| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
ITTigerClawIK
Amarr
Galactic Rangers
Galactic-Rangers
   |
Posted - 2010.02.26 17:07:00 -
[151]
Edited by: ITTigerClawIK on 26/02/2010 17:07:20
Just a quick request on the new "Buddies list system". in there you show a "sort by standings" system, would it be possable to impliment a "Sort by CORP" system as well?
reason being i try and sort my buddies list into corps but every so often something happens which makes me lose my folder settings and all 672 odd contacts are back in one mega blob of people including war targets and friends alike.
Sig space reclaimed in the name of me -courtesy of Tiggy ([email protected]) |
sakuraiea
Gallente
Virginia Company
|
Posted - 2010.02.26 17:11:00 -
[152]
 Quote:
Secondly, corporate membership lists (for player corps). Currently you can see this in two places: in your P&P, and in the corp interface. We'd like to remove it from P&P, because it doesn't really belong there, and we've been discussing adding it to the corp's "show info" instead. The question then is whether the corp member list should be globally viewable, or just viewable to corporate members. This becomes more complicated when you add EVE Gate to the picture, because if you have the same publically viewable information there as in show info, it's considerably easier to build a corp membership database by simply pulling all the pages and associating names with corporations. The info is obviously already available through the client in principle, but compiling it is a non-trivial exercise; a web version simplifies it considerably. Opinion is still divided here on whether this is a serious issue or not.
i think it should be left up to the corp to decide who can see member. like give them the option to set it to where only dark blue can see corp member list or light blue up or neutral up or every one. as in during a time of war its nice if the enemy cant see that your on.
THE BURRITO HAS SPOKEN.
-GOD |
Shira d'Radonis
Amarr
The Amarr Mission
|
Posted - 2010.02.26 17:12:00 -
[153]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
I'd argue that the degree of emergence a given ruleset allows for is determined by the breadth of its functionality, not the complexity of its mechanics...
And I appreciate your striving for elegance and simplicity without reducing functionality, but at this point you've already been provided with compelling reasons why reducing complexity this much will necessarily reduce functionality. The question is whether you listen. You've even been given good alternatives.
Quote:
1) Adding the option almost always requires more programming work. As our software engineers like to tell us, anything is possible, but everything costs something. Given finite programming resources, we have to prioritize in terms of what will give us the most value for a day's work; frequently, giving the user more customization options means giving up something else.
Then that's just an argument for not making corp/alliance info displayed on Eve Gate AT ALL. If players want to display that info, let them include that in their profile text. Everybody wins and you don't need to add more "programming work" for a checkbox  .
Quote:
2) Giving the user more options is a tradeoff between complexity and functionality (see above).
With all due respect, if you can't see how the addition of a single checkbox has greater functionality than complexity in this case, you should not be doing your job. But this vague reference to design philosophy seems more like a dodge than an opinion on this particular question.
Quote:
As a result, it's often the case that adding options will both reduce the accessibility of a feature, and require us to drop something else we wanted to do.
How much did you have to sacrifice when you added checkboxes for race, corp, & alliance on the forums? How many new players found the forums "unaccessible" by this terribly complex configuration? 
Quote:
There has to be therefore a compelling reason to add that option, and in our previous discussions on this issue we haven't found a strong enough reason to commit to doing so. This does frequently mean saying "yes, there are edge cases where doing it the other way would be better, but we can't accommodate them".
Then why isn't the default required to have compelling reasons as well? I haven't heard one for why all of the info available in a user's in-game info should be available in Eve Gate. And the player opposition seen already to its inclusion should be a compelling reasons enough to add this minute degree of customization or not display the info at all. Acknowledging that your design is flawed does not give you a pass to move forward with it anyway.
You explain the cons of all your changes in stark, clear terms, but whenever you talk about the pros its always vague and philosophical. Are you just keeping them close to the vest because they will tie into as yet unannounced new features, or is it just because there just weren't any good reasons to do it this way?
But I would like to say that it seems clear you have all invested a lot of work in this, and it looks like it's going to be a great addition overall. But I would hate to see a great system mired in controversy because of a few things that add very little while causing a lot of problems. You may feel the need to take a principled stand and not compromised on this, but as a game company, it is in your interest to make things people WILL enjoy, not things you think they SHOULD enjoy.
-----------------------------------------------
ôàquod ad ius naturale attinet, omnes homines aequales suntö
"Our histories, one day, will absolve me..."
