These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Protection of Pilot Privacy

Author
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#21 - 2014-02-21 18:17:02 UTC
HTC NecoSino wrote:
Sounds like you hooked up with the wrong group then. The right group of people will roll until they get a k-space entrance to get people in/out, killing anyone they encounter in the process. Twisted

That is possible, but I have to shoulder a lot of the responsibility myself.

My playstyle reflects the limits inherited from my real life circumstances, meaning I have to play in short bursts, and not as often as I would like.
Finding groups capable of working around that tends to be unfair to their needs.
Ralen Zateki
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#22 - 2014-02-22 06:01:34 UTC
Completely agree with you OP.

I would like to see an option on who I disclose my login status to.

Frankly, sometimes I feel like being social and sometimes I don't. And I'd just as soon not have people get bent just because I don't lather them with attention everytime I log on. It's a big universe... why should everyone be up in each other's grill all the time no matter what?
Ralen Zateki
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#23 - 2014-02-22 06:03:59 UTC
Seliah wrote:
This would go far beyond just "hiding so people can't talk to me", since it would hide standings, corp and alliance. This information is a big part of local intel. With your option, you'd potientally only have access to how many people are in local. This is sort of half-way between the classic "remove local" proposal and the current local system.



Build it into the skills/ tech. If someone has the skill and equipment I wouldn't have a problem if they scanned me down and identified me. And it would make a hell of a lot more sense... and possibly a nice dimension to the hunt.

But largely I don't think OP was talking about intel per say. It was more of a "I don't really feel like talking to you right now and I'd just as soon you didn't even know I am on" kinda thing.
Ferrucio Surge
The Bag Cartel
#24 - 2014-02-22 06:11:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Ferrucio Surge
I'm rather content with how Local is now. Not sure if I can support this idea.

And in other chatrooms, like Alliance and Help, your presence isn't made aware of until you speak. So you can browse the chatroom for discussion without being seen.
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#25 - 2014-02-22 06:42:39 UTC
I think a, "player is busy, personal chats are disabled" option would be nice, and would settle for that. But for OP's sake, I'd like to have OP's anon option be only for people who have sov, as the gate registers who comes in and who doesn't. It would be viable to explain from a lore perspective that the owners of the system own the gate in turn, and don't want to advertise themselves in local. It would still put out their numbers, just not their identities. It would be an interesting gameplay mechanic to add, and provide some corp directors and officers some nice peace and quiet if need be.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#26 - 2014-02-22 17:15:42 UTC
Catherine Laartii wrote:
I think a, "player is busy, personal chats are disabled" option would be nice, and would settle for that. But for OP's sake, I'd like to have OP's anon option be only for people who have sov, as the gate registers who comes in and who doesn't. It would be viable to explain from a lore perspective that the owners of the system own the gate in turn, and don't want to advertise themselves in local. It would still put out their numbers, just not their identities. It would be an interesting gameplay mechanic to add, and provide some corp directors and officers some nice peace and quiet if need be.

I must emphasize, as it is important, that this does not allow greater threat for anyone.

With the ability to declare ALL ANONYMOUS as being treated as hostile, the only thing you enable, is for those you would not consider hostile to be added to this category by their own choice.

In any case, by seeing them actually on grid, you immediately know them by their true standings.

Noone is being placed at greater risk, save that their friends could mess with them in more ways.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#27 - 2014-02-22 17:33:24 UTC
I'd vote for *no*.

Somewhere, this was advertised as *in eve, your actions have consequences*. You scam/spam in local, you'll get blocked by the people who care for the chat. With that anonymous thing, you'd leave/enter and be another anonymous again. Before there be some shady arguments about blocking or setting red, why do you need that in the first place, just use a neutral alt if you need to talk incognito so dearly.

In my opinion, the immersion does not profit by 87% of the people in chatlists (whichever) appearing as ANONYMOUS-001XY.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#28 - 2014-02-22 18:17:37 UTC
Lloyd Roses wrote:
I'd vote for *no*.

Somewhere, this was advertised as *in eve, your actions have consequences*. You scam/spam in local, you'll get blocked by the people who care for the chat. With that anonymous thing, you'd leave/enter and be another anonymous again. Before there be some shady arguments about blocking or setting red, why do you need that in the first place, just use a neutral alt if you need to talk incognito so dearly.

In my opinion, the immersion does not profit by 87% of the people in chatlists (whichever) appearing as ANONYMOUS-001XY.

An excellent point.

There should definitely be the option to block anonymous, just like you would block a specific pilot, and thereby not see anything they say in chat. (You would still see them in the list normally, as ANONYMOUS-001, etc)
This would be inclusive of all using the ANONYMOUS option, just like they could all be flagged as hostile by default.

This would be a presumed function already, in my opinion, but I am specifying it here.
Bobsled Nutcase Motsu
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#29 - 2014-02-22 20:44:47 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Lloyd Roses wrote:
I'd vote for *no*.

Somewhere, this was advertised as *in eve, your actions have consequences*. You scam/spam in local, you'll get blocked by the people who care for the chat. With that anonymous thing, you'd leave/enter and be another anonymous again. Before there be some shady arguments about blocking or setting red, why do you need that in the first place, just use a neutral alt if you need to talk incognito so dearly.

In my opinion, the immersion does not profit by 87% of the people in chatlists (whichever) appearing as ANONYMOUS-001XY.

An excellent point.

