| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Trix Rabbit
Gallente
Noob Mercs
   |
Posted - 2008.04.21 16:22:00 -
[1]
The title asks the question. Seriously though there are more similarities between the two then differences when speaking of strategic importance.
Anyone can use both voice chat and/or BACON. A large advantage is given to those that use voice chat compared to those that don't. And certainly an advantage is given to those that use BACON compared to those that don't. Until EVE Voice, voice chat could only be run through a third party program. And there are certainly quite a few people that would still say voice chat can only be run through a third party program since EVE Voice is not that great. Likewise BACON requires a third party program.
The only thing BACON does is beep when someone is in local. But voice chat allows fleets of any size supported by game mechanics and server structure to respond near instantly to complex instructions.
My response to BACON seems quite clear, adapt or die.
For the record I haven't configured BACON yet but I plan to when I have some time.
|
Trix Rabbit
Gallente
Noob Mercs
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 16:30:00 -
[2]
The only thing BACON does is beep. YOU the human are still required to take some action.
|
Trix Rabbit
Gallente
Noob Mercs
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 16:44:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Trix Rabbit
The only thing BACON does is beep. YOU the human are still required to take some action.
Are you really not understanding the problems that this program unleashes, or are you just trolling?
This is honestly not a troll. I have read quite a few arguments against BACON but they all seem fundamentally flawed to me. For one thing, this program in one form or another has been around for quite some time in the major alliances. So really there are no problems that BACON has created because any problems that might exist have already existed.
The two main complaints I have heard about BACON are as follows: 1) it takes responsibility for the pilots safety out of their hands and places it in a third party application, 2) MACRO miners/missioners will incorporate BACON into future MACROs which will allow them to evade people hunting them much more easily then currently.
Both of these arguments are flawed for the following reasons. 1) Voice Chat can take the responsibility for a pilots safety out of their hands just as easily. Yes you can have bad intelligence but you can also have good intelligence. The fact that sometimes its bad doesn't mean that the rest of the time there is some advantage being imparted that the other side might not have. So any argument that BACON is unfair seems pretty weak to me. 2) The idea that MACROs will eventually incorporate a BACON like device is also not a means to discourage the use of BACON. Everyone knows that MACROs use currier missions to make money. Should we then remove currier missions from the game? Just because some people can use a tool or a part of EVE to violate the EULA and mess up the game for others doesn't mean we should remove that tool or that part of EVE.
|
Trix Rabbit
Gallente
Noob Mercs
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 16:54:00 -
[4]
Originally by: DroneBay Diva
And it's already been mentioned: Voice chat promotes TEAMWORK, while bacon rewards an afk style gameplay
/thread
Are you saying there are no means in which BACON could be used to promote teamwork? And likewise there are no means in which Voice Chat could be used to promote AFK style gameplay?
Because I can think of several. I fly pvp on this character. I don't know if its even possible to engage in PvP while AFK. I'm pretty sure if you tried it you would die very quickly. Here's how I imagine using BACON: Folks I'm flying with are in various systems in high sec with many dozens of players in each system. We are all looking for war targets. War targets tend to want to hide from us. We are all also in corp chat since we are getting updates from each other. There are only so many things you can concentrate on at once so a war target can slip through while you are looking at something else. If BACON is up you can hear the beep, tell your corp mates and close in on the War Target.
Likewise you can play afk style with Voice Chat. You can go mine, gate camp, whatever and just have voice chat up while you are actually reading a book, watching tv, whatever. When the other 10+ people in your fleet start talking in voice chat you know something is up and come back.
Those seem like 2 very basic situations to me.
|
Trix Rabbit
Gallente
Noob Mercs
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 17:11:00 -
[5]
Ki An: Your arguments seem to rely almost exclusively on the concept of human error. Essentially you are saying that because humans can mess up and report the wrong thing, having something that won't make that mistake is a game breaking addition.
This is not something I can argue against because my beliefs are based upon the same factual information only a different interpretation. I simply do not believe people are wrong as often as you seem to think they are. I believe that large alliances without a BACON like program can already gather enough intelligence that any human error involved in missing a fleet of war targets (small gang or otherwise) is negligible at best. For BACON to work you still need people in systems waiting for enemies. You still need them to be aware enough to report immediately what they are seeing. Simply saying "War Target" is not going to be enough, they are going to need to know where they are, what they are flying, and where they are going. A beep doesn't tell you that.
Your argument that it grants MACROs virtual immunity is just wrong however. My definition of a MACRO is something that inputs into the game itself so the player doesn't have to take an action. This is not BACON which only reads output and then creates input outside of EVE (in the form of the beep). If someone is actually not playing their character at all but letting a MACRO fly the ship then a beep isn't going to save them. If they incorporate a BACON like tool into their MACRO then that is a bad thing but its still not BACON's fault anymore then someone who makes a bat is at fault if someone assaults another individual with that bat. Its the person that committed the assault that did the wrong.
|
Trix Rabbit
Gallente
Noob Mercs
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 17:30:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Ki An
Human error is the single biggest cause of ship loss in Eve. It's a skill based game where you have to be on your toes at all times, and if you mess up, you die. Bacon goes against all that, removing human fallability, or at least diminishing it gravely.
I agree human error gets people killed all the time. My issue is that when it comes to reporting on an enemy fleets position the difference between an alliance with BACON and one without is negligible at best.
Originally by: Ki An
You where the one who said major alliances have been using this for a long time. Why do you think they bother using it if it is as you say? If the program doesn't grant any advantage, why use it at all? Your argument is based on a logical fallacy.
I was posing a hypothetical. I apologize if there was confusion on that part.
Originally by: Ki An
How much imagination do you need to see how Bacon can be modded into a tool that auto-warps a ship away? This is the main problem I have with this program. Allow something like this, and the line is pushed. Next time it will be even worse.
How much imagination is required to see that a blunt object can be used to hurt someone? Again the issue is not whether a tool can be manipulated in such a way as to create a wrong but whether the tool itself is wrong. I hate MACROs and I would think it a great thing if CCP implemented a mechanic, or a warden program or anything that stopped them in their tracks. In the mean time I'm not going to say a new tool that IS NOT a MACRO is bad simply because people that are already violating the EULA can use it.
|
Trix Rabbit
Gallente
Noob Mercs
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 17:36:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Tommy TenKreds
Edited by: Tommy TenKreds on 21/04/2008 17:25:40
Originally by: Trix Rabbit
The only thing BACON does is beep.
NO!
It filters the data provided by "local" and presents only the data that is pertinent to the player, in real time.
That is a change to existing game mechanics, facilitated by a third party program. It removes player responsibility.
Voice software does nothing that isn't already possible in Eve.
If you are going to go as far as to say that it filters local then I have to point out that the little red star next to a players name filters local as well. I can do a visual scan of local and pick up that little red star just fine. This program makes a beep. What it does is remove my visual scan of local and replaces it with that beep.
A lot of folks seem to think this is a game breaking mechanic. My point of this thread is that someone saying on voice chat "war target" does the same thing is a program that says "beep." People have argued that voice chat promotes teamwork. Has anyone here ever had someone in their corp or alliance that wasn't much into teamwork? They flew around and worked with others but just didn't talk much. Is that person breaking the game? I mean if they treat voice chat like its BACON and only listen but never respond are they breaking the game? Cause I have to say if BACON beeps at you and breaks the game and the difference between the two is player interaction then logically any player that doesn't interact with voice chat is breaking the game.
|
Trix Rabbit
Gallente
Noob Mercs
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 20:29:00 -
[8]
The point of my post was to make clear that BACON is not the only third party program actively used to play EVE. So any argument that because its third party automatically makes it a cheat is void. Currently we have EVE Voice but for years we did not. During that time Voice Chat was considered just as legitimate a tool as it is today.
The people that respond to my original post seem to dislike the comparison I made to voice chat for two reasons. 1) BACON is an automatic tool not requiring user direction, and 2) BACON reads a log file and thus interacts with the game.
The first argument is easily dismissed. While most people do actively interact with voice chat, not everyone does. There are many corporations that require people to at least have a voice chat program installed but do not require a microphone. These people do not interact over voice chat, they are simply receiving information. A person who sits in corp chat but does not talk to anyone, only receives information might be boring but they are not a cheater. They also receive an awful lot more information then BACON provides but they are receiving it in an identical manner. Yes, I acknowledge that voice chat and corp chat have the element of human error. But that also happens to be so small most of the time as to be near nonexistent.
The next issue is the interaction with the log file. This can not be disputed and it is different from Voice Chat. Some people say the reading of the log file is enough to create an exploit. I personally do not believe it, however I can understand why people might feel otherwise. I however am interested in the ultimate outcome of using the program. If I hear a beep that tells me a War Target is in the system was that really so significantly different from someone on Voice Chat telling me the same exact thing? I don't believe it is but then again when I'm on Voice Chat with folks I've never had an issue where anyone missed anything big.
As to an earlier post by Ki An asking me whether I believed there was an advantage granted by BACON I answer: absolutely there is an advantage. The advantage however is not even close to being as big as a decent team speak or vent server would grant.
|
Trix Rabbit
Gallente
Noob Mercs
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 22:41:00 -
[9]
Ki An: Your argument to me now seems to consist entirely of the concept that I don't understand how anything works at all.
Assume for a moment that I do and respond to my arguments rationally.
You are focusing on the robot aspect of this program. So I will pose a hypothetical to you and I would like to hear your opinion on it.
An alliance wants to try and find War Targets that enter a system. They have a Voice Chat server but they don't want just anyone talking on it. To help with their search for Yarr! they force one of their corp mates to sit in the system of choice and constantly scan local. While technically possible to error in reporting War Targets this particular individual never has. They have been doing this duty for years and not once have they made a single mistake. When they see a War Target they press a button that creates a "beep" noise over their Voice Chat system. No one ever talks to this person and this person in turn never talks to anyone else. They just sit there and press a button to make a beep. Because they have been doing this for years the time it takes for them to send out the beep after a War Target enters local is slightly under half a second.
Now I ask you, is this corporation a bunch of cheaters who should be banned?
Yes the situation is extreme, but I wanted a hypothetical that would address the argument you have avoided. What is the difference between a corp that uses a person who does not error in reporting War Targets and a program that does not error in reporting war targets? I'll tell you: not everyone has a person that does not error. You say that this unbalances the game. I say it introduces something that is much harder for small corps to obtain then large corps. Accurate intelligence.
|
| |
|