These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

The Safety Button: Nifty Feature or Hand Holding?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Robert Warner
Back Door Burglars
#1 - 2012-11-28 00:11:48 UTC
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
Cruor Angelicus
#2 - 2012-11-28 00:24:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Xercodo
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
#3 - 2012-11-28 00:26:35 UTC
"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."

Member of the Pink Pony Killboard Padding Alliance
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
#4 - 2012-11-28 00:26:41 UTC
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
Privat Party
#5 - 2012-11-28 00:30:26 UTC
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
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#6 - 2012-11-28 00:32:29 UTC
I guess the next step will be removing the ability to turn the safeties off.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2012-11-28 00:41:55 UTC
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
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#8 - 2012-11-28 00:42:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Kitty Bear
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
Privat Party
#9 - 2012-11-28 00:44:19 UTC
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. Lol

:)
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2012-11-28 00:45:46 UTC
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. Lol

Abstinence has a substantially higher success rate.
Holy One
Privat Party
#11 - 2012-11-28 01:12:48 UTC
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. Lol

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
#12 - 2012-11-28 01:19:50 UTC
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
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#13 - 2012-11-28 01:38:28 UTC
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  ~
Auric Veldfinger
Doomheim
#14 - 2012-11-28 01:42:26 UTC
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". Roll
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2012-11-28 01:44:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
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". Roll

So long as you can disable it, why not?

Ok, so the bishop thing is not a good example, but then this safety doesn't prevent you from doing stupid things like moving too valuable cargo in a freighter, so really it doesn't apply.
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#16 - 2012-11-28 03:02:03 UTC
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
Privat Party
#17 - 2012-11-28 03:06:44 UTC
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
Foreign Interloper
#18 - 2012-11-28 04:44:45 UTC
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
#19 - 2012-11-28 04:52:33 UTC
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
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2012-11-28 04:52:37 UTC
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.
12Next page