There should definitely be the option to block anonymous, just like you would block a specific pilot, and thereby not see anything they say in chat. (You would still see them in the list normally, as ANONYMOUS-001, etc)
This would be inclusive of all using the ANONYMOUS option, just like they could all be flagged as hostile by default.

This would be a presumed function already, in my opinion, but I am specifying it here.

Hilarious, and yet satisfying.

You take a negative criticism, and turn it into part of the idea.

In fairness however, gotta admit, this should have been the suggestion from Lloyd Roses in the first place.
Kind of obvious, and smarter to make the small detail a part of it, rather than suggest it breaks the idea entirely in it's absence.
Joe Boirele
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2014-02-22 22:50:15 UTC
I actually really like this idea. It solves a lot of the problems with having local show everyone's names, and also allows people to still be chatty with others in local.

Enemies are just friends who stab you in the front.

"We will not go quietly into the night! We will not vanish without a fight!"

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#31 - 2014-02-24 15:14:51 UTC
Joe Boirele wrote:
I actually really like this idea. It solves a lot of the problems with having local show everyone's names, and also allows people to still be chatty with others in local.

It still allows Local as a type of intel, for those already using it for this.

It just denies recognition of non hostile forces if they should choose to use this option. Your friends can mess with you, and that is inherently a social action.
Bobsled Nutcase Motsu
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#32 - 2014-03-10 14:53:58 UTC
This is like a reverse of another thread I just posted on, asking there to make the pilot list easier to use for spotting enemy players.

How do we even play with each other, if the game is doing it for us that way? Are we just supposed to watch?
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#33 - 2014-03-10 17:46:09 UTC
Is this a bad time to bring up the stalker, er, watchlist?

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#34 - 2014-03-10 17:58:29 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Is this a bad time to bring up the stalker, er, watchlist?

In my opinion, this should require approval of the pilot who is to be reported on.

If they refuse to approve you, then you cannot track them.
I would further suggest that approval can be withdrawn, and that you would have a list of all those you grant permission to be notified when you come online.

This would have the effect, that you would be automatically notifying only those approved by you, if that was unclear.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#35 - 2014-03-10 18:19:14 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
In my opinion, this should require approval of the pilot who is to be reported on.

If they refuse to approve you, then you cannot track them.
I would further suggest that approval can be withdrawn, and that you would have a list of all those you grant permission to be notified when you come online.

This would have the effect, that you would be automatically notifying only those approved by you, if that was unclear.

These are all really sensible suggestions. It's too easy to "stalk" someone, and I think you should have to physically track someone down and rely on manual intelligence gathering to find out when someone is online or operating.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#36 - 2014-03-10 18:29:48 UTC
I can't wait to start changing my local settings 5 times a day whenever I want to travel through safe space, hostile space, and then hisec.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#37 - 2014-03-10 18:30:07 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
In my opinion, this should require approval of the pilot who is to be reported on.

If they refuse to approve you, then you cannot track them.
I would further suggest that approval can be withdrawn, and that you would have a list of all those you grant permission to be notified when you come online.

This would have the effect, that you would be automatically notifying only those approved by you, if that was unclear.

These are all really sensible suggestions. It's too easy to "stalk" someone, and I think you should have to physically track someone down and rely on manual intelligence gathering to find out when someone is online or operating.

Since presence awareness has value, which I feel most would agree with, I think it should take effort to justify this benefit.

Put simply, if someone wants you to know they are online, that is one thing.
It is entirely different if they do NOT want you to know their actions, and I feel since we are playing a game that means you must earn this information with effort.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#38 - 2014-03-10 18:35:40 UTC
Batelle wrote:
I can't wait to start changing my local settings 5 times a day whenever I want to travel through safe space, hostile space, and then hisec.

I cannot see a point to your doing that.

I would suggest that you just flag yourself as anonymous, and leave it at that.
You can't be shot by accident any more than you could before, and maybe it will make your allies more conscious of being prepared for genuine threats.

Those who would be trying to avoid you can still be equally warned by the appearance of ANONYMOUS_001, so effectively nothing changes in the game itself.

You just aren't merrily waving a "Chat-Me-Up" flag as much.
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#39 - 2014-03-10 18:40:42 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Batelle wrote:
I can't wait to start changing my local settings 5 times a day whenever I want to travel through safe space, hostile space, and then hisec.

I cannot see a point to your doing that.


The point of doing it should be completely obvious. If it isn't then you don't know how local works in practice and shouldn't be making suggestions about it.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#40 - 2014-03-10 19:01:45 UTC
Batelle wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Batelle wrote:
I can't wait to start changing my local settings 5 times a day whenever I want to travel through safe space, hostile space, and then hisec.

I cannot see a point to your doing that.


The point of doing it should be completely obvious. If it isn't then you don't know how local works in practice and shouldn't be making suggestions about it.

You DO have a sense of humor!

LOL

As to knowing how local works, I would suggest this is common knowledge.

You are in friendly space?
Those using it for intel can be EASILY informed that you are the current presence behind one of the names listed, IF you choose to tell them.

You are in hostile space?
Unless they are quite confused, they would have any flagged as ANONYMOUS as default hostile, assuming they were ignoring the name in all caps and just watching the little colored box next to it.

You are in high sec?
Anyone with an active war dec on them should already be alert to threats, especially considering that out of corp alts are a well documented tactic to bypass flags here.
In any case, the moment they see you on grid, the awareness of your standing becomes obvious.

The only significant change?
Well, assuming that chatting in local is meaningless to you, under the right conditions it lets you spoof your buddies.
Previous page12