| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
| Author |
Topic |
Isotobe
Caldari
Laughing Leprechauns Corporation
    |
Posted - 2008.04.20 16:28:00 -
[61]
 Originally by: Avon
Edited by: Avon on 20/04/2008 16:13:49
Originally by: Goumindong
I am quite surprised that most people in large alliances haven't heard about using this information.
They have, the difference is that they see a line and try not to cross it.
There is a big difference between tools that automate aspects of the game and directly aid gameplay, and other tools.
Voice comms automate nothing. People need to talk.
(Also, CCP's offering is free, so I don't see how you think the alternatives are cheaper).
EFT does aid the fitting ships, but it does not directly effect gameplay.
It is easy to judge applications by those critera, however, it is not easy to detect them all (portrait hacks, for example).
And no, Bacon and the concept is not new.
I certainly know of one widespread implementation of something similar, which was brought to an early end because it was felt to be a cheat, even though technically it was within the rules in the same way that Bacon is.
If client logs are going to be used in an undetectable way to gain an ingame advantage, they need to be removed or encrypted (although encryption is not ideal). It must always be assumed that the client is hostile, and provide only vital information to it.
Logging needs to be in place on test builds only.
If there is a bug there is no real reason why logs from test builds (even of the current client) could not be used to trap it, rather than risking insecure clients machines giving an in-game advantage.
If you can not see the difference between fair and unfair Goumindong, I hope you do not get a seat on the CSM.
Agreeing with Avon here on all counts above.
 |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 16:45:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Avon
There is a big difference between tools that automate aspects of the game and directly aid gameplay, and other tools.
This doesn't automate aspects of the game, it simply takes a visual aid and moves it to an auditory aid.
Should we ban large monitors because some people might be playing on smaller monitors which are not able to capture as many people in local visually at any one time, giving the people with large monitors advantages over those with smaller ones? What about people who are red/green color blind? Do we just not let anyone use red and green color indicators?
This is pretty much the same thing.
Quote:
EFT does aid the fitting ships, but it does not directly effect gameplay.
Really? Are you saying that tighter fits with better balances between speed and DPS, and less time spent testing fits with more time spent flying them doesn't directly effect gameplay? That the ability to then easily transfer fits and figure out how they will exactly perform for you and your gang does not directly effect gameplay? That is like saying a searchable database of chess openings does not change the gameplay of the people sitting across from each other.
Or that voice coms and chat coms with the ability to talk out of game and out of corp do not directly effect gameplay?
Quote:
If there is a bug there is no real reason why logs from test builds (even of the current client) could not be used to trap it, rather than risking insecure clients machines giving an in-game advantage.
Like the ingame advantage conferred by voice coms, out of game chat coms, EFT, Eve-mon, full API export for assets et all?
There are real reasons why logs from test builds are not sufficient, even if its the same client.[As can be seen by many problems that are not found on test and make their way to sisi, or simply do not manifest on test for various reasons]
I am not saying this is or should be kosher, but it is not a long way from all the other mechanisms we all use to gain ingame advantages over other people. The difference seems to only be in the amount of participation.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Cailais
Amarr
VITOC
Chain of Chaos
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 16:51:00 -
[63]
The problem isnt spefically with BACON or similar apps.
Its a question of warning and reaction times. I doubt anyone can agree as to how much advanced warning of a threat a player needs, or should have - thats aptly demonstrated by the use of alts and the debate over local.
Needless to say an audible alarm is a significant advantage: thats also demonstrated by the large number of 'audible' alarms in use in the world today, from a fighter jets missile lock alarm to your microwave or kettle.
Visual alarms can go unnoticed - audible alarms often are not: its a hardwired defence mechanism in almost every species.
CCP need to go back and look at Intel: specifically the scanner. How should a players in game awareness of his surroundings and their level of threat be displayed? Thats the issue.
C.
New Scanner Idea!
|
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 16:56:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Goumindong
Like the ingame advantage conferred by voice coms, out of game chat coms, EFT, Eve-mon, full API export for assets et all?
There are voice coms integrated in to the EVE client- as strong a CCP endorsement as there can be. Out of game chat coms are impossible to limit, and so a non-issue. EVE-mon is simply an offline organiser- nothing that couldn't be achieved without a pen and paper, and does not infer any major advantages to the user other than personal convenience. Monitor size, help databases and simulation software are all just conveniences.
BACON provides a fundamental shift in risk/reward within the game, by providing people with an in-game function that simply wasn't there before, and allowing people to essentially AFK play without risk. It also provides an easy way for any large groups to set up large, fool-proof intel networks, essentially removing most of the element of surprise out of most big-fleet combat.
They are very very different, if only in the scale of their effects. Reducing it to an "they're all 3rd party apps, lol" argument is pointless. Any fundamental change in the way the game is played should be debated for what it is. Period.
------
Originally by: Dark Shikari
The problem with killing Jesus is he always just respawns 3 days later anyways. |
Rod Blaine
Evolution
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 16:56:00 -
[65]
While this bacon thing indeed only chance visual info to auditory info, it does use the maximum of the visual info that a player could get (its the same as playing actively with local up one a single client), and turns that into auditory output.
There's he problem: bacon will mean you're always watching local. It's removing a (small) portion of the risk one can choose to run or not (by watching local attentively or not). And it removes that risk by providing information in a way that it wasn't desinged to be presented by CCP's own software.
But that's all not worth all this hassle really. What is worth the hassle is that this version is already trimmed down. And that it's basically a rough product anyway. Give it some more effort and less concerns about wether or not CCP will like it and you can end up with far worse things.
So, bacon imo is bad, but that's something one can argue about fairly well. The method however is very bad, and CCP need to plug that hole badly.
[center]
Old blog |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 17:06:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Patch86
There are voice coms integrated in to the EVE client- as strong a CCP endorsement as there can be. Out of game chat coms are impossible to limit, and so a non-issue. EVE-mon is simply an offline organiser- nothing that couldn't be achieved without a pen and paper, and does not infer any major advantages to the user other than personal convenience. Monitor size, help databases and simulation software are all just conveniences.
BACON provides a fundamental shift in risk/reward within the game, by providing people with an in-game function that simply wasn't there before, and allowing people to essentially AFK play without risk. It also provides an easy way for any large groups to set up large, fool-proof intel networks, essentially removing most of the element of surprise out of most big-fleet combat.
They are very very different, if only in the scale of their effects. Reducing it to an "they're all 3rd party apps, lol" argument is pointless. Any fundamental change in the way the game is played should be debated for what it is. Period.
And why were voice coms added to CCPs client? Why was the API implemented?
The impossibility to limit does not make it a non-issue. Just like larger monitors, better computers, better internet connections, or living in an area close to a large hub are not a "non-issue", they just aren't issue that we can reasonably limit without making the game ****ty for everyone.
People are not any more able to AFK without risk, as it all comes down to reaction in in any way. If they are away from their keyboard they've got to come back and get out.
Just as if they were running in windowed mode, had eve on top and moved off the screen to only show local and then were doing something else.
Voice coms and all the rest fundamentally change the way the game is played, and the organization of information without effort is a significant advantage to anyone. Yea, before EFT i did all my fitting by hand, and EFT has saved me a load of time making me more productive and letting me have more play time. That is an advantage over another play that could be limited by making EFT illegal.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Night Tripper
Es and Whizz
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 17:07:00 -
[67]
Edited by: Night Tripper on 20/04/2008 17:08:08
BACON in the long run will be good for eve, and hopefully force the Chinese Communist Party, sorry Crowd Control Productions, to remove local sooner than later. it's a great little program, too good, and that's the problem.
the eve client is really bad when it comes to sound cues.
i'd like to see sound being more integrated and customisable to help pilots get to grips with all the information around them quicker.
for example, with local removed, a sound alert played, if a new ship arrives on your grid.
and also a sound alert if someone types your name in a channel. would be just the tip of the iceberg.
|
HydroSan
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 17:18:00 -
[68]
I looked over the code for security holes and backdoors. You'll be happy to know that the program is absolute bunk and doesn't do anything, it's just a bunch of random code, some of which will never be executed because it isn't assigned to any functions.
It has the potential to work and be a great tool to the average EVE player and ISK farmer, but it has nowhere near the finesse and sophistication of the Beetracker and Portrait Pack. Both of those require hard, high-level changes to the graphics and audio engine. The Beetracker was also updated since that last screenshot and allows you to take control of throwaway trial accounts in T1 frigates at the same time, and will even set up the trial account and character for you.
Personally speaking this stuff should be built into the client IMHO. I don't know what I'd do without the Beetracker.
We're allowed to sell the Beetracker to select individuals but only if we sell it and don't give it away. Send 20m ISK my way and I'll give you a link to a copy. 
 |
Viper ShizzIe
Habitual Euthanasia
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 17:19:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Goumindong
This doesn't automate aspects of the game, it simply takes a visual aid and moves it to an auditory aid.
With a few simple edits the tool can be used to automate client closure, provide detailed information about fleet movements instantly, and quite a few other possible outcomes that would fundamentally withdraw any form of risk or any human interaction with the game itself without any attention being paid to the monitor whatsoever.
 |
sov68n
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 17:20:00 -
[70]
Edited by: sov68n on 20/04/2008 17:25:47
Originally by: Goumindong
Quote:
EFT does aid the fitting ships, but it does not directly effect gameplay.
Really? Are you saying that tighter fits with better balances between speed, tank, and DPS, and less time spent testing fits with more time spent flying them doesn't directly effect gameplay? That the ability to then easily transfer fits and figure out how they will exactly perform for you and your gang does not directly effect gameplay? That is like saying a searchable database of chess openings does not change the gameplay of the people sitting across from each other.
EFT does not give you readouts on your actual performance in combat, especially in regards to dps, since it fails to take into account the aspects of the target: things like transversal, resists, etc.
EFT's sole purpose is to give you a generalized picture of your ship's performance with one fitting as opposed to another fitting. It is not meant to, and can not give you a clear, concise picture of how your ship will be performing in combat, since combat is based more heavily on how the pilots control their ships, and aspects of the ship's movement that EFT fails to account for.
It also allows you to bypass having to buy fittings that either don't fit or don't work, therefore wasting your money. And no, using the test server is NOT a valid argument against this, since skills are not kept up to date on those builds, and skills are rather important in this regard.
On the other hand, if EFT was able to deliver an active combat simulator, in which you were able to customize the fittings of the other ship, and then play out a real-time simulation of your ship vs his ship (taking into account everything that EVE does during combat) all on this program, yes, it would affect gameplay. But the fact of the matter is, EFT does NOT.
 |
Soporo
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 17:26:00 -
[71]
The problem isnt the new 3rd party lameware really, the problem is universal access to information which SHOULD BE ENCRYPTED.
And wasnt there a fella just last week saying the same thing in a controversial thread about PYTHON?
 |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 17:27:00 -
[72]
Edited by: Goumindong on 20/04/2008 17:27:26
Originally by: sov68n
EFT does not give you readouts on your actual performance in combat, especially in regards to dps, since it fails to take into account the aspects of the target: things like transversal, resists, etc.
Actually EFT now includes all of that jazz[its always included resists and means to figure incoming DPS from different sources]. And anything that can't be achieved from that can be easily achieved from sticking the data into naughtyboys spreadsheet.
Quote:
On the other hand, if EFT was able to deliver an active combat simulator, in which you were able to customize the fittings of the other ship, and then play out a real-time simulation of your ship vs his ship (taking into account everything that EVE does during combat) all on this program, yes, it would affect gameplay. But the fact of the matter is, EFT does NOT.
You just said it stops you from wasting money. So does that mean that money is not an aspect of Eve? I would strongly disagree with that.
The ability to quickly and easily optimize setups is a very strong ability especially when you can normalize various attributes.
Originally by: Viper ****zIe
With a few simple edits the tool can be used to automate client closure, provide detailed information about fleet movements instantly, and quite a few other possible outcomes that would fundamentally withdraw any form of risk or any human interaction with the game itself without any attention being paid to the monitor whatsoever.
In which case it becomes a macro and is against the EULA. But this automates nothing and so is not against the EULA.
The key difference is the automation. And if you are worried about that becoming a major problem in Eve, you haven't been paying attention.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
sov68n
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 17:38:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Goumindong
Actually EFT now includes all of that jazz[its always included resists and means to figure incoming DPS from different sources]. And anything that can't be achieved from that can be easily achieved from sticking the data into naughtyboys spreadsheet.
So you basically just said that your argument was against this spreadsheet, and not EFT.
But no, EFT doesn't account for ship movement. The amount of tanked DPS does not go up if your velocity is higher. You CANNOT, and I can't emphasize this enough, accurately predict how your ship will perform in combat since there are too many factors that EFT cannot account for, mainly the fashion in which your enemy pilots his ship, since we aren't talking about fighting NPCs here.
Originally by: Goumindong
You just said it stops you from wasting money. So does that mean that money is not an aspect of Eve? I would strongly disagree with that.
The ability to quickly and easily optimize setups is a very strong ability especially when you can normalize various attributes.
Your whole argument is based on the fact that testing setups takes time. In the whole scope of EVE, the time it takes to test a setup is much too short to be significant, and therefore simply presents EFT as a convenience.
To clarify my point: The time saved by using EFT is negated by the inaccuracy of its information, and the difference in time between EFT and actually testing your setups is hardly enough to be considered an advantage.
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 17:41:00 -
[74]
Originally by: sov68n
So you basically just said that your argument was against this spreadsheet, and not EFT.
But no, EFT doesn't account for ship movement. The amount of tanked DPS does not go up if your velocity is higher. You CANNOT, and I can't emphasize this enough, accurately predict how your ship will perform in combat since there are too many factors that EFT cannot account for, mainly the fashion in which your enemy pilots his ship, since we aren't talking about fighting NPCs here.
Only if you are unable to make reasonable assumptions as to what he ought to be doing and you ought to be doing.
And yes, it accounts for a significant amount of time that is saved and a significant increase in the quality and ability of fitted ships for different aspects of the game.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
fuze
Gallente
InfoMorph Services Ltd
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 17:49:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Avon
Edited by: Avon on 20/04/2008 16:13:49
Originally by: Goumindong
I am quite surprised that most people in large alliances haven't heard about using this information.
They have, the difference is that they see a line and try not to cross it.
A lot of the large alliances have a long history of using borderline tactics or plain cheats.
And IMHO should this discussion be about CCP plugging the hole since they cannot enforce that 3rd party programs cannot be run on the client. |
sov68n
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 17:50:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Goumindong
Only if you are unable to make reasonable assumptions as to what he ought to be doing and you ought to be doing.
This is not a valid point for your argument, seeing as how you just admitted that EFT cannot account for a variety of factors. Factors that are much more important in combat than data from EFT could ever be to you.
Originally by: Goumindong
And yes, it accounts for a significant amount of time that is saved and a significant increase in the quality and ability of fitted ships for different aspects of the game.
Listen to it this way:
If you use EFT, you get quick, semi-accurate information.
If you test it, you get delayed, precise information.
There is a trade-off. However if EFT was quick AND provided the same, concise information provided by testing it in-game, I would agree that it was game-breaking. But again, it does not.
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 17:57:00 -
[77]
Originally by: sov68n
This is not a valid point for your argument, seeing as how you just admitted that EFT cannot account for a variety of factors. Factors that are much more important in combat than data from EFT could ever be to you.
Without the information that EFT provides you would be unable to reliably test speedily. Its a significant advantage which has provided a lot of insight into the game which we would have missed otherwise[relative advantages of the various plated gank battleships, the relative advantages of repping versus plating, etc. All information that makes the players that have it better than the players that don't]. The only difference is that its more widely used.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
sov68n
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 18:00:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Goumindong
Without the information that EFT provides you would be unable to reliably test speedily. Its a significant advantage which has provided a lot of insight into the game which we would have missed otherwise[relative advantages of the various plated gank battleships, the relative advantages of repping versus plating, etc. All information that makes the players that have it better than the players that don't]. The only difference is that its more widely used.
The fact that the information EFT provides isn't your exact combat performance seems to be flying right over your head. Like I keep saying, there are too many factors in EVE pvp that EFT cannot account for, making its information a generalization at best.
The only way to REALLY test your ships is to fly them in combat against hostiles. Other than that, you will never truly know how your ship performs.
I rest my case.
|
HydroSan
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 18:05:00 -
[79]
Why are you arguing with Goumindong? His logic makes sense to himself and nobody else.
|
AKULA UrQuan
Caldari
STK Scientific
Black-Out
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 18:05:00 -
[80]
The files generated by the logserver where never intended for this kind of use. Logserver useage is for bug reporting and in the fileing of petitions when the need calls for it. It's not a burgler alarm.
Nevermind the fact it's open source opens up a massive can of worms. It's not a huge leap in logic to see more malishis uses for it such as phishing and god knows what else. ETF has had problems with this in the past.
I'm completely shocked we're even haveing this debate....
 |
sov68n
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 18:09:00 -
[81]
Originally by: HydroSan
Why are you arguing with Goumindong? His logic makes sense to himself and nobody else.
good point.
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 18:09:00 -
[82]
Originally by: AKULA UrQuan
The files generated by the logserver where never intended for this kind of use. Logserver useage is for bug reporting and in the fileing of petitions when the need calls for it. It's not a burgler alarm.
Nevermind the fact it's open source opens up a massive can of worms. It's not a huge leap in logic to see more malishis uses for it such as phishing and god knows what else. ETF has had problems with this in the past.
I'm completely shocked we're even haveing this debate....
There exists the same malicious usages of all other third party programs. Why is this one any different?
Originally by: sov68n
Originally by: Goumindong
Without the information that EFT provides you would be unable to reliably test speedily. Its a significant advantage which has provided a lot of insight into the game which we would have missed otherwise[relative advantages of the various plated gank battleships, the relative advantages of repping versus plating, etc. All information that makes the players that have it better than the players that don't]. The only difference is that its more widely used.
The fact that the information EFT provides isn't your exact combat performance seems to be flying right over your head. Like I keep saying, there are too many factors in EVE pvp that EFT cannot account for, making its information a generalization at best.
The only way to REALLY test your ships is to fly them in combat against hostiles. Other than that, you will never truly know how your ship performs.
I rest my case.
Generalizations are useful. They are much more useful than not having the information. If you don't think its useful, then go ahead and do it by hand for the next few months. See what it changes about how what you know and what you can figure out.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
sov68n
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 18:23:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Goumindong
Generalizations are useful. They are much more useful than not having the information. If you don't think its useful, then go ahead and do it by hand for the next few months. See what it changes about how what you know and what you can figure out.
I'm going to say this one last time for you:
There is a BIG difference between useful and/or convenient and having a negative effect on gameplay. You continue to imply that the convenience of EFT is game-breaking. It is not, and your arguments keep drifting more and more towards suggesting that EFT is in fact, just a useful tool, and nothing more. Here's an example:
Originally by: Goumindong
Generalizations are useful. They are much more useful than not having the information.
Again, suggesting that EFT's data is in fact, not game-breaking.
You lose.
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 18:27:00 -
[84]
Originally by: sov68n
Originally by: Goumindong
Generalizations are useful. They are much more useful than not having the information. If you don't think its useful, then go ahead and do it by hand for the next few months. See what it changes about how what you know and what you can figure out.
I'm going to say this one last time for you:
There is a BIG difference between useful and/or convenient and having a negative effect on gameplay. You continue to imply that the convenience of EFT is game-breaking. It is not, and your arguments keep drifting more and more towards suggesting that EFT is in fact, just a useful tool, and nothing more. Here's an example:
Originally by: Goumindong
Generalizations are useful. They are much more useful than not having the information.
Again, suggesting that EFT's data is in fact, not game-breaking.
You lose.
A noise when a hostile enters local is not game breaking. The argument was never about whether or not it broke the game but whether or not it gave advantage over people not using that mechanic.
All these programs confer significant advantage on those who use them over those that do not.
Nor will this have much of a change on gameplay, the game play was always the same, when you are not in a combat ship and a hostile enters local, you gtfo in whatever way you can.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Evelgrivion
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 18:29:00 -
[85]
The argument that EFT is no worse than BACON is an absurd argument, at best. Eve Fitting Tool is nothing more than a spreadsheet and calculator. It does not provide "I win" setups without trial and error, and neither is it an instant recipe for success in PvP (or even PvE) activities.
BACON's functionality is much, much more sinister; it makes it easier to get away scott free from PVP mechanics than it already does; it is a watchdog. It removes the need to be vigilant. With BACON, all you need to do to get away scott free is log off as soon as the magic sound is heard. Hell, you can just warp to a safe spot and cloak for the same effect. While those are old problems, this is only serving to make it worse.
Several people have argued that BACON is merely symptomatic of the local problem. I'm inclined to believe that the problem is deeper than that. The problem is the increased number of carebears who are afraid to do battle at any time, anywhere, under any circumstance against other players, a growing fear of loss, and an ever growing demand to ***** ISK in ever greater quantities.
Logserver was not meant to be used to this effect (and I'm happy to have heard on IRC on previous occasions that the outputs of this program are going to be encrypted at some point, so these kinds of programs will no longer be feasible). It is an abuse of a bug reporting tool to create an advantage over those who do not possess this application. Even though this tool is public to everyone, it is unfair because not everyone has immediate access to it.
Programs like BACON are also damaging to the net enjoyment of the game. As time has gone on, more and more meta-gaming tactics have been invented to escape non-consentual PVP. Is it any wonder that gatecamps and empire suicide ganks are becoming far more prevalent? It's getting close to being the only way for anyone to kill anything in this game anymore.
It should not be allowed by the EULA for third party programs to interface with Logserver. This will help undo the damage done by programs like this (and earlier programs like Goonswarm's BeeWatch...), and prevent further, as of yet undiscovered abuse potential.
The problem of people's continuously growing urge to ***** wealth at no risk, both in 0.0 and lowsec, will need to be addressed in other ways - but this goes beyond the scope of this thread.
TL;DR version: **** BACON.
 |
sov68n
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 18:30:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Goumindong
All these programs confer significant advantage on those who use them over those that do not.
This is simply not an issue, since the people who do not use the programs do so by their own choice, or by ignorance of their existence. And therefore are denying themselves the advantage, meaning they are the issue in this matter, and not the programs themselves.
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 18:31:00 -
[87]
Edited by: Goumindong on 20/04/2008 18:33:43
Originally by: sov68n
Originally by: Goumindong
All these programs confer significant advantage on those who use them over those that do not.
This is simply not an issue, since the people who do not use the programs do so by their own choice, or by ignorance of their existence. And therefore are denying themselves the advantage, meaning they are the issue in this matter, and not the programs themselves.
So by BACON being public then the people not using it are doing it by their own choice or by ignorance of their existence, and therefore are denying themselves the advantage, meaning they are the issue in this matter, and not the programs themselves?
Edit:
If there is an argument to be made its not to be made on the fact that it provides an advantage or is third party.
Originally by: Evelgrivion
The argument that EFT is no worse than BACON is an absurd argument, at best. Eve Fitting Tool is nothing more than a spreadsheet and calculator. It does not provide "I win" setups without trial and error, and neither is it an instant recipe for success in PvP (or even PvE) activities.
Nor does BACON warp you out of a belt and cloak you. It simply makes it easier to do so. While EFT makes it easier to develop strong PvP/PvE builds. Do you see the similarities?
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
sov68n
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 18:32:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Evelgrivion
The argument that EFT is no worse than BACON is an absurd argument, at best. Eve Fitting Tool is nothing more than a spreadsheet and calculator. It does not provide "I win" setups without trial and error, and neither is it an instant recipe for success in PvP (or even PvE) activities.
I find myself agreeing with a BOB member. The world is ending.
But seriously, that pretty much sums up what I've been trying to drill into guomindong's (or however the **** you spell his name) head.
|
Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 18:33:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Avon
Edited by: Avon on 20/04/2008 16:13:49
Originally by: Goumindong
I am quite surprised that most people in large alliances haven't heard about using this information.
They have, the difference is that they see a line and try not to cross it.
There is a big difference between tools that automate aspects of the game and directly aid gameplay, and other tools.
Voice comms automate nothing. People need to talk.
(Also, CCP's offering is free, so I don't see how you think the alternatives are cheaper).
EFT does aid the fitting ships, but it does not directly effect gameplay.
It is easy to judge applications by those critera, however, it is not easy to detect them all (portrait hacks, for example).
And no, Bacon and the concept is not new.
I certainly know of one widespread implementation of something similar, which was brought to an early end because it was felt to be a cheat, even though technically it was within the rules in the same way that Bacon is.
If client logs are going to be used in an undetectable way to gain an ingame advantage, they need to be removed or encrypted (although encryption is not ideal). It must always be assumed that the client is hostile, and provide only vital information to it.
Logging needs to be in place on test builds only.
If there is a bug there is no real reason why logs from test builds (even of the current client) could not be used to trap it, rather than risking insecure clients machines giving an in-game advantage.
If you can not see the difference between fair and unfair Goumindong, I hope you do not get a seat on the CSM.
Don't have much to add to this, agreed with Avon on all counts. Seems to me we need to encourage CCP to deal with the logging issue and stop this stuff happening at source. Then we can look at Local as an "intel tool" issue and come to some sensible proposals to move forward with.
Thanks for the reasoned post Avon, its very useful.
CSM Election Manifesto 2008 |
sov68n
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 18:35:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Goumindong
So by BACON being public then the people not using it are doing it by their own choice or by ignorance of their existence, and therefore are denying themselves the advantage, meaning they are the issue in this matter, and not the programs themselves?
My statement was in reference to EFT, my apologies for not clarifying that.
But imo, BACON does break gank pvp, since even people who stupidly afk in unsecure areas are now safe, and that is not how EVE should play out, under any circumstances.
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |