Situation: single pilot; known hostile actor
Activity: overwatch position at wormhole/gate
Location: Dau system; sector 06
Unit/Uniform: UIT; tri-national guild - not named here
Time: at or about 1635 UTC 03JUL25
Equipment: Goliath Capitol ship. TPG Raptor UDV

Source: [#OSS] Lieutenant Bromon-Do Bashane (UIT)

On a procurement logistic patrol, sensors immediately identified said Goliath vessel. TPG Raptor UDV subsequently appeared on sensors; approach vector. UIT ROE’s prevent same nationals from the exercise of lethal force. LT Bashane loitered under umbrella of UIT ROE’s. Threat pilot loitered as well. After non-related banter on global channel 100, Bashane continued movement. Locking in vector at Nyrius B10, TPG Raptor UDV closed distance rapidly to 1000 meters. Executing standard tactics, techniques, and procedures, Bashane engaged three shield turrets and deployed 4-6 proximity mines. TPG Raptor UDV damaged to 30-40%. Successful evasion.

Relevant concern: exercising due diligence in self preservation and mission accomplishment, Bashane’s actions triggers factional repercussions against hisself. Were it not for returning to Nyrius B10 and deactivating mines, his UIT nation standing would be degraded.

Moving forward: 1) incorporate deactivation of mines into TTP’s prior to egress; 2) petition UIT Defense Exchequer to incorporate said scenario into ROE’s, if feasible. At the very least, creation of a formal appeals allowance.

You mind stripping out the RP so I can understand what the heck you're saying? Is this "Allow us to deactivate mines we have layed out"?

In that case, there's a /remove_mines command that was implemented a while back.

If that ISN'T what you're asking... please leave RP for the RP forums and explain normally?

The UIT pilot I’m referring to now has neutral UIT nation standing, but got his first UIT PK. Another two days of play. A penalty incurred for reasonable reactions as I see it. Or maybe I should have waited until the TPG Raptor UDV strafed my Behemoth. Lose-Lose scenario. #FUBAR #DBAA

This is a really terrible example of a Suggestions thread. It's super confusing, poorly explained, and polluted with RP. (Have you read the rules?)

Or maybe I should have waited until the TPG Raptor UDV strafed my Behemoth.

I mean.. yes, you have to wait until you're damaged to be able to respond in Nation space without ramifications. You know that.

1) incorporate deactivation of mines into TTP’s prior to egress;

I don't even know what that means.

At the very least, creation of a formal appeals allowance.

I definitely have no idea what that means.

A penalty incurred for reasonable reactions as I see it.

This reminds me of the situation with your other thread. It seems like you aren't considering that the ROE and game rules have to handle a lot of cases other than what you consider reasonable in your specific situation.

This also goes to Rule #4 of Suggestions.

To be clear, I think the whole ROE / Faction Response system is flawed, but the fact that it's flawed does not mean that "improvements" are trivial. One cannot be myopic about the ramifications of changes: it's easy to "fix" one case and make new forms of abuse rampant in other situations due to the same change.

So, if you have some specific goal here (which I'm still struggling to comprehend), and that goal involves changing the most critical PvP ROE system in the game, you need to take the time to write up a really thoughtful and clear post, arguing exactly what you think should change, and why.

What you wrote above is not that post.

I continue to welcome concrete, carefully thought-out and clearly described methods of improving the current design.

Two days and sixty, one gate/jump procurement missions latter, my characters UIT nation standing is once again +1000. Ridiculous.

Real word ROE’s for uniformed services are predicated on hostile intent and hostile action. The hostile action component you have covered. But for reals: a TPG Raptor UDV w/two heavy weapon slots against a Behemoth whose only defensive capability -until damage is taken- are the three fixed shield turrets I mount. Fixed as in only one turret at any given time is likely to be effective. With two mine dispensers, I have -on several occasions- conducted a successful egress.

The other component being hostile intent. In this scenario, there are three quantifiable metrics that I would use -real world- to defend the use of lethal force. One, this specific aggressor in question had PK’d me in nation space on a previous occasion (Azec I-16). Two, the aggressor in question was loitering in an adjacent sector prior to the incident. Even continued to loiter as I feigned observation of six Capella’s doing the synchronized crazy Ivan. Three, the aggressor was rapidly closing distance with my ship once out of the Dau system.

Proposal: establish a weight scale of each pilots alignment. The metric being the quantity of times a nation penalty has been levied against a pilot. Establish a lethality scale based on the type of crafts involved in any incident. Two, reconcile for directionality and rate of closure. Add these new components to the existing scale, weighting the severity of the penalty. I’ll take a hit for deploying mines in nation space as a defensive measure. But TWO DAYS game time and SIXTY procurement missions? Outrageous.

I am no computer programmer. If your Class VIII tractor is outputting more than 50 ppm CO2, I’m your guy. Barring any of the above, I leave you with the words of “Major Leauge” batter Cerano: ‘if you no help me now Jobu, #### you. I do it myself 🤷‍♂️

So, first of all, there are existing escalating ramifications to TempKoS, based on the number of kills that have been incurred, in violation of the monitored RoE. That's why the game explicitly says to run and not shoot back in nation space.

Proposal: establish a weight scale of each pilots alignment. The metric being the quantity of times a nation penalty has been levied against a pilot. Establish a lethality scale based on the type of crafts involved in any incident. Two, reconcile for directionality and rate of closure. Add these new components to the existing scale, weighting the severity of the penalty. I’ll take a hit for deploying mines in nation space as a defensive measure. But TWO DAYS game time and SIXTY procurement missions? Outrageous.

Everything in your proposal is predicated on the notion that the aggressor will continue to conveniently use the same character, instead of iterating across a selection of characters, degrading the ability to assess based on historical behaviour.

This is one of the differences between the real world, where individuality is directly tied to an organic lifeform, versus virtual-space where people can create an unlimited number of accounts.

(What I'm describing, across accounts and VPNs and virtual machine environments, already happens at considerable scale with multiboxers, who are primarily pursuing mining and the like. So, what I'm describing is not some "hypothetical" possibility. EVE has made peace with it. We haven't, and are instead changing how mining works. If similar benefits also shifted to griefers, I think it's very likely we would see this behaviour expand).

Above and beyond that, what you're asking for is a serious engineering undertaking. "Reconcile for directionality and rate of closure"? There's a lot to unpack there for seven whole words, and a tremendous variance in potential implementations (leaving aside latency, and challenges in acceleration calculation based on packet timing and interpolation and so on). Just measurement and experimentation, finding the right bounds, then avoiding false positives in scenarios where pilots are genuinely not attacking, plus carefully whitelisting Events, groups and other corner cases. There is somewhere between weeks and months of A/B testing involved in trying to produce something stable, to fit the cases intended (which, in the end, may not actually work or provide much effective value).

Another example is "Two, the aggressor in question was loitering in an adjacent sector prior to the incident." How do you define "loitering" exactly? What is an "adjacent sector"? Since, reasonably speaking, every sector in a given system is "adjacent" from a jump standpoint. We also have some Persistent Event content that spawns in wormhole sectors, on a timed basis. Does this mean that no one should be able to wait for those specialty NPCs to spawn? Are they now "loitering" and therefore a threat? Or, can we never use wormholes for any interesting content, because it may "induce loitering"?

Again, I'm not opposed to altering or improving things, but coming up with simple rule-based systems that don't generate a ton of false positives and actually make things worse is non-trivial. It is easy to build janky rule systems; but the more complex and vague their parameters, the less functional they are, and the more difficult they are to explain to users.

If detection of "griefing intent" was easy to do, online games would be very different. Instead, almost all have simply abandoned open-PvP persistent environments, along with chat; and so removed the two biggest complaint-families reported by players, along with any positive benefits of community or environment they might have fostered.

Barring any of the above, I leave you with the words of “Major Leauge” batter Cerano: ‘if you no help me now Jobu, #### you. I do it myself

I don't know what that's supposed to mean, in this context, other than being kind of rude. Perhaps you're going to go write your own MMORPG? I totally applaud and support anyone who wants to embark on that. I think people would have a lot more empathy towards developers if they tried doing building and operating a liveops environment with a tiny team.

Same scenario. Same aggressor. Me PK’d. Nyrius B10. UTC 1505 🤷‍♂️

Same scenario. Same aggressor. Me PK’d. Nyrius B10. UTC 1505 🤷‍♂️

Uhh. Okay?

As far as I'm aware, the game is functioning as intended.

This isn't the "report other player behaviour I don't like" forum.

Listing off the dates of bad experiences is not relevant here. This forum is for discussing hypothetical changes to gameplay, and potential ramifications.

Again, please read the rules, before posting here.