I still like the idea even without the additional tears.
Of course double-wrapping is a counter. Double wrapping your cargo makes it invisible to cargo scanning - the very definition of a counter. It is even free and has no fitting cost. But if you are going to arbitrarily declare that not a counter somehow, there is a whole ship class that has that counter as a role bonus like this one:
Scanning someone is not âobviouslyâ a hostile act. Sensors and probes just provide information and do no harm whatsoever to the equipment scanned. What is a hostile act? Shooting someone. Or stealing stuff from their jet can. That is what CONCORD responds to.
You can attach whatever intentions you want to gathering intel on a subject, but the fundamental fact is no harm is done to the target. That is the obvious litmus test of whether the game mechanics should impose a cost on an activity. Cargo scanning and piracy is fully intended game play which is encouraged by CCP. Itâs the primary purpose of why the module was ever put in the game in the first place - to allow pirates to select the most profitable targets to attack and passover the empty haulers that have nothing worth stealing. CCP even thought it wise to add a Passive Targeter to go with it, a module that has practically no other use than to surreptitiously scan players to see their fit and cargo. This allows players to engage in piracy-for-profit rather than random violence, so I see no reason why its use should be deterred by changing the rules of the game now.
This is a rabbit hole CCP isnât going to go down. Should someone scanning down an Abyssal site filament with combat probes go suspect because their intentions might be nefarious? What about invading someoneâs mission? Should that generate a suspect flag because the invader is probably looking to steal loot, salvage or fight the mission runner? Of course not, these intel tools exist to create gameplay and facilitate interactions between players, not keep them safe.
Being so strongly for this proposal means you want your game to be made easier. Itâs hard to frame running to CCP and asking them to rewrite the rules of the game in your favour like the OP and others in this thread have in any other way.
While it can be entertaining to discuss proposals like this academically, there is zero chance of CCP finding the time to implement this change, even if there was some compelling case for it and why they were wrong to add it to the game in the first place. Highsec is on the edge of their radar screen these days, and people have been butthurt over losing something and calling for scanners to be made illegal for like years. Here is one example from the distant past:
I can only imagine the derision if such a proposal actually made it to developer meeting. âThe highsec carebears what us to do what? Spend development time making a harmless intel tool that enables criminal gameplay more difficult to use? No, they can HTFU and we can spend our time working on something more important.â.
Iâd rather they spend the time fixing bumping, wardecs, AFK cloaking or any of the other loud carebear complaints that at least at their core have some legitimate gripe and that there is potential for things to work differently, and perhaps more interestingly for both sides. But nerfing cargo scanners? Come on people, HTFU and stop asking CCP to make the bad people go away or to make their game harder because you are too lazy to use the existing counters. You are intended to be at risk to pirates, and cargo scanning doesnât hurt you or your ship in any way.
1 Like
Iâm just waiting for someone to say that you should get a Suspect flag for using your Dscan, or using Combat Probes. I mean, Core Probes are safe. But only someone with evil intentions would dare to use Combat Probes.
Man, have you read the previous posts in this thread? You may agree with what has been said or not, but weâve explained this alreadyâŚ
Whatâs wrong is thinking that being âhostileâ or doing something âsuspiciousâ justifies a suspect timer. If you look at all the cases that warrant either a criminal or a suspect timer, youâll see that all of them either damage someone elseâs assets (in a broad sense, use âharmâ or âadversely affectâ, if you prefer), or are a form of remote assistance.
There are a lot of activities that could be considered âhostileâ but donât warrant such a timer for the simple reason that they are harmless by themselves. A close example would be using combat scanner probes to hunt someone in space. You cannot be any more hostile than that without actually start shooting, yet nobody in his right mind would suggest that should warrant a suspect timerâŚ
Also, that having forms of stealthy gameplay is good for the game, that there are forms of counter play already with an entire class of ships having a role bonus specifically for thatâŚ
Of course it is. The reason to want the change is obviously to make it more difficult for the gankers to pick targets. Everything else is an afterthought and not well thought at that because the gankers would simply adapt and things wouldnât work as intended. Some even think the hauler being scanned would have a chance to kill the scanner that way, which makes no senseâŚ
And you just have to read the reply directly below yours to see the true reasons why some want the change, LOL.
1 Like
Scanning is an assist. Itâs also an aggressive act.
It passively assists a ganker or whoever in knowing what is in the hold. Like being reppped whilst in a solo pvp. That changed too.
Itâs and aggressive act, like putting missiles, lasers, bullets through your hull. Somone scanning is infringing your hull.
Like I said before, gank all you want. Just if you use and then you get a suspect timer. Concord wonât intervene. And I believe the suspect timer should be across the board. Not just a gankers.
Itâs neither an assist nor an aggressive act. The arguments to say so are pretty weak.
Opening someones can to take a look isnât considered suspect and neither is using alt scouts to warp in on top of wartargets considered an assist.
And itâs not aggressive because it has no affect on the target ship.
If anyone asked me to look inside my house, wallet or whatever. I would call it pretty aggressive.
Sure if i can shoot you afterwards.
That sounds very suspect to me.
@c4 pedro : you have a duck on your post ! That is cute !!
1 Like
So does looking in peoples cans/wrecks. Or scouting for wardecs. Still doesnât mean youâre a global target.
Removed some off-topic posts and such. Keep it civil guys 
1 Like
Youâre using the meaning those words might have in a broader context to try to extend Crimewatch timers to situations theyâre not intended for. Youâre confusing the fact that you might consider something an âassistâ, or a âhostileâ, âaggressiveâ, or âsuspiciousâ act, with whether that should warrant a Crimewatch timer.
Remote assistance has a very specific meaning in EVE. It refers to the use of certain modules to improve the capabilities of someone elseâs ship. Moreover, Crimewatch further restricts the circumstances under which that kind of remote assistance warrants a timer, namely âdirectly assisting any other player in possession of a Criminal Timerâ or âproviding remote assistance to Suspects, Criminals, outlaws or players in a limited engagementâ.
The use that someone else could make of the info gathered by a scanner has nothing to do with the concept of remote assistance in EVE. Calling âassistâ that kind of things doesnât change anything in regards to whether that should warrant a Crimewatch timer, it only makes it more difficult for you to understand what âremote assistâ means in this contextâŚ
And again, itâs NOT an âaggressiveâ act either in the sense of damaging, harming or adversely affecting the scanned ship in any way, which is the only kind of âaggressionâ that warrants a Crimewatch timer.
Itâs not the same at all. Please learn what Remote assistance means in EVE.
What do you mean? And so what? Lots of things have changed, that by itself is not a reason to change othersâŚ
Again, not the same thing at all. What harm exactly is being done to the ship being scanned? What attributes or capabilities of your ship are being adversely affected by it being scanned? âInfringing your hullâ does not harm it in any way, whatever that means.
You have a point. looking in a can, doesnât cause a suspect timer.
But itâs very suspect !!
A can is jettisoned tho. The definition of jettisoned is basically to throw away. Therefore it becomes public. Looking into a public trash can shouldnât really be considered suspect. Itâs just some hoarder looking to hoard more stuff⌠
And item sharing and can mining.
And it also applies to wrecks.
Exactly. EVE is basically the wild wild west. Anything thrown away, âjettisonedâ, becomes public and ownership disputable. Authorities arenât going to intervene over a couple guys arguing over what is basically trash. If they really cared about their property, they would have used any number of secured means to accomplish the same task. So the authorities are going to let them handle the dispute themselves, or they can take it to civil court, unless the parties become a public danger due to the dispute.
But mostly this is derailing the main topic. I was just trying to lighten the mood in this thread, as itâs almost 100 postings of getting nowhere lol.
However, personally I still think scanning should still be suspect. Haulers have an expectation of privacy in their ships. Scanners intrude on that, and invasion of privacy is a thing. Therefore going suspect seems fair.
2 Likes
Breaking someoneâs expectations or âinvasion of privacyâ makes it fair for everybody to be able to shoot at the âoffenderâ? And you say this in the very same post where you say looking into someoneâs can is OK? LOL.
What? Who decides this? You? How do you know what my reasons for jettisoning a can are? What if Iâm jettisoning it because say I want to temporarily make room for some cargo while in space? What if my expectations are that nobody should be able to look into it?
lol this thread still?
even with computer programming skills, math skills, we are here in 2018 and people still dont understand basic respect, privacy, boundaries⌠NO WONDER THE REALITY WE LIVE IN IS SO â â â â â â UP. I guess, why expect it to be different here? LMAO.
Basically I can sum my opinion up this way, just to keep it civil.
there are modules that help who ever is on the receiving end of that target lock, and there are modules that help who ever is locking said target. Keeping these two forms of intention keeps game play simple for me. If your actions CAN or WILL cause aggressive activity, it is determined a hostile actâŚ
difference between remote reppers and energy neutralizers⌠one helps the locked, the other helps the lockerâŚ
it snot rocket science you morons. lol âŚ
1 Like
Yes. Because one(the ship) is undisputed property, and the other(the jetcan) is disputable property, whoever is the strongest can take it. I didnât make the rules, EVE did. Itâs that simple.
I didnât decide this. Just right click on item in hold, the command is called âjettisonâ. Then look up the definition of jettison. Basically it means discard, trash, you didnât want itâŚ
Anyways, I donât personally have a stake in this subject. Iâve even said Iâd be for a ganking buff if it meant the devs would fix ganking/bounty mechanics. If the devs donât make scanning suspect, but fixes high sec, cool⌠
Agreed, lol.