Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 27 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 12 post(s) |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
1296
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 01:39:00 -
[751] - Quote
Don't make fun of my writing; I actually write really well, in multiple languages.
It's just really difficult to keep my composure when I'm frothing at the mouth with rage. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Touval Lysander
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
408
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 01:52:00 -
[752] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:"Technical issues" isn't an excuse at all. It simply can't be. It's impossible for it to be.
They have had a working system for many, many years now. And now they're going to get rid of it, but at the same time tell us "sorry guys, it's simply too difficult to code something like that"? I'm just not buying it.
Transferable killrights? They were? When?
Quote: Would you buy it if Toyota got rid of the combustible engine, started a new line of cars that are pedal-powered, and then put out a press release stating that they simply can't get over the technical hurdles of making their cars more fuel efficient?
If they were pedal -powered they'd be pretty fuel efficient wouldn't they?
Quote: And as far as iteration goes, I'm betting this content won't be touched again. They didn't touch FW from 2007, until they rolled out a mega-broken "fix" that made things even worse. And even though they could easily mitigate the bad stuff by getting rid of the 4x LP price multipliers (I bet they'd just have to change like one line of code for that), they left it intact for a full year in order to address it in an expansion.
Please.
Not so sure about iteration being ignored. I think JitaGate set the stage for utterance of qualiflied and robust calls by CCP.
And yeah, it is maybe one line of code (unless they're really bad coders) but the rebuild and rollout is costly and time-consuming etc. notwithstanding the danger of rolling out "patches" versus "expansions".
And this is the thing. CCP is not always going to be cognizant of the impacts of any changes until they are actually rolled out - and tested - over time.
At some point, we HAVE to be the testers. If people can't accept that as a natural part of continuous development - which CCP is very good at - then you know, there's bucketloads of release and forget software available.
I say that with all sincerity and without prejudice. "I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
1296
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 01:57:00 -
[753] - Quote
Touval Lysander wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:"Technical issues" isn't an excuse at all. It simply can't be. It's impossible for it to be.
They have had a working system for many, many years now. And now they're going to get rid of it, but at the same time tell us "sorry guys, it's simply too difficult to code something like that"? I'm just not buying it.
Transferable killrights? They were? When? I was talking about the flagging mechanics in general. The all-encompassing suspect flag replacing current aggression mechanics, that stuff.
We're going from a system where it's possible to be aggressed to an individual or a corporation to a system where you can only be aggressed to everybody, solely on the premise that the old system would be too difficult to recreate with modernized code. Derp. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
795
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 02:10:00 -
[754] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:We're going from a system where it's possible to be aggressed to an individual or a corporation to a system where you can only be aggressed to everybody, solely on the premise that the old system would be too difficult to recreate with modernized code. Derp. To be fair I don't think CCP has ever mentioned it being too difficult to recreate, rather that the code was much cleaner. And I can see where they're coming from, especially considering how many SQL calls must be made in order to track a single engagement (they may handle it differently, who knows). Also, despite all my cries of "LOL BOOLEAN", the new Crimewatch system seems to be a fairly modern, if unsophisticated, state machine on the back-end.
But, like we all keep saying, the new CW mechanics aren't the big issue, it's the total lack of feature being delivered to kill rights and the completely idiotic gaming of said system. Nothing Found |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
1296
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 02:20:00 -
[755] - Quote
So am I correct in assuming that the situation is so critical, that they have no choice but to roll out this system? If they don't, then the servers are going to explode and hamsters will rain down on England? Because if not, then they shouldn't touch the system we have now, since it's preferable to what they're about to shove down our unwilling gullets. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
795
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 02:25:00 -
[756] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:So am I correct in assuming that the situation is so critical, that they have no choice but to roll out this system? lol, no. I'm with Lord Zim on this, it's undoubtedly yet another attempt to make high-sec safer. While they may tout this system as allowing a lot of other things to go through, I'm fairly certain they could have simply written this new system and retained the old rules. No, I'm not fairly certain, I know. Nothing Found |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
338
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 02:26:00 -
[757] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:So am I correct in assuming that the situation is so critical, that they have no choice but to roll out this system? If they don't, then the servers are going to explode and hamsters will rain down on England? Because if not, then they shouldn't touch the system we have now, since it's preferable to what they're about to shove down our unwilling gullets. The system we have now was what they are trying to get rid of specifically. It wasn't so much the code that was the issue but rather the system that necessitated it due to all the edge cases possible.
They didn't choose not to recreate it because they couldn't, they chose not to because it isn't what they want. that being the case the timing isn't terribly important as much as the fact that limited engagements are being given a much less than robust solution. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
1297
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 02:26:00 -
[758] - Quote
Karl Hobb wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:So am I correct in assuming that the situation is so critical, that they have no choice but to roll out this system? lol, no. I'm with Lord Zim on this, it's undoubtedly yet another attempt to make high-sec safer. While they may tout this system as allowing a lot of other things to go through, I'm fairly certain they could have simply written this new system and retained the old rules. No, I'm not fairly certain, I know. Abso-*******-lutely.
The worst part is that they simply can't man up and admit their agenda. The obviously want even the "griefer" sub bucks, so they're taking their chances with lies, hoping that we won't notice, and thus create these "technical hurdle" excuses, which wouldn't work on any but the most uninformed players. They're insulting our intelligence by doing this. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
798
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 02:29:00 -
[759] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:The system we have now was what they are trying to get rid of specifically. It wasn't so much the code that was the issue but rather the system that necessitated it due to all the edge cases possible. Then clean up the edge cases and codify the rules. FFS, it's not rocket science. Nothing Found |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
338
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 02:32:00 -
[760] - Quote
Karl Hobb wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:The system we have now was what they are trying to get rid of specifically. It wasn't so much the code that was the issue but rather the system that necessitated it due to all the edge cases possible. Then clean up the edge cases and codify the rules. FFS, it's not rocket science. Codifying the edge cases created the issue from what I understand. |
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
1297
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 02:34:00 -
[761] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Karl Hobb wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:The system we have now was what they are trying to get rid of specifically. It wasn't so much the code that was the issue but rather the system that necessitated it due to all the edge cases possible. Then clean up the edge cases and codify the rules. FFS, it's not rocket science. Codifying the edge cases created the issue from what I understand. The same people who said that also said that they don't know what happens when one person remote-reps another.
It's funny, because the players know. If they just asked us, we could have made them a nice, colorful chart. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
338
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 02:37:00 -
[762] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Karl Hobb wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:The system we have now was what they are trying to get rid of specifically. It wasn't so much the code that was the issue but rather the system that necessitated it due to all the edge cases possible. Then clean up the edge cases and codify the rules. FFS, it's not rocket science. Codifying the edge cases created the issue from what I understand. The same people who said that also said that they don't know what happens when one person remote-reps another. It's funny, because the players know. If they just asked us, we could have made them a nice, colorful chart. Great, now all that remains is the same work of debugging and recursion testing and maintaining the model that you essentially just rewrote in all its complexity and nullifying any gains you made. Progress? |
Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
798
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 02:41:00 -
[763] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Great, now all that remains is the same work of debugging and recursion testing and maintaining the model that you essentially just rewrote in all its complexity and nullifying any gains you made. Progress? Take an interesting and rich aggression model that rewards planning and knowledge, and has been proven through the years, and replace it with a very simple model that retains none of the richness. Progress? Nothing Found |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
338
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 02:44:00 -
[764] - Quote
Karl Hobb wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Great, now all that remains is the same work of debugging and recursion testing and maintaining the model that you essentially just rewrote in all its complexity and nullifying any gains you made. Progress? Take an interesting and rich aggression model that rewards planning and knowledge, and has been proven through the years, and replace it with a very simple model that retains none of the richness. Progress? Depends on what you are trying to achieve. If it's one promoting consequence, yes. But as we are seeing there are some who don't want consequence as it means taking the total control they had over aggression selection away. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
1300
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 02:45:00 -
[765] - Quote
I pay almost sixty dollars a month for this game. I'd hope that at least part of the money goes toward programming and maintenance, instead of acting as a conduit for Hilmar's office desk coke pile. One would think that programming, testing, and maintenance are the main expenditures of a software developer, but CCP makes it sound like those things are just passing considerations.