- Shira d'Radonis
|
Ephemeral Waves
Federation of Freedom Fighters
|
Posted - 2010.02.26 17:13:00 -
[154]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
2) EVE Gate is to some degree pre-populated with relationships..
This is the exact mistake that Google made with Buzz. I don't want my in-game relationships available on a website. If I want to 'befriend' somebody in EVE Gate, then that is my choice. I do not want this thing pre-populated.
|
Ephemeral Waves
Federation of Freedom Fighters
|
Posted - 2010.02.26 17:24:00 -
[155]
Quote:
Secondly, corporate membership lists [...] adding it to the corp's "show info" instead. The question then is whether the corp member list should be globally viewable, or just viewable to corporate members.
I missed this part on my first read-through...
This information most definately should not be public. Why would you want to make it so easy for somebody to go through the roster of a target (or aggressor) and mark down their members?
|
Lord Helghast
|
Posted - 2010.02.26 17:27:00 -
[156]
Edited by: Lord Helghast on 26/02/2010 17:27:18
PLEASE GOD MAKE THE CALANDER WORK WITH OUR TIMEZONES SO WE CAN ALL SEE "OUR TIME", would be nice if we could see in lower left our time and eve time :)
Also as for standings no problem with the change to standings, though i think it needs to be changed to at minimum 6 -7 levels
3 low 3 high and neutral, most importantly the 3 highs ... Very friendly, access to everything, renters, access to somethings, and we wont shoot you cause u wont shoot us but you cant access any of our sh*t
As for member visiblity make it optional, kinda like the certificates are.. but on a corp level, set by the directors.
|
Gnulpie
Minmatar
Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2010.02.26 17:36:00 -
[157]
What exactly should that Eve-Gate/Spacebook be?
A social site for Eve players? Then the in-game standings do not make any sense on Eve-Gate (why should I be friendly to someone which I really don't know just because he happens to be in some alliance i dont shoot?/why should i hostile to people just because i shoot down their ships?).
A roleplay site for Eve characters? Then the in-game standings would make a lot of sense on Eve-Gate. But that wouldn't be a social site then and only few people roleplay anyway.
I haven't understood completely what this Eve-Gate should be. It just seems that you mix in-game political standings with out-of-game social standings. That is not good and won't work.
Why not make it OPTIONAL to import your standings from Eve into Eve-Gate any time you want and otherwise leave them seperated?
|
Derus Grobb
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2010.02.26 17:39:00 -
[158]
Good move on simplifying standings down to 5 levels.
UI improvement incoming....
I'd like you to reduce the number of mouse clicks to set standings by allowing players to set standings directly from the "show info" page on that player.
So if you click 'show info' you get the guy's bio and usual information, but also the 5 coloured standing boxes (maybe make it a slider). If you're a director, there is an extra slider to set corp standing towards that player.
That would feel intuitive.
It should also work when setting standings towards corps.
I'm just tired of the Excel in space and having to click click click to do one simple thing!
---
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari
Free-Space-Ranger
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.02.26 17:46:00 -
[159]
Originally by: Arkady Sadik
I do not want my corporation shown on a web site.
Arkady Sadik
Minmatar
Gradient
Electus Matari
Ahem.
|
Ephemeral Waves
Federation of Freedom Fighters
|
Posted - 2010.02.26 17:56:00 -
[160]
Originally by: Odhinn Vinlandii
Not really,
In 0.0, red is red and so is neut.
If you want to talk pure 0.0 then only two settings are really needed. red and blue.
Couldn't disagree more.
There are many shades of blue:
Blue - I won't shoot them
Blue - They're allowed in my stations
Blue - They're alowed in my gangs
Blue - I'll fight for them.
etc etc.
|
|
|
Arkady Sadik
Minmatar
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2010.02.26 17:57:00 -
[161]
Originally by: Batolemaeus
Originally by: Arkady Sadik
I do not want my corporation shown on a web site.
Arkady Sadik
Minmatar
Gradient
Electus Matari
Ahem.
Thank you.
Correct: "I do not want a simple way to get a corp member list"
Hm. I haven't seen people use a web sc****r to get this info from these forums. I'm sure there is, though. Hmhm.
|
Ephemeral Waves
Federation of Freedom Fighters
|
Posted - 2010.02.26 18:01:00 -
[162]
Originally by: Yon Krum
You should also provide the option--probably on by default--to "opt out" of the social network and not display your personal, corp, or alliance info.
I agree. You should have to "opt in" to EVE Gate.
|
Arkady Sadik
Minmatar
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2010.02.26 18:06:00 -
[163]
Originally by: Arkady Sadik
Hm. I haven't seen people use a web sc****r to get this info from these forums. I'm sure there is, though. Hmhm.
Obviously because it's very limited - not all corp members can be found here.
The "worst case scenario" I'd like to avoid is that Random Griefer Corp [RGC] picks Random Noob Corp [RNC] for a war dec, and can just find all of their members without much effort, regardless of activity etc.
(Yes, that's a "won't somebody think of the children!" argument)
|
Kanatta Jing
|
Posted - 2010.02.26 18:29:00 -
[164]
While you have the hood on the Corp/Alliance structure open, do you think you could make Coalitions (above Alliance) and Divisions (Below Corp) part of the game?
|
ShadowDraqon
The Quantum Company
Independent Faction
|
Posted - 2010.02.26 18:30:00 -
[165]
So Alliance standings will now override corp standings?
Oi, what about us who are more corp-centered than alliance-centered?
Include a alliance/corp standings switch, please.
~The~
Blatantly Obvious |
Wulfnor
Caldari
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.26 18:34:00 -
[166]
The calendar is nice and the only problem I see with it is that you might over load the permissions system you have. Based on previous discussions regarding permissions it seems to are putting more and more on the few bits you allocated for permissions. I hope someday you will create and use alliance permissions for things.
With regards to standings I have two views. The first is when I am shooting people. I think your system works in that regard. I can see the validity/usefulness other have described for having more colors for different grades but for me when in a gang shoot or dont shoot is all I am interested in. Thus a small number of states with alliance overriding corp makes sense.
Interaction with stations and POSs are quite simply not the same as the interactions one has with a group on the other side of a gate. And since you have used Dominion as a way to put smaller groups out into space taking away a means to interact with them in a non hostile setting seems silly.
When it comes to stations blue and bluer doesnt work. There are those you want to have do things at all stations, those you want to do some things at some stations and those that you want to do one or two things at others. And finally there are those people/corps you might want to allow to do things that are not in line with your alliance.
Furthermore since Dominion station fees can have important meaning blue and bluer doesnt allow for any sort of scaling for those fees.
By taking away complexity you are reducing functionality at least in regards to stations. You yourselves introduced different kinds of stations to do different things. What compelling reason is there for the limiting the way who has access to them can be determined? Having run stations for years I can tell you that blue and bluer is not sufficient.
The only positive things about alliance settings overriding corp ones is that maybe POS will finally stop shooting blues.
EveGate. As a practical matter it is not possible to get all the names for a corp you declare war on let alone how long they have played etc. Putting it all out there on the web makes this a snap as you wont need a calendar to clock the time it will take from release to the time the first bots start gathering all that data up. Seems to me you are allowing only the tech savvy an edge where they did not have one before for reasons that are not clear.
|
Khandahar Bob
|
Posted - 2010.02.26 19:41:00 -
[167]
I just want to add my voice to the others who've stated similar points.
I recently left a corporation and alliance full of people that I very much like; I joined an alliance that are political enemies of my old group -- not because I wanted my old friends to be my enemy, but because I needed a little more "in-character" substance.
Political standings are definitely not the same thing as social standings. And, while I would normally go out of my way to hunt someone with red standings, I'd possibly ignore someone from my old corporation.
I believe it is harmful to game play for alliance standings to override corporation or personal standings. Personal standings are often set for social reasons, while corporation and alliance standings are almost always set for political reasons.
You can say that I should probably recognize the name and hold my fire, but in the moment this is not always possible.
|
Britomartida
Pumpkin Scissors
DarkSide.
|
Posted - 2010.02.26 19:52:00 -
[168]
Sometimes we need set our own standing, for example - i have several spy, so i want mark them as "plus" for my corporation or for myself (and see them as "plus" in overview), even if alliance standings is negative. I think, we need checkbox "set high prioritet to this standing" or something like that.
|
Kweel Nakashyn
shadow and cloaking
Yggdrasill.
|
Posted - 2010.02.26 20:14:00 -
[169]
Team Yggdrasil is the best alliance in Eve imho 
~
OSEF |
Cinori Aluben
Minmatar
Hydrosolo
|
Posted - 2010.02.26 20:24:00 -
[170]
Great blog, excited for Eve Gate.
Suggestions:
:::Add one more factor of standings granularity - below each "colored box" place a "^ - High" or a "v - low" select button, which would make it "high light blue", "low light blue", etc, to alleviate the concerns you mentioned. This would make the scale go from {-10.0, -5.0, 0, +5.0, +10.0} to {[-10.0, -7.5], [-5.0, -2.5], 0.0, [2.5, 5.0], [7.5, 10.0]}. This would be visually non-intrusive as well.
:::Corp Member lists should NOT be globally viewable, for the exact concerns you mentioned. When you open things up to the web, you have a LOT of talented web programmers who are eve players who would gladly program a spider for your website to instantly have all information for anyone they want. You should also program to block google spider as well.
::: Is there any chance we can link an alliance in chat after this?
::: I'm not sure that I like the idea of switching standings priority from personal on, doesn't seem to make total sense to me. Perhaps encode this functionality in there, but have a toggle button that allows each player to switch based on their preference?
|
|
|
Ashina Sito
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2010.02.26 20:24:00 -
[171]
First, I have not read through this thread for other comments.
My point.
Quote:
Events can be created for yourself, or for whole/corps alliances (restricted by roles), and we're also planning on having a "CCP" category for occasional official use, and on allowing you to invite other players to personal events.
Can the bolded part be covered by selecting a mailing list?
I have use for this calender but, getting it to people on an individual basis would be a huge time consuming PTA. If you can attach the calender to a mailing list, or the other way around, then any one who adds the mailing list can access the calendar.
Please do remember when designing these things that there are people that have communities that do not fall within the standard Alliance/corp structure. Ironically it is those groups that could use this addition the most since an alliance/corp would have made their own out of game infrastructure.
Thank you
Ashina Sito
|
Keiko Kobayashi
Amarr
Celestial Janissaries
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.26 20:41:00 -
[172]
Edited by: Keiko Kobayashi on 26/02/2010 20:43:35
I donÆt see anyone from CVA, so IÆll say it:
More alliance standing slots please.
We never have enough with all those pirates out there. Alliance standings for stations are welcome.
|
Isaac Starstriker
Amarr
The Confederate Navy
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.26 21:15:00 -
[173]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Isaac Starstriker
allowing players to set standings to alliances for themselves
Yes. One of the side effects of bringing alliances into the same system as everything else is that Alliance<->Personal standings should now be supported.
Ty very much for this. I'll take this over losing my "standings" from me to Amarr. (Yes, I know Amarr will still like me).
@Everyone else, I don't know what you are thinking, but can we keep things a little more simpler? "KISS". (Keep it simple stupid) The more complex things get, the more headaches in the long term.
Thanks CCP, this sounds pretty damn awesome. Though you ignored my question for more standing slots in corporation  . But I'm guessing this is due to database issues?
--Isaac
AMAAR VICTOR!
"You just can't fix stupid"
|
Skandranon Black
|
Posted - 2010.02.26 21:18:00 -
[174]
1. Please add possibility to sing up for events. It would be great if people (corp or alliance depending on event) could tell me if they will attend my training event (I'm part of corporation providing training to new EVE players). In other example it would be useful to know if there will be enough people to actually make event happen.
2. 5 standings is just not enough. There are at least a few groups of people for me:
0)"Their wallet is my wallet, their hangar is my hangar",
1)"We can fly together and do some things",
2)"I will not shoot at them but I do not welcome them in My space unless they are just passing by",
3)"neutral"
4)"I don't like them - look out what they are doing"
5)"I hate them"
6)"I hate them enough to not care if concord is around to shoot them".
As mentioned before there should be some "advanced" setting with more options.
3. During change of standing there is this box for "reason for this standing". Please add a place where I can check it. It would be useful to know why somebody has a "-" (like "he stole from my can") after a year when I have no idea who he is... And my corp has some old standing nobody remembers reason for which they were set. It would be helpful to have a way of checking that info (at least of the last standings change).
4. If you want it to be like a social network then users should have a choice what data they make public (being member of a corporation is one of those things). Same goes for corporation (CEO should decide).
