths intent of the act or what the act leads to. And in the scanning scenario I doubt anyone fits a ship and scans every ship for no reason.

You are putting words in my mouth… the intel you get is risk free. The actual ambush accrues losses but that parts of the charm.

2 Likes
43

Generic Quote:
Cargo scanning a ship is like looking into a car window

I think a better example would be a windowless delivery van, or a house with all the blinds closed, since EVE ships, in theory have no windows. So any device used to determine the contents of a sealed house or van would be intrusive and may fall under “peeping Tom” laws in most countries(unless you’re in law enforcement), therefore the target becomes an “injured party”. So a suspect flag may not be unreasonable. With that said, yah, comparing a game to real world may not always be best.

And I hate to keep bringing this up, but high sec gank/bounty mechanics all ties into why people keep asking for small changes in crimes or mods. The entire thing needs a balance pass all at once. I like that there is danger in high sec, it’s probably the reason I and many others have returned to this game. High sec danger is so close to working, but just needs a few tweaks to get it right to where gankers and high sec dwellers can all have even more fun. I would even say give ganking a “small” buff if it would mean more danger for gankers and more content for hunters.

But until such a time, if ever, high sec is fixed, a suspect flag on scanning seems fair.

P.S. - I made a suggestion above for a compromise on suspect flag for scanners.

44

Has to be the dumbest comparison.

I look REALLY closely in someone’s car. For that anyone can shoot me?

45

Most, if not all intel is risk free. Cargo scans are just after all, intel.

It is the act that has consequences, not looking around or considering to do something.

46

They might not shoot you but i would not recommend doing it.

47

Oh i see. So real life comparisons are only ok when it suits your agenda?

48

It also matters on the neighborhood and your skin color if you want to go there. I have hard issues riding public transportation due to police harassment so I guess our views on what would happen looking into random expensive cars IRL could be different. Either way you would be expressly incentivized to move along by the police. And yes if you refuse to move after their warning you will be moved…

1 Like
49

But they still wouldn’t allow anyone to shoot you. You know, like a suspect timer does…

You think scanning ships should cause suspect timers because cops are prejudiced?

…

50

Bah never mind… . I perhaps am not making sense… I prolly best just leave it at that and stop posting here for while…

51

this is too much to go thru, i have naked women in my pool and idk how these assholes dragged the ■■■■■■■ keg on to my roof… I just think that the INTENTION is where it lies and ship scanning isnt ever used for positive intentions… like oh here let me scan your cargo to see if you need help carrying that? no… they want what you worked for. there should be a cost to that information as I am not willing ever… to give it up freely.

1 Like
52

No. It means you can be attacked without Concord helping you. And that’s all.

The fact that now you can only acquire a suspect flag by performing aggressive action does not mean this is set in stone.

ATM the scanners are not an aggressive module. This proposal intend to modify that, just like webbing your freighter alt without duelling first makes concord shoot you :stuck_out_tongue:

53

No, that’s not all, that’s just the consequence of being flagged as suspect, not what I was talking about.

I was explaining how being flagged as suspect has nothing to do with doing something “suspicious”, that not giving a suspect timer to users of those modules is not an oversight. It’s all working as intended because the meaning of being a Crimewatch suspect (in the sense of what causes it, not what are the consequences) is something else…

The “No” and “that’s all” parts of your reply are plain wrong, because what I said was correct. And the “It means you can be attacked” part is correct but irrelevant in the context you were replying to…

Nothing is set in stone. I explained how things are now. That things might or might not change in the future doesn’t make what I said wrong in any way, or does it?

I understand perfectly well what this proposal is proposing, thank you very much. What I’m saying is that if you look at what CCP currently considers should warrant a suspect timer, you’ll see that cargo/ship scanners don’t fit well there and that it’s not an oversight. Things are working as intended in that regard.

No, it’s not the same. That’s what I’m trying to explain. Webbing someone IS an act of aggression, and that’s why you get a criminal timer if not in a limited engagement. Scanning someone’s cargo is not, at least not in the sense that using any of the modules that warrant a Crimewatch timer is.

54

I like it. More content.

People are always complaining about not enough people to shoot. This will give them a few more…in high sec no less. Nothing wrong with that.

2 Likes
55

I can’t help but laugh at all the times people try to use “risk vs reward” as justification for their terrible ideas.

What makes you think using a Scanner on another ship should be “risky”? What part of taking an X-ray at the doctor’s office makes you want to punch the doctor in the face for their effort? Or going through a metal detector before entering some fancy building.

Scanners do not yield any “reward” other than knowledge. You still have to peel the ship away from all those mods and all that cargo before you get any “rewards”. Pretty soon you whiny brats are going to start saying that Scan Probes should flag you too.

Ridiculous =)

56

Yes it does, you oppose a modification proposal to the fact that it is not how it is working now.

And that’s exactly what people propose to modify, so NO you don’t understand this proposal at all.

And that’s where you fail to understand. Webbing someone does not induce a loss of asset, so NO Concord does not ONLY react to asset destruction/loss, which means that your affirmation that this is per design is false.

Webbing someone is an act of aggression BECAUSE CCP SAID SO. So now if tomorrow CCP said that scanning someone gives a suspect timer, just like RR someone in a duel, then this becomes an action that induces a suspect flag, as the crimewatch would thus define.

I mean, you repeat yourself over several posts, just to write that because this is not how it works now, it should not change? Do you know what a MODIFICATION is ?
Save yourself some times and quit telling me that this is not how it works now. I got it, everybody got it, and this is completely useless.

I will repeat once more : suspect flag MEANS you can be engaged by anyone without Concord interfering. That’s ALL it means. It’s not a consequence, it’s the definition of it.

57

I’m pretty sure if the doctor, which you don’t know, comes to your house and force scans your wife, you will start punching him. Just a bit.

I can’t help but laugh at all the times people use stupid comparison to believe that their opinion makes any sense.

1 Like
58

Sure, but it is logical - you web someone you slow them down. You shoot someone, you damage or explode their ship. You ECM someone, you can break their target locks. And so on - you change their game play.

Scanning does nothing. Literally nothing to the target. I agree, CCP can implement a flag for cargo and/or ship scanning if they want, and as I said I don’t think it will do much, but it is perfectly logical and consistent why it doesn’t generate a suspect flag (just like all the other scanning devices don’t). That means those asking CCP to spend development time on this have to make some sort of compelling case to change the game, and one I haven’t seen made yet.

I get some people feel disempowered by gankers and want them nerfed out of the game, while others genuinely are looking for ideas to increase gameplay and interaction between criminals and vigilantes in highsec. But both of these groups would be better served by working on proposals to address the actual mechanics of crime and law enforcement to either get the game tilted more in their favour (the ganker haters) or make more space for interesting interactions between players in Empire space (the good faith commenters).

If anything, this game is lacking the intel tools right now necessary to foster meaningful conflict between groups and players. This proposal goes in the wrong direction.

So again, -1.

1 Like
59

And it would be as much logical and consistent if it generated one. It is a choice CCP did, period. Bumping a freighter does prevent him from warping, but does not give suspect timer. Same for entering someone’s mission pocket and shooting his rats, or mining another corporation’s moon roids. Still you don’t feel it’s illogical. That looks a lot like double standards from you.

Giving a suspect timer is completely de-correlated from “doing something”, it’s just a choice from CCP on which actions provide a suspect timer.

And now you rely on personal assumptions. That’s very low from you. I was used to much better, and more polite, discussions from you, than blankly saying “if you don’t agree with me then you have an hidden reason to do so”. Because I tell you, I just don’t care about this modification, and I don’t think CCP does either.

However I notice a lot of lies from people, eg “suspect means you did something bad” or other “this is logical that this makes suspect and this not”. Really I played a lot other games that are far more logical than Eve, where CCP balances the game with lots of exceptions that make it impossible to understand, like a surgeon removes a cancer with a chainsaw.

60

Wow, you didn’t understand a single thing I said…

That’s a lie. That’s NOT the reason I oppose that modification. There are several reasons I oppose the proposal and none is what you say. Please read what I said again.

I know, so what?

And that’s another lie.

I know, so what? I said “damage someone’s assets in some way”. That’s not limited to asset loss/destruction. Reducing the velocity at which your ship can fly is also damaging your ship in some way, namely reducing one of its abilities. Is this too difficult for you to understand?

Which is yet another lie, because nowhere did I say that “Concord ONLY reacts to asset destruction/loss”. That’s something you’re inventing to make your reply look rational…

And here is yet another lie. You make this appear as if it was an arbitrary decision, when the fact is that it isn’t. Webbing someone DOES cause a direct damage to an ability of his ship, and THAT is why it’s considered an act of aggression, not because CCP arbitrarily decided it should be.

Correct, except if you could understand what causes someone to be flagged criminal or suspect, you’d see why this is unlikely to happen, and for good reason, not because CCP arbitrarily decides what does or doesn’t warrant a Crimewatch timer.

As to the remote assistance thing, that’s another type of action I didn’t mention for simplicity. We were talking about and comparing different types of actions directly applied to the pilot that might consider them “hostile”.

What have I repeated that the poster I was replying to had understood and hence I didn’t need to repeat in order to clarify things?

And here you are, lying again. Nowhere did I say that things shouldn’t change because that’s how they are. That’s incredibly stupid…

Can you even read? I mean, if you could, not only would that save you from embarrassing yourself with your lies, it might also allow you to understand why the use of some mods is considered an act of aggression and why the use of others isn’t…

That’s NOT what I’m saying. You’re twisting my words to justify your inability to understand them. What I’m saying is that things are working as intended, not exactly the same, and the difference is significant because what I’m saying with that is that leaving scanners out of Crimewatch timers is a rational, conscious decision, not an oversight, not an arbitrary decision like you’re trying to make it look like…

And here I repeated what I said in my previous reply to you, but I wouldn’t have had to do that if you had understood it the first time and hadn’t replied misrepresenting what I said as if I had said something else…

Repeating it won’t make it any more relevant. That’s not THE definition. That’s only PART of the definition, and not the part we’re talking about, hence utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

The other part, which you’re completely and conveniently ignoring is what matters here, but you want to believe it’s arbitrary and hence doesn’t deserve to even be considered, don’t know if because you’re unable to understand it or because doing so allows you to justify your nonsense…

It’s YOU who keeps repeating something everybody knows and that’s utterly irrelevant and useless…

And that’s an example of something that, if CCP someday decides should warrant a suspect timer under some circumstances, would look right to me, because, except for the fact that no module is used, it fits well with the kind of things that cause a Crimewatch timer.

And, just in case this helps you to better see the difference, 'cause you seem to have trouble with that, this is also an example of how explaining why things are how they are is NOT the same as saying they shoulnd’t change…