EVE Search - The Safety Button: Nifty Feature or Hand Holding?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

The Safety Button: Nifty Feature or Hand Holding?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Robert Warner Snap Crackle Pop. Relativity Alliance 54	Posted - 2012.11.28 00:11:00 - [1] - Quote Somehow this change seems a little too much for me to grin and bear. While just a small step from the old warning system its presentation and function seem too much like an idiot proofing of the game. One thing it is definitely not is "cunning". Shame on you for this description.
Xercodo 24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire 1499	Posted - 2012.11.28 00:24:00 - [2] - Quote It's not like you could have posted this into the dev blog feed back or anything.... The Drake is a Lie
Tah'ris Khlador Space Ghosts. Break-A-Wish Foundation 255	Posted - 2012.11.28 00:26:00 - [3] - Quote "Luke, you turned your safety off, what's wrong?" "Everything's alright. I can take it. I'm using force and honor on this thing."
Roll Sizzle Beef Space Mutiny 1698	Posted - 2012.11.28 00:26:00 - [4] - Quote Doesn't stop you from shooting people with safeties. Only stops really young players or older mission runners from accidentally attacking a target they don't want to. If they really want to shoot a ninja or loot a wreck/can they will do so knowing there is aggression. So can baiting rookies just outside the starter systems is harder. that's about it.
Holy One 297	Posted - 2012.11.28 00:30:00 - [5] - Quote Anything that effectively removes human decision making and repercussions from the game is bad imho. I am not opposed to toggles, but I am concerned by automated insulation from consequences. That's a very bad precedent to set going forward.
Andski GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 5612	Posted - 2012.11.28 00:32:00 - [6] - Quote I guess the next step will be removing the ability to turn the safeties off. ~a-áproud belligerent undesirable~ TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 370	Posted - 2012.11.28 00:41:00 - [7] - Quote Holy One wrote: Anything that effectively removes human decision making and repercussions from the game is bad imho. I am not opposed to toggles, but I am concerned by automated insulation from consequences. That's a very bad precedent to set going forward. There is no insulation from consequence, but rather prevention of acts you may not know invoke consequences you didn't intend.
Kitty Bear Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance 140	Posted - 2012.11.28 00:42:00 - [8] - Quote Andski wrote: I guess the next step will be removing the ability to turn the safeties off. it recognises 'blue standings' ? Holy One wrote: Anything that effectively removes human decision making and repercussions from the game is bad imho. I am not opposed to toggles, but I am concerned by automated insulation from consequences. That's a very bad precedent to set going forward. you toggle something to one of 3 setings not CCP toggle something on your behalf .. YOU what exactly are complaining about ? do you even know ?? thered be other comments i'd like to make, but ISD would just delete them as flaming/trolling
Holy One 297	Posted - 2012.11.28 00:44:00 - [9] - Quote Tyberius Franklin wrote: Holy One wrote: Anything that effectively removes human decision making and repercussions from the game is bad imho. I am not opposed to toggles, but I am concerned by automated insulation from consequences. That's a very bad precedent to set going forward. There is no insulation from consequence, but rather prevention of acts you may not know invoke consequences you didn't intend. Not even condoms have a 100% success rate.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 370	Posted - 2012.11.28 00:45:00 - [10] - Quote Holy One wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: Holy One wrote: Anything that effectively removes human decision making and repercussions from the game is bad imho. I am not opposed to toggles, but I am concerned by automated insulation from consequences. That's a very bad precedent to set going forward. There is no insulation from consequence, but rather prevention of acts you may not know invoke consequences you didn't intend. Not even condoms have a 100% success rate. Abstinence has a substantially higher success rate.

Holy One 297	Posted - 2012.11.28 01:12:00 - [11] - Quote Tyberius Franklin wrote: Holy One wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: Holy One wrote: Anything that effectively removes human decision making and repercussions from the game is bad imho. I am not opposed to toggles, but I am concerned by automated insulation from consequences. That's a very bad precedent to set going forward. There is no insulation from consequence, but rather prevention of acts you may not know invoke consequences you didn't intend. Not even condoms have a 100% success rate. Abstinence has a substantially higher success rate. In a game where the objective is to **** as many people as possible before succumbing to the inevitable Bvitter.Zzz infection, I'd say abstinence has it's place for sure - in the kitchen fixing my steak.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 370	Posted - 2012.11.28 01:19:00 - [12] - Quote Holy One wrote: In a game where the objective is to **** as many people as possible before succumbing to the inevitable Bvitter.Zzz infection, I'd say abstinence has it's place for sure - in the kitchen fixing my steak. In all honesty I wasn't aware that there was any particular objective to the game.
Sentamon 279	Posted - 2012.11.28 01:38:00 - [13] - Quote Xercodo wrote: It's not like you could have posted this into the dev blog feed back or anything.... Now if only there was a safety to keep people from making random QQ threads. ~ Professional Forum Alt -á~
Auric Veldfinger Hedion University Amarr Empire 4	Posted - 2012.11.28 01:42:00 - [14] - Quote Tyberius Franklin wrote: Holy One wrote: Anything that effectively removes human decision making and repercussions from the game is bad imho. I am not opposed to toggles, but I am concerned by automated insulation from consequences. That's a very bad precedent to set going forward. There is no insulation from consequence, but rather prevention of acts you may not know invoke consequences you didn't intend. Uh huh. Maybe other games should have a safety feature as well to prevent people doing something they don't intend. "I see you are over betting on a drawing hand, our poker site safety feature has reduced the bet for you". "Safety feature prevents you from moving pawn there since you didn't see that bishop".
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 370	Posted - 2012.11.28 01:44:00 - [15] - Quote Auric Veldfinger wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: Holy One wrote: Anything that effectively removes human decision making and repercussions from the game is bad imho. I am not opposed to toggles, but I am concerned by automated insulation from consequences. That's a very bad precedent to set going forward. There is no insulation from consequence, but rather prevention of acts you may not know invoke consequences you didn't intend. Uh huh. Maybe other games should have a safety feature as well to prevent people doing something they don't intend. "I see you are over betting on a drawing hand, our poker site safety feature has reduced the bet for you". "Safety feature prevents you from moving pawn there since you didn't see that bishop". So long as you can disable it, why not?
Mars Theran Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 457	Posted - 2012.11.28 03:02:00 - [16] - Quote Nifty feature. Beats the heck out of continuous pop-ups or accidental Concording for weapons violations when you were trying to click a scanner or repair module or something. ..whatever it is that happens to cause you to commit criminal acts without intending to do it anyway. Point is, you either permanently suppress the warnings so they aren't a hassle when you want to use them and suffer the consequences whenever there's a small oops, or you watch them pop up evertime there is a small opps or you decide you want to commit an illegal action. Personally, I think this is much better. Refined you might say. zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Holy One 298	Posted - 2012.11.28 03:06:00 - [17] - Quote If this were a config option, sure. I'd still be worried. Making it a big feature of the HUD tho? That's really, really worrying. It betrays the concern CCP has about the new aggression mechanics, which in turn implies they aren't confident that they won't lose customers to their own ignorance en masse. Which in itself implies that CCP will pro-actively implement game design changes that effect everyone solely to insulate the minority from hurting themselves. Which is the first step to the end of Eve as a contact sport. This green dot, by virtue of its prominence, looks and smells like Health & Safety for EvE. Really, do not want anything built in that automates decision making processes because its a slippery, slippery slope toward more 'bank mechanics' and away from Harsh Eve(tm).
Mars Theran Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 457	Posted - 2012.11.28 04:44:00 - [18] - Quote People have been complaining about the warning system and how the whole thing with shooting stuff and activating modules where has worked for years. zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Mara Rinn Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium 2128	Posted - 2012.11.28 04:52:00 - [19] - Quote I wonder if you people complaining about this new "safety lock" feature have ever fired on an illegal target in hisec before? You currently press F1, get a popup stating "you are going to get CONCORDOKKENED" and then you click another button before you actually shoot, gain a GCC and get CONCORDOKKENED. With the new feature, there is no popup. Thus getting CONCORDOKKENED is one fewer clicks away. The new "safety" feature means there is less interference from the game when you are trying to get into trouble. I am a hisec carebear who supports suicide ganking, and I thoroughly approve this feature. Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 371	Posted - 2012.11.28 04:52:00 - [20] - Quote Holy One wrote: If this were a config option, sure. I'd still be worried. Making it a big feature of the HUD tho? That's really, really worrying. It betrays the concern CCP has about the new aggression mechanics, which in turn implies they aren't confident that they won't lose customers to their own ignorance en masse. Which in itself implies that CCP will pro-actively implement game design changes that effect everyone solely to insulate the minority from hurting themselves. Which is the first step to the end of Eve as a contact sport. This green dot, by virtue of its prominence, looks and smells like Health & Safety for EvE. Really, do not want anything built in that automates decision making processes because its a slippery, slippery slope toward more 'bank mechanics' and away from Harsh Eve(tm). I'm not sure how it being a config option would do anything but further convince people of the failing of the eve UI as such a game changing setting is not instantly accessible any time in space. I'm not quite clear on the insistence that people be able to draw GCC's or suspect flags when the changes are made involuntarily. While there is something to be said for situational awareness, there is also something to be said for the intricacies of this game. And most importantly the only thing you can limit is what you do to others. You are still open to any actions they are willing to take toward you.

Psychotic Monk The Skunkworks 409	Posted - 2012.11.28 05:08:00 - [21] - Quote I feel like knowing the ins and outs of a system and having done your homework should confer some kind of advantage.
Mara Rinn Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium 2128	Posted - 2012.11.28 05:14:00 - [22] - Quote I feel that having so many ins and outs that homework is required before so much as thinking about undocking is a bad thing. Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players
Beta Miner COBRA Logistics Outer-Haven 1	Posted - 2012.11.28 05:45:00 - [23] - Quote I'm sure thousands of newbies have quit three days into thier trial because someone can baited them at the Jita 4-4 undock, or they suffered from some other grief. This game (that includes us, the veteran players) is really really hard on newbies and we need to make the transition from WOW a little easier on them. This is a good feature.
Ila Dace Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 111	Posted - 2012.11.28 05:50:00 - [24] - Quote OMG OMG CCP is making the game safer Please, this is just a usability improvement. It should have worked this way all along. The argument that this is a nerf to can baiting is also ridiculous. This is a visual aid to help newbies learn the ropes more easily, with a configurable setting for vets to just turn it off. If anything, it makes it potentially easier to bait a vet. If House played Eve: http://i.imgur.com/y7ShT.jpg
Remiel Pollard Devlin Security Devlin Alliance 144	Posted - 2012.11.28 06:04:00 - [25] - Quote Psychotic Monk wrote: I feel like knowing the ins and outs of a system and having done your homework should confer some kind of advantage. And how, exactly, is a new player supposed to know what kind of homework to do? All the vets of this game already have a huge knowledge-based advantage over new players, but that doesn't mean they should suffer just because they have some stuff to learn. The safety system will not interfere with any vet's game, it won't take away anyone's choices (hence why you have the ability to turn it OFF), and it isn't going to give new players an unfair advantage over the massive knowledge-based advantage that veteran players already have over noobs. You don't scare me. I've been to Jita.
Tarn Kugisa Infinite Covenant Tribal Band 167	Posted - 2012.11.28 06:21:00 - [26] - Quote It makes no difference in nullsec and in highsec you aren't likely to be flying a ship that you would be willing to shoot people with. I think the safety needs a safety on it. I Endorse this Product and/or Service Source Recorder-esque tool for EVE
Shederov Blood Wrecketeers 278	Posted - 2012.11.28 06:34:00 - [27] - Quote Tarn Kugisa wrote: I think the safety needs a safety on it. Removing the safety will require a confirmation. Yo, dawg...
Some Rando University of Caille Gallente Federation 133	Posted - 2012.11.28 06:43:00 - [28] - Quote Mara Rinn wrote: I feel that having so many ins and outs that homework is required before so much as thinking about undocking is a bad thing. Too bad you have to undock before you change your safety level. Also too bad you have to reset it from green every time you log in. What if I want to set the ******* thing to red permanently and then get rid of that eyesore dot?
Mara Rinn Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium 2133	Posted - 2012.11.28 08:11:00 - [29] - Quote Some Rando wrote: Too bad you have to undock before you change your safety level. Also too bad you have to reset it from green every time you log in. What if I want to set the ******* thing to red permanently and then get rid of that eyesore dot? Says the guy in the NPC corp, perfectly safe from wardecs. CCP have already indicated that they're working on persisting between logins. You'd know that if you've been following the dev blog comments thread. But even that amount of homework is apparently too much for elite PvPers. So take a chill pill and whine on someone else's dime. No respect for you. Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players
Dave stark Black Nova Corp. R O G U E 696	Posted - 2012.11.28 08:20:00 - [30] - Quote safety button stops those irritating popups, therefore it's a nifty feature. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold.



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.