The members list should be always public, however on that list should be only people who choose in their profile (it should be set to private as default) to publicly show their corp - then collecting data from user profiles will be meaningless and it will be possible to have no one on that list.
|
Antea Lysandra
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.02.26 22:27:00 -
[175]
CCP - Please for the love of $%@ist add a column under the corporate personnel list for "Application accepted by", this is ridiculous this hasn't been added by now.
Personnel directors and CEOs press CCP on this so we can end our hiring audit nightmares.
- Rage against the system Forever. |
Ewa Wilson
|
Posted - 2010.02.26 23:23:00 -
[176]
I'm not sure what to make of the EVE-Gate. For the record, I'm pro-WIS/Incarna, pro-DUST, etc. but I couldn't care less for Spacebook social networking and don't see most of the EVE Gate stuff melding well in-game and out-of-game with "friends" and whatnot. Go ahead and make it for the people who want to use it. But please give the option to players and corps to totally opt out of providing our in-game info that would feed EVE-Gate content that we don't want to use, but could give others an advantage over us.
I'm sure many of us don't want to be put at an in-game disadvantage just because we don't want to play Internet Spaceships AND Internet Spacebooks.
|
Merdaneth
Amarr
Angel Wing.
|
Posted - 2010.02.26 23:37:00 -
[177]
My in game standings list has nothing to do with my in-game friends list.
In fact, for a role-playing game, a lack of a one-on-one relationship between IC allies and OOC friends should go without saying.
I most certainly wouldn't want release a public list of relationships (either IC or OOC) of my enemies/friends as such. I would be able to release a contact list, but please, no valuation of the relationship on a public venue.
____
The Illusion of Freedom | The Truth about Slavery |
Red Raider
Caldari
Airbourne Demons
DeMoN's N AnGeL's
|
Posted - 2010.02.26 23:53:00 -
[178]
I got an idea, why don't you give us a functioning Agent list! That way if we have more than 20 agents the tab in the agent list the folders are actually usable instead of some ornament that hangs out at the bottom of the list.
|
Mkah Mvet
Chumly Incorporated
Beyond-Control
|
Posted - 2010.02.27 01:41:00 -
[179]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
As a result, it's often the case that adding options will both reduce the accessibility of a feature, and require us to drop something else we wanted to do. There has to be therefore a compelling reason to add that option, and in our previous discussions on this issue we haven't found a strong enough reason to commit to doing so. This does frequently mean saying "yes, there are edge cases where doing it the other way would be better, but we can't accommodate them". In a perfect world we would be able to always expose these options in a way that doesn't reduce accessibility at all, but in a perfect world we'd have an infinite number of developer-hours (design, programming, QA and art) to implement such things.
You say the complexity of the current standings system is an edge feature? In my corp, about 40% of our positive standings and even more of our negative standings are NOT 0 5 10. Have you bothered polling the corps out there to determine if this is an 'edge' feature and not a core feature?
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Yes, we did have a good think about this. Our conclusion was that having two entirely separate systems that fulfilled basically the same function but worked in completely different ways through different interfaces was less desirable than having a unified system which had to make a few compromises. The current approach means that 1) relationships ingame and on EVE Gate are seamlessly synchronized, 2) EVE Gate is to some degree pre-populated with relationships, and 3) a single system covering both leads to a much more complete and useful dataset, that we can then build future gameplay features on top of.
Again with core/edge features. Unless you're going to make a Java version of EVE, Spacebook will always be, and always should be, an edge feature. I'm not arguing for 2 separate systems, I'm arguing for information security. Information security is a core gameplay mechanic. EVE is full of bastards who actively wish others harm. Making the information public by default would be as disastrous as making every full API key public to everyone. Please don't argue that privacy hierarchies are too complex to program. Interpersonal relationships are complex, and you're making a software package meant to map that out. Personally, spacebook does not appeal to me. Most of those who have no interest in it will not sound off on it. So please, give all of us the option to 'opt out' or have private profiles/friends lists. By default spacebook should offer zero intel. No friends, no bio, no employment history, nothing. Leave it up to us to decide what we want public. In fact, make it so accounts have to be activated before we are even searchable there.
|
Feng Schui
Minmatar
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2010.02.27 03:23:00 -
[180]
Can we get our POS's to be actually PUBLIC? This might take a bit of work, since materials needed to manufacture / research / copy will need to be able to come from the station and not the POS module, but eh... how about giving us players the ability to truly shape this universe into the image that we want
Project:Gank
Pilgrim Guide
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |