These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Balancing bumping and looting mechanics

First post
Author
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1021 - 2016-02-05 23:14:48 UTC
Bella Jennie wrote:

exactly... so how about they check me.. I'm trying to align and warp; perhaps it's taking longer than it should


No can do. Introduces a secondary client based check for something like that(as opposed to the currently "streamed" server based check), and thus adds a HUGE potential for hacking in which you can flag somebody on the same grid as you.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1022 - 2016-02-05 23:15:26 UTC
Bella Jennie wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Bella Jennie wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:

This happened with making Concord invincible.


Yep. Some of the newer players may not know this, but waaaay back you could kill CONCORD.


yea and waaay back you ganked 1st day newbies and played with cans..
- fun times, lots of laughs at all the carebear tears..

it was a game for jerks..


Actually no. I never never flipped cans....oh, wait. No I did. I flipped a can flipper's can. He was in a stealth bomber I was in and asault frigate. He ran like a little girl.

I did gank a newish player once, he took from one of my cans...I also sent him 2x the value of his loss....cause he was new and he was a good sport about it.

We know who the jerk here is.

games evolve, the pendulum swings..



Translation:

Hi CCP, I demand you change the game to suit my desires and screw every other player who disagrees with me.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1023 - 2016-02-05 23:16:23 UTC
Bella Jennie wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Bella Jennie wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:

This happened with making Concord invincible.


Yep. Some of the newer players may not know this, but waaaay back you could kill CONCORD.


yea and waaay back you ganked 1st day newbies and played with cans..
- fun times, lots of laughs at all the carebear tears..

it was a game for jerks..


It had way more players and way more active players back then.

Pretty clear which one the market prefers.

Guess CCP screwed up then


Yes, by making the game safer.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1024 - 2016-02-05 23:17:14 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:

Translation:

Hi CCP, I demand you change the game to suit my desires and screw every other player who disagrees with me.


You forgot the part about driving the game's active playerbase away so that CCP can promote the worst PvE content in the MMO industry to purely theoretical casual players.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#1025 - 2016-02-05 23:18:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Bella Jennie wrote:
exactly... so how about they check me.. I'm trying to align and warp; perhaps it's taking longer than it should

or perhaps the BUMPER is doing more than once...

maybe both situations being positive simultaneously cause the flag?


Ok, so to extend that further:

Collision occurs

Is warp-drive active and aligning?

If aligning with warp drive active
- not bumping intentionally

If collision but not aligning to warp
- bumping intentionally

If intentional - suspect flag
Else - continue as normal


Ok, so that throws up the first logic error issue:

1. What if neither ship is aligning to warp, but one of them is doing it intentionally?

Say a Freighter has warped to 0 in Jita to dock, but as we all do if no instadock, landed 2500m off the station because warp to 0 doesn't. Then the Freighter is involved in a collision with another ship.

Alternatively, what if the Freighter is on autopilot and lands 15km off a gate and then slowboats in to the gate to jump.

In both cases the Freighter will not be aligning to warp and could be intentionally bumped and the current logic misses it.

So how do you deal with that? Is it bad luck, or do more options need to be added?

If more options are needed, then what's the next question to deal with that?
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#1026 - 2016-02-05 23:24:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Again with the name calling Roll

Bella, serious question, why are you playing a game such as this? You clearly detest the foundations that it was built upon and the opportunities it offers.

Eve fills a niche in the MMO market, it doesn't need to conform to what other games define as acceptable behaviour because if it did, it would no longer fill that niche and be redundant. Filling a very specific niche is what has enabled Eve to survive as long as it has, while outlasting hundreds of games that did conform to the norm.

I'd say that CCP have been doing it right for longer than the lifespan of most MMO's.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1027 - 2016-02-05 23:24:50 UTC
How much more of this goat rope are we going to entertain, before the carebear troll gets it into their head that computer code is not ******* magic?

Have a look at this, carebear. That's the code for kicking a ball in a circle between a set number of individual instances of a single class, that can do nothing else.

Needless to say, EVE Online, being an underwater submarine simulator press ganged into service as a space video game, is a fair bit more complicated.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Iain Cariaba
#1028 - 2016-02-05 23:55:25 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Again with the name calling Roll

Bella, serious question, why are you playing a game such as this? You clearly detest the foundations that it was built upon and the opportunities it offers.

Eve fills a niche in the MMO market, it doesn't need to conform to what other games define as acceptable behaviour because if it did, it would no longer fill that niche and be redundant. Filling a very specific niche is what has enabled Eve to survive as long as it has, while outlasting hundreds of games that did conform to the norm.

I'd say that CCP have been doing it right for longer than the lifespan of most MMO's.

I've been wondering the same thing.

Bella, there are many other MMOs out there, some even space themed, that will allow you to have all the security you want while farming their currency. Why don't you go play one of them rather than keep trying to ruin the one game on the market that caters to people who want all that EvE has to offer?

I'm not trying to troll with this question, I am seriously wondering why you play a game that seems to go against everything you think a game should be.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1029 - 2016-02-06 00:02:40 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Why don't you go play one of them rather than keep trying to ruin the one game on the market that caters to people who want all that EvE has to offer?


The answer is simple.

The sheer selfishness that can only be found in a malignant narcissist.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#1030 - 2016-02-06 00:13:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Why don't you go play one of them rather than keep trying to ruin the one game on the market that caters to people who want all that EvE has to offer?


The answer is simple.

The sheer selfishness that can only be found in a malignant narcissist.
I have my suspicions as to who is behind Bella, the signature suggests one potential candidate, while the obstinateness and fascination with "illegal" bumping suggests another; your observation fits one of them perfectly.

On the other hand Bella might not be an alt at all, but a naive and earnest person who honestly believes the tripe that they're peddling, and that it'd make Eve a better game.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

bigbud skunkafella
Utama Incorporated
Astral Alliance
#1031 - 2016-02-06 01:45:03 UTC  |  Edited by: bigbud skunkafella
Bella Jennie wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Bella Jennie wrote:
well not necessarily.. just the BUMPING that sets up a gank..

- now I do realize this is very complicated technically.. it needs to be worked out

and I'm sure the coding is quite involved as well..

The difficult part is working out the logic first. Once you have the logic, the coding is simple, since it just has to implement what the logic of the design says.

The good thing about designing an algorithm is that the logic can be designed to a degree by anyone if you don't deal with the technical apsects of the code.

So thinking about the logic:

If you have an outcome to make bumping a crimewatch trigger if it is to set up a gank, what are the logical questions you would ask when bumping occurs to allow you to conclude that it is to set up a gank?

So, starting at the initial trigger:

1. Collision in highsec occurs

What the first question you ask when that happens?


good question; good direction

- so first: is it intentional or not?



so, to determine the first question , the questions would be:is the slower ship a capital class ship entering warp cycle , is the faster ship involved travelling faster than x speed and posess x amount of mass ? if yes then log collisions above x speed until either x amount of time passes or warp succeeds , if warp cycle doesnt complete and hi speed collisions occur repeatedly during x time, fleet flag awarded for 10-15 mins counting from last collision recieved . (not suspect timer ).

by setting the parameters as'' ignoring anything other than a hisec capital class ship outside a docking ring that is entering warp regarding this flag , the server would only have to deal with a few hundred ships at most i believe, tho i'm only guessing at numbers here, mebbe someone knows the stats for hi sec capitals in space at any given moment?
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#1032 - 2016-02-06 01:53:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
so, to determine the first question , the questions would be:is the slower ship a capital class ship entering warp cycle , is the faster ship involved travelling faster than x speed and posess x amount of mass ? if yes then log collisions above x speed until either x amount of time passes or warp succeeds , if warp cycle doesnt complete and hi speed collisions occur repeatedly during x time, fleet flag awarded for 10-15 mins counting from last collision recieved . (not suspect timer ).

by setting the parameters as'' ignoring anything other than a hisec capital class ship outside a docking ring that is entering warp regarding this flag , the server would only have to deal with a few hundred ships at most i believe, tho i'm only guessing at numbers here, mebbe someone knows the stats for hi sec capitals in space at any given moment?

Then the same logic error will exist as outlined here:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6321478#post6321478

So what's the next question to ask to address this error in design?

Also, there's no such thing a x speed or x mass. If we are working through the logic here, then x needs to be replaced with a speed and a mass, otherwise they can't be tested. So what speed and what mass means intentional bump vs not intentional bump?

So at the moment:

Collision occurs

Is one ship a Capital?
- No: break and continue as normal


Is warp-drive active and aligning?

If aligning with warp drive active
- if Capital, not bumping intentionally


If collision but not aligning to warp
- Is mass >=(?) and speed >=(?)
- Yes: intentional


If intentional - suspect flag
Else - continue as normal


Is it true that this will only apply to Capital ships? Are industrials not getting any protection?
bigbud skunkafella
Utama Incorporated
Astral Alliance
#1033 - 2016-02-06 02:08:08 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Bella Jennie wrote:
exactly... so how about they check me.. I'm trying to align and warp; perhaps it's taking longer than it should

or perhaps the BUMPER is doing more than once...

maybe both situations being positive simultaneously cause the flag?


Ok, so to extend that further:

Collision occurs

Is warp-drive active and aligning?

If aligning with warp drive active
- not bumping intentionally

If collision but not aligning to warp
- bumping intentionally

If intentional - suspect flag
Else - continue as normal


Ok, so that throws up the first logic error issue:

1. What if neither ship is aligning to warp, but one of them is doing it intentionally?

Say a Freighter has warped to 0 in Jita to dock, but as we all do if no instadock, landed 2500m off the station because warp to 0 doesn't. Then the Freighter is involved in a collision with another ship.

Alternatively, what if the Freighter is on autopilot and lands 15km off a gate and then slowboats in to the gate to jump.

In both cases the Freighter will not be aligning to warp and could be intentionally bumped and the current logic misses it.

So how do you deal with that? Is it bad luck, or do more options need to be added?

If more options are needed, then what's the next question to deal with that?


id say in this regard, the an at keyboard player has the option of attempting to warp back to gate to evade bumper , by activating his warp drive he then fits the parameters for obtaining a 'limited fleet engagement'/'suspect timer. the afk freighter pilot? well he's afk and his fault , so suffers the consequences.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#1034 - 2016-02-06 02:13:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
id say in this regard, the an at keyboard player has the option of attempting to warp back to gate to evade bumper , by activating his warp drive he then fits the parameters for obtaining a 'limited fleet engagement'/'suspect timer. the afk freighter pilot? well he's afk and his fault , so suffers the consequences.

Ok, so 2 things from this:

1. We need a logic test to determine if someone is AFK
2. AFK get no protection

So if someone is AFK, then the only logical test is a timer test and if they are determined AFK, then bad luck to them. They can be bumped forever, even if they later come back to their keyboard.

So how long is allowed for someone to attempt to warp (assumption on my part that a warp attempt is the appropriate action to test)?

Three variables that need to be declared:

1. Speed above which it means intentional bumping?
2. Mass above which it means intentional bumping?
3. How long is someone given to attempt to warp?

And as per my edit above, there's no additional protection for other haulers? Only Capitals (and depending on what definition of Capitals you use, we can assume this means Freighter, Jump Freighter, Orca and Bowhead and nothing else)?
bigbud skunkafella
Utama Incorporated
Astral Alliance
#1035 - 2016-02-06 02:41:29 UTC
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
[quote=Bella Jennie]exactly... so how about they check me.. I'm trying to align and warp; perhaps it's taking longer than it should

or perhaps the BUMPER is doing more than once...

maybe both situations being positive simultaneously cause the flag?


Ok, so to extend that further:

Collision occurs

Is warp-drive active and aligning?

If aligning with warp drive active
- not bumping intentionally

If collision but not aligning to warp
- bumping intentionally

If intentional - suspect flag
Else - continue as normal







Collision occurs above x amount speed + x amount mass yes? continue, no? ignore.

Is warp-drive active and aligning?

If aligning with warp drive active
- not bumping intentionally

If collision but not aligning to warp... start timer on current warp cycle of capital ship, if incomplete after x amount of minutes while high speed collisions continuing over this period ..
- bumping intentionally


If intentional - suspect flag/fleet engagement flag awarded for 10/15 mins from incident of last bump that meets the parameters.
Else - continue as normal


more in line with what is being suggested , but you knew that already didnt you....? Pirate





Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#1036 - 2016-02-06 02:55:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
Collision occurs above x amount speed + x amount mass yes? continue, no? ignore.

Is warp-drive active and aligning?

If aligning with warp drive active
- not bumping intentionally

If collision but not aligning to warp... start timer on current warp cycle of capital ship, if incomplete after x amount of minutes while high speed collisions continuing over this period ..
- bumping intentionally


If intentional - suspect flag/fleet engagement flag awarded for 10/15 mins from incident of last bump that meets the parameters.
Else - continue as normal


more in line with what is being suggested , but you knew that already didnt you....?

Ok, whatever. Silly pirate emote aside, looks the same to me, just a different order and mixes up logic that is already tested above (eg. collision is tested twice now for the one event), but that's immaterial. Go with your ordering. That's fine.

So:

1. What speed?
2. What mass?
3. How many minutes is acceptable?

So if those are plugged in, then that is the full logic to base the change off.

Suspect flags are already 15 minutes, so no need to change that. Just make it 15 minutes like it is now. That would seem the easiest, rather than adding more variables into the crimewatch timers.

As one last question on this reordeing:

but not aligning to warp... start timer on current warp cycle of capital ship

If the ship is not warping, what current warp cycle are you timing?
bigbud skunkafella
Utama Incorporated
Astral Alliance
#1037 - 2016-02-06 03:05:03 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
id say in this regard, the an at keyboard player has the option of attempting to warp back to gate to evade bumper , by activating his warp drive he then fits the parameters for obtaining a 'limited fleet engagement'/'suspect timer. the afk freighter pilot? well he's afk and his fault , so suffers the consequences.

Ok, so 2 things from this:

1. We need a logic test to determine if someone is AFK
2. AFK get no protection

So if someone is AFK, then the only logical test is a timer test and if they are determined AFK, then bad luck to them. They can be bumped forever, even if they later come back to their keyboard.

So how long is allowed for someone to attempt to warp (assumption on my part that a warp attempt is the appropriate action to test)?

Three variables that need to be declared:

1. Speed above which it means intentional bumping?
2. Mass above which it means intentional bumping?
3. How long is someone given to attempt to warp?

And as per my edit above, there's no additional protection for other haulers? Only Capitals (and depending on what definition of Capitals you use, we can assume this means Freighter, Jump Freighter, Orca and Bowhead and nothing else)?


we don't need a logic test to determine if anyone is afk. if they are afk then in doing so they have given up voluntarily their ability to use a mechanic that may help them extract from the situation. if they choose to do that in a 10 bil freighter or an empty one is again entirely up to them.

the flag could only be awarded if warp was prevented for a yet to be determined amount of time, let's say 5 minutes just for example. the speed could be set for lets say above 1500 m/s , mass amount to be determined by the amount needed to prevent a freighter being able to align to warp . these figures would ultimately be worked out by people who do these sorta things .

industrials are not bumped to the extent of capitals and less easy to pin down by bumping , i've never witnessed or heard of an industrial being bumped continuously for hours , though it may happen of course .
we're discussing the practical application of this mechanic, if server load implementing this was negligible , then industrials could be included , all depending on resultant server limits.
bigbud skunkafella
Utama Incorporated
Astral Alliance
#1038 - 2016-02-06 03:17:27 UTC
i prefer the fleet engagement option because it is then within the targets control and any consequences are totally player driven, it also prevents a lot of the opportunities for abuse from occurring .
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#1039 - 2016-02-06 03:21:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
we don't need a logic test to determine if anyone is afk. if they are afk then in doing so they have given up voluntarily their ability to use a mechanic that may help them extract from the situation. if they choose to do that in a 10 bil freighter or an empty one is again entirely up to them.

Ok, sure.

I thought the protection was for someone at their keyboard, but no bother. I must have read that wrong.

We can drop that from the logic.

So that just leaves us with:

1. what mass?

and we have 5 minutes of bumping is ok and it only counts as an intentional bump above 1500 m/s.

So mass? Because the test is an "and" test in your example. Above 1500 m/s and mass (?) ?

As to this is worked out by people who do this sort of thing, that's what the features and ideas discussion forum is for. How can anyone judge whether a proposal is good or not (or suggest changes to improve it so it does what is actually desired), if the idea can't be expressed?
bigbud skunkafella
Utama Incorporated
Astral Alliance
#1040 - 2016-02-06 03:38:47 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
we don't need a logic test to determine if anyone is afk. if they are afk then in doing so they have given up voluntarily their ability to use a mechanic that may help them extract from the situation. if they choose to do that in a 10 bil freighter or an empty one is again entirely up to them.

Ok, sure.

I thought the protection was for someone at their keyboard, but no bother. I must have read that wrong.

We can drop that from the logic.

So that just leaves us with:

1. what mass?

and we have 5 minutes of bumping is ok and it only counts as an intentional bump above 1500 m/s.

So mass? Because the test is an "and" test in your example. Above 1500 m/s and mass (?) ?

As to this is worked out by people who do this sort of thing, that's what the features and ideas discussion forum is for. How can anyone judge whether a proposal is good or not (or suggest changes), if the idea can't be expressed?


5 minutes of hi speed bumping , preventing a warp is a possible condition that would need to be met to determine whether a collision was intentional or accidental . this being met rules out any possibility of accidental collisions resulting in a timer .

the mass as i stated would have to be determined by someone who knows , tho the mass figure is less important if the resultant timer is for a fleet engagement timer rather than a suspect flag for the bumper. 5 mins is too short a time for a bumper to get flagged suspect , but plenty time for a prepared freighter pilot in an escort fleet ...