And having to work is not an excuse for not working.
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Karl Hobb wrote:Take an interesting and rich aggression model that rewards planning and knowledge, and has been proven through the years, and replace it with a very simple model that retains none of the richness. Progress? Depends on what you are trying to achieve. If it's one promoting consequence, yes. But as we are seeing there are some who don't want consequence as it means taking the total control they had over aggression selection away. And once again we go back, full circle, to that well-proven argument that gankers and pvpers are too afraid of losing their ships. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
801
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 02:46:00 -
[766] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Depends on what you are trying to achieve. If it's one promoting consequence, yes. But as we are seeing there are some who don't want consequence as it means taking the total control they had over aggression selection away. You already have consequence, most people just don't choose to enforce it. I doubt much will change in the new system. Nothing Found |
Touval Lysander
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
408
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 02:49:00 -
[767] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Karl Hobb wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:So am I correct in assuming that the situation is so critical, that they have no choice but to roll out this system? lol, no. I'm with Lord Zim on this, it's undoubtedly yet another attempt to make high-sec safer. While they may tout this system as allowing a lot of other things to go through, I'm fairly certain they could have simply written this new system and retained the old rules. No, I'm not fairly certain, I know. Abso-*******-lutely. The worst part is that they simply can't man up and admit their agenda. The obviously want even the "griefer" sub bucks, so they're taking their chances with lies, hoping that we won't notice, and thus create these "technical hurdle" excuses, which wouldn't work on any but the most uninformed players. They're insulting our intelligence by doing this. I thought this subject was about mechanics, not idealogy.
Given that the right to kill a ganker was already in the game it's really down to how he can be killed rather than whether he should be isn't it?
Let's not go there. Please. 50 threads on this already.
"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
338
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 02:49:00 -
[768] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:I pay almost sixty dollars a month for this game. I'd hope that at least part of the money goes toward programming and maintenance, instead of acting as a conduit for Hilmar's office desk coke pile. One would think that programming, testing, and maintenance are the main expenditures of a software developer, but CCP makes it sound like those things are just passing considerations.
And having to work is not an excuse for not working. Ok, I can agree with your premise on the killrights issue, but lets please not turn this into an "I pay for the game therefore I must get my way argument." For one it works both ways, for and against you and 2 it's in no way productive.
That aside the money you give to CCP should spend some time securing efficiencies that make sure future changes and expansion can happen more efficiently. this includes things like labor and game mechanics changes. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
338
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 02:51:00 -
[769] - Quote
Karl Hobb wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Depends on what you are trying to achieve. If it's one promoting consequence, yes. But as we are seeing there are some who don't want consequence as it means taking the total control they had over aggression selection away. You already have consequence, most people just don't choose to enforce it. I doubt much will change in the new system. Then what is the issue? simplified code + very little change in behavior = highsec becomes no safer and CCP makes game changes faster. Win for everyone! |
Bart Starr
Aggressive Structural Steel Expediting Services
121
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 02:52:00 -
[770] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Touval Lysander wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:"Technical issues" isn't an excuse at all. It simply can't be. It's impossible for it to be.
They have had a working system for many, many years now. And now they're going to get rid of it, but at the same time tell us "sorry guys, it's simply too difficult to code something like that"? I'm just not buying it.
Transferable killrights? They were? When? I was talking about the flagging mechanics in general. The all-encompassing suspect flag replacing current aggression mechanics, that stuff. We're going from a system where it's possible to be aggressed to an individual or a corporation to a system where you can only be aggressed to everybody, solely on the premise that the old system would be too difficult to recreate with modernized code. Derp.
If their goal was really to 'simplify things', they would have really kept things simple and avoided 1 to 1 flags entirely...
1). You attack a suspect, you become a suspect OR 2.) suspects can be freely attacked by anyone and vigilantes receive no flag. (ie, still have Concord protection)
But #1 wouldn't make Carebears safe enough for CCP, because criminals would be counter ambushing them. CCP wanted to provide carebears with 1 vs 'unlimited' gang raep fights at the expense of the 'suspects'.
And #2 is going too far, even by CCP's post Incarna standard.
So, enter the 'Limited Engagement' - a concept which contradicts the entire point of CW 2.0, by reintroducing the one to one flag.
And I haven't even touched on the other penalties that have been layered on gankers, can flippers and ninjas.
Conclusion: The primary purpose was simply to insulate Carebears further from damage in highsec. 'Flag streamlining' is simply a fig leaf.
|
|
Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
801
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 02:52:00 -
[771] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:And once again we go back, full circle, to that well-proven argument that gankers and pvpers are too afraid of losing their ships. Well, I for one am (except maybe those gank Thrashers), but then, I don't get out much. Nothing Found |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
338
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 02:54:00 -
[772] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: And once again we go back, full circle, to that well-proven argument that gankers and pvpers are too afraid of losing their ships.
Then again, what is the issue with crimewatch? |
Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
802
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 02:57:00 -
[773] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Then what is the issue? simplified code + very little change in behavior = highsec becomes no safer and CCP makes game changes faster. Win for everyone!
Bart "I'm a Republican" Starr wrote:If their goal was really to 'simplify things', they would have really kept things simple and avoided 1 to 1 flags entirely...
1). You attack a suspect, you become a suspect OR 2.) suspects can be freely attacked by anyone and vigilantes receive no flag. (ie, still have Concord protection)
But #1 wouldn't make Carebears safe enough for CCP, because criminals would be counter ambushing them. CCP wanted to provide carebears with 1 vs 'unlimited' gang raep fights at the expense of the 'suspects'.
And #2 is going too far, even by CCP's post Incarna standard.
So, enter the 'Limited Engagement' - a concept which contradicts the entire point of CW 2.0, by reintroducing the one to one flag.
And I haven't even touched on the other penalties that have been layered on gankers, can flippers and ninjas.
Conclusion: The primary purpose was simply to insulate Carebears further from damage in highsec. 'Flag streamlining' is simply a fig leaf. 'Nuff said. Nothing Found |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
1301
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 02:57:00 -
[774] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote: And once again we go back, full circle, to that well-proven argument that gankers and pvpers are too afraid of losing their ships.
Then again, what is the issue with crimewatch? With Crimwatch? The suspect flag, obviously. Flagging people to everyone in the universe for petty crimes is a ridiculous concept. Thieves already get flagged to entire corporations when they steal. By flagging them to the entire universe, CCP is basically admitting to coddling their furry friends, since they're unable to defend themselves and their property even when they outnumber the bad guys.
"Aw, you munchkins can't take care of the Rifter that flipped your ore? Don't you worry your precious little heads about it, we'll just make the meanies fair game to everyone on the server so you won't have to worry about watching out for yourself in a competitive, sandbox MMO. :3"
It's a shame too, because some other parts of Crimewatch are really good, like the neutral RR nerf (and this is coming from a devout high-sec pvper). (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
338
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 03:01:00 -
[775] - Quote
Karl Hobb wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Then what is the issue? simplified code + very little change in behavior = highsec becomes no safer and CCP makes game changes faster. Win for everyone! Bart "I'm a Republican" Starr wrote:If their goal was really to 'simplify things', they would have really kept things simple and avoided 1 to 1 flags entirely...
1). You attack a suspect, you become a suspect OR 2.) suspects can be freely attacked by anyone and vigilantes receive no flag. (ie, still have Concord protection)
But #1 wouldn't make Carebears safe enough for CCP, because criminals would be counter ambushing them. CCP wanted to provide carebears with 1 vs 'unlimited' gang raep fights at the expense of the 'suspects'.
And #2 is going too far, even by CCP's post Incarna standard.
So, enter the 'Limited Engagement' - a concept which contradicts the entire point of CW 2.0, by reintroducing the one to one flag.
And I haven't even touched on the other penalties that have been layered on gankers, can flippers and ninjas.
Conclusion: The primary purpose was simply to insulate Carebears further from damage in highsec. 'Flag streamlining' is simply a fig leaf. 'Nuff said. If you want to further disincentivise fighting back, which considering the aggressors initiative is already pretty dumb in most cases, yeah, number one works. And we can all agree number 2 is a terribly possibility under any circumstance. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
1301
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 03:04:00 -
[776] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:And we can all agree number 2 is a terribly possibility under any circumstance. It's funny you should say that, because that's how they originally planned the system. It took a couple of threadnaughts (like this one!) to make them change their minds. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Touval Lysander
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
408
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 03:05:00 -
[777] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:"Aw, you munchkins can't take care of the Rifter that flipped your ore? Don't you worry your precious little heads about it, we'll just make the meanies fair game to everyone on the server so you won't have to worry about watching out for yourself in a competitive, sandbox MMO. :3"
It's a shame too, because some other parts of Crimewatch are really good, like the neutral RR nerf (and this is coming from a devout high-sec pvper). And here I was thinking your motivation was in making money killing those bad people.
/me walks off shaking his head mumbling something about "it's highsec ffs". "I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
338
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 03:08:00 -
[778] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: With Crimwatch? The suspect flag, obviously. Flagging people to everyone in the universe for petty crimes is a ridiculous concept. Thieves already get flagged to entire corporations when they steal. By flagging them to the entire universe, CCP is basically admitting to coddling their furry friends, since they're unable to defend themselves and their property even when they outnumber the bad guys.
"Aw, you munchkins can't take care of the Rifter that flipped your ore? Don't you worry your precious little heads about it, we'll just make the meanies fair game to everyone on the server so you won't have to worry about watching out for yourself in a competitive, sandbox MMO. :3"
It's a shame too, because some other parts of Crimewatch are really good, like the neutral RR nerf (and this is coming from a devout high-sec pvper).
If they sent out a notice to everyone in the system I could see this as coddling. Or if they were locking you in place for others to come retaliate. But they aren't. you still have control over where and who you engage and at worse must be a bit more aware of who's around. People can now assist each other in highsec without being in the same corp and somehow this is a terrible thing? I wasn't aware group play was supposed to be so limited by design. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
1302
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 03:13:00 -
[779] - Quote
Touval Lysander wrote:And here I was thinking your motivation was in making money killing those bad people.
/me walks off shaking his head mumbling something about "it's highsec ffs". I'm not allowed to have more than one play style?
Tyberius Franklin wrote:If they sent out a notice to everyone in the system I could see this as coddling. Or if they were locking you in place for others to come retaliate. But they aren't. you still have control over where and who you engage and at worse must be a bit more aware of who's around. People can now assist each other in highsec without being in the same corp and somehow this is a terrible thing? I wasn't aware group play was supposed to be so limited by design. If that's your argument, then why are they not allowing random neutrals to shoot my war targets if they're in a fleet with me?
The point is, this doesn't just affect people flipping miners in out of the way systems. It also affects suicide-gank loot scoopers. This whole thing is made with the intent of nerfing suicide-ganking haulers (and shiny mission boats). The miners already got their buff. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Bart Starr
Aggressive Structural Steel Expediting Services
124
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 03:17:00 -
[780] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:And we can all agree number 2 is a terribly possibility under any circumstance. It's funny you should say that, because that's how they originally planned the system. It took a couple of threadnaughts (like this one!) to make them change their minds.
Exactly.
The original plan? - Vigilante RR would be protected by Concord. (this led to the current counter-intuitive situation today where highsec RR gets you a flag to everyone, while simply shooting at a suspect does not.) - Suspects who defend themselves against a vigilante take sec status penalties for shooting back.
Only pages and pages of players telling them how stupid this was got him to rethink a bit. But it clearly showed what his design intentions are.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 27 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |