These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

GMs - "We can't figure it out on our own. You do it"

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
GM Homonoia
Game Master Retirement Home
#21 - 2012-03-02 09:49:32 UTC
While we understand why some of you may find this policy to be unfair, the reality of the matter is that the current wardec mechanics are less then ideal. They heavily favor one side and have many obscure rules (that can be extremely frustrating to deal with), several holes and can feel exploit-y. We simply decided that the best way to deal with this, until the mechanics are revised, to simply let the mechanics work as they work; if that favors those who do not want to participate in a less then ideal mechanic, so be it.

At the moment, until the system is revamped, I simply advise you to attack people that want to fight back or to attack people who have too much to lose to swap alliance. This really is the extension of the principle that if you do not want other players to simply change corporation when you dec them, you should attack targets that are big enough that they have too much to lose by leaving their corporation. (In other words, attack someone your own size, or larger, as the small guys tend to run and hide).

Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#22 - 2012-03-02 09:51:41 UTC
GM Homonoia wrote:


This is incorrect. All GMs are paid CCP staff. However, we are not programmers and we do not have the capabilities to fix bugs or change code.


Wait they pay you now?

I thought they still kept you locked up in the cells and fed you nothing but water and Hákarl.
GM Homonoia
Game Master Retirement Home
#23 - 2012-03-02 09:53:21 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:


This is incorrect. All GMs are paid CCP staff. However, we are not programmers and we do not have the capabilities to fix bugs or change code.


Wait they pay you now?

I thought they still kept you locked up in the cells and fed you nothing but water and Hákarl.


That is an optional bonus that many of us opt in for.

Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#24 - 2012-03-02 09:58:47 UTC
GM Homonoia wrote:


That is an optional bonus that many of us opt in for.


Next you will be telling me they dont pick on GM at random every year to feed to CCP SharkbaitShocked
Psychotic Monk
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#25 - 2012-03-02 09:59:37 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:


This is incorrect. All GMs are paid CCP staff. However, we are not programmers and we do not have the capabilities to fix bugs or change code.


Wait they pay you now?

I thought they still kept you locked up in the cells and fed you nothing but water and Hákarl.


I've seen The Secretary. I know people will fix/make clerical errors in exchange for somewhat sexually charged abuse.

Belligerent Undesirables Selling Griefer Immunity
Bubanni
Corus Aerospace
#26 - 2012-03-02 10:05:02 UTC
GM Homonoia wrote:
While we understand why some of you may find this policy to be unfair, the reality of the matter is that the current wardec mechanics are less then ideal. They heavily favor one side and have many obscure rules (that can be extremely frustrating to deal with), several holes and can feel exploit-y. We simply decided that the best way to deal with this, until the mechanics are revised, to simply let the mechanics work as they work; if that favors those who do not want to participate in a less then ideal mechanic, so be it.

At the moment, until the system is revamped, I simply advise you to attack people that want to fight back or to attack people who have too much to lose to swap alliance. This really is the extension of the principle that if you do not want other players to simply change corporation when you dec them, you should attack targets that are big enough that they have too much to lose by leaving their corporation. (In other words, attack someone your own size, or larger, as the small guys tend to run and hide).


I can respect that :) just sounded like you didn't understand the OP at first, (personly don't care heh)

Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#27 - 2012-03-02 10:12:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Grumpy Owly
GM Homonoia wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:
Why? What makes you think that GM's are CCP devs? Most GMs are volunteer players from within the ISD.


This is incorrect. All GMs are paid CCP staff. However, we are not programmers and we do not have the capabilities to fix bugs or change code.


Fair enough, understanding revised.

For my own heads up then, are GMs essentially a CCP employee branch associated with gameplay matters? Are they associated with the ISD officially (other than obvious crossover of purposes in assisting gameplay)? Just trying to best understand the relationships.

Edit: think I found something to help with personal clarity: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Customer_Support#Hours_of_Operation

Still, might be helpfull to make it clearer about relationships? I have pretty much not been aware about the relevance of GM's as CCP employees (obviously). Which I can simply put down to my ignorance of course of not searching or asking the real details, though not really had much cause I guess.

Bounty Hunting - Soon (™): Retribution (Winter 2012)

It's just criminal - Smuggling
Lors Dornick
Kallisti Industries
#28 - 2012-03-02 10:12:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Lors Dornick
GM Homonoia wrote:
While we understand why some of you may find this policy to be unfair, the reality of the matter is that the current wardec mechanics are less then ideal. They heavily favor one side and have many obscure rules (that can be extremely frustrating to deal with), several holes and can feel exploit-y. We simply decided that the best way to deal with this, until the mechanics are revised, to simply let the mechanics work as they work; if that favors those who do not want to participate in a less then ideal mechanic, so be it.

At the moment, until the system is revamped, I simply advise you to attack people that want to fight back or to attack people who have too much to lose to swap alliance. This really is the extension of the principle that if you do not want other players to simply change corporation when you dec them, you should attack targets that are big enough that they have too much to lose by leaving their corporation. (In other words, attack someone your own size, or larger, as the small guys tend to run and hide).


That was a very nice and eloquent way of saying:

"We have to work with the game as it's handed to us by producers, designers and coders."

"We've learned to live with that, so should you, or start shouting at the ones that can actually change it ;) "

I have to say that I esp like:
"the reality of the matter is that the current wardec mechanics are less then ideal"

Which is a very beautiful corp speak version of:
"the wardec mechanics blows but the powers that be are sitting on their hands and leave it to GM's to take the flak" ;)

CCP Greyscale: As to starbases, we agree it's pretty terrible, but we don't want to delay the entire release just for this one factor.
GM Homonoia
Game Master Retirement Home
#29 - 2012-03-02 10:24:35 UTC  |  Edited by: GM Homonoia
Grumpy Owly wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:
Why? What makes you think that GM's are CCP devs? Most GMs are volunteer players from within the ISD.


This is incorrect. All GMs are paid CCP staff. However, we are not programmers and we do not have the capabilities to fix bugs or change code.


Fair enough, understanding revised.

For my own heads up then, are GMs essentially a CCP employee branch associated with gameplay matters? Are they associated with the ISD officially (other than obvious crossover of purposes in assisting gameplay)? Just trying to best understand the realtionships.


Alright, i'll try and explain the exact relation of our department within CCP.

Customer support (GMs), Community, CSM (the CCP devs running that), and ISD (Volunteers + 1 CCP volunteer manager) all fall under Customer Relations, which is led by the VP of Customer Relations. GMs are spread across our Reykjavik, Atlanta and Shanghai offices and all are a full fledged part of CCP.

Customer relations in turn is tied to a section of EVE development that focuses on the state of the live game environment. For example, we have a team of GMs that act as a liaison with other departments to research and track certain issues on TQ to try and resolve them. We also have a team of GMs that are a part of the development scrum teams who document all new features and provide feedback on how we think our users (you guys) will react to the features or changes and who will make sure that we request the type of logging and tools that GMs need to do their job.

Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#30 - 2012-03-02 10:28:43 UTC
Grideris
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2012-03-02 10:33:06 UTC
Lors Dornick wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
While we understand why some of you may find this policy to be unfair, the reality of the matter is that the current wardec mechanics are less then ideal. They heavily favor one side and have many obscure rules (that can be extremely frustrating to deal with), several holes and can feel exploit-y. We simply decided that the best way to deal with this, until the mechanics are revised, to simply let the mechanics work as they work; if that favors those who do not want to participate in a less then ideal mechanic, so be it.

At the moment, until the system is revamped, I simply advise you to attack people that want to fight back or to attack people who have too much to lose to swap alliance. This really is the extension of the principle that if you do not want other players to simply change corporation when you dec them, you should attack targets that are big enough that they have too much to lose by leaving their corporation. (In other words, attack someone your own size, or larger, as the small guys tend to run and hide).


That was a very nice and eloquent way of saying:

"We have to work with the game as it's handed to us by producers, designers and coders."

"We've learned to live with that, so should you, or start shouting at the ones that can actually change it ;) "

I have to say that I esp like:
"the reality of the matter is that the current wardec mechanics are less then ideal"

Which is a very beautiful corp speak version of:
"the wardec mechanics blows but the powers that be are sitting on their hands and leave it to GM's to take the flak" ;)


For the most part, you got it right. It's just the last bit that's not quite spot on as CCP is actually overhauling the War dec system (among others) in the coming expansion for mid-year.

http://www.dust514.org - the unofficial forum for everything DUST 514 http://www.dust514base.com -** the** blog site with everything else DUST 514 you need
Cyprus Black
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#32 - 2012-03-02 11:29:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Cyprus Black
GM Homonoia wrote:
While we understand why some of you may find this policy to be unfair, the reality of the matter is that the current wardec mechanics are less then ideal. They heavily favor one side and have many obscure rules (that can be extremely frustrating to deal with), several holes and can feel exploit-y. We simply decided that the best way to deal with this, until the mechanics are revised, to simply let the mechanics work as they work; if that favors those who do not want to participate in a less then ideal mechanic, so be it.

At the moment, until the system is revamped, I simply advise you to attack people that want to fight back or to attack people who have too much to lose to swap alliance. This really is the extension of the principle that if you do not want other players to simply change corporation when you dec them, you should attack targets that are big enough that they have too much to lose by leaving their corporation. (In other words, attack someone your own size, or larger, as the small guys tend to run and hide).
I'm a one man corp. Attacking others my own size or larger IS the point and it's not working.

It was originally myself vs a 7 man corp (now six, lol spying is fun). Then it turned into a fight of myself vs over a hundred people in an alliance. I was fine with this. Then the original corp dropped alliance and I can no longer fight them. How is this heavily favoring one side if that one side is just one person?

The complaint to the GM department (for those of you who missed the obvious) is how easy corps can shed off wardecs and how this is a policy problem that was enforced by GMs but no longer.

The GMs solution to the problem is "Wardec them again and see if it sticks this time". That is NOT a solution. That's not even a band-aid to the problem. This is flawed thinking.
-If an arsonist is burning down houses, the solution is not to build more houses.
-If titan pilots found a strange mechanic that allows them to escape HIC bubbles, the solution is not to bring more HIC bubbles.

@ GMs. You acknowledge that there's fundamental problems with the wardec system. Fine. You acknowledge that there are loopholes and scenarios that have the potential to favor one side or another. Ok. But you cannot go bury your head in the sand and pretend the problem is ok now. If wardec mechanic reworks are coming soon that's great, but you need to keep doing your job until it goes live. You can't toss your hands up in the air and say "It's not our problem anymore, we don't have to enforce the rules."

This is widely considered a bad decision by the playerbase. Go to any EvE news website and any EvE podcast (yes that is a challenge) and read/hear what they're saying. The message is the same: WTH were the GMs thinking when this came down?

Summary of EvEs last four expansions: http://imgur.com/ZL5SM33
GM Karidor
Game Masters
C C P Alliance
#33 - 2012-03-02 12:14:10 UTC
Being the one who announced the lifting of the many arbitrary rules Customer Support had in place to bandaid the war dec system (in case you missed it: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=19881&find=unread), I can assure you that we have not done this lightly. Many of the issues touched in this thread were indeed governed by additional rules, but those were never really written down anywhere in official capacity (not publicly at least), as they were more often than not relying on a case by case investigation and decision in the first place. That results in a situation that potentially criminalizes players that just don't know better (due to said lack of documentation of those rules that were fuzzy at best), which I am sure you agree is anything but optimal.

While we were fully aware that lifting those rules wasn't an optimal solution either, it was done with two things in mind:
1) ease the process for everyone involved by removing "unwritten laws" and criminalizing players for things that were really only known by "word of mouth", but more importantly:
2) to (re-)identify the many loopholes (which quite frankly exist for either side) of the current war mechanics, in order to try and address them in a more formalized way (read: actual game mechanics rather than unwritten laws) and maybe even find some we may have not been aware of yet.

It's not quite a coincident that the announcement was made back then and that Inferno happens to do stuff with wars either, so stay tuned and do give feedback on the changes in regards to war once they have been explained in deeper detail in Dev Blogs that are likely to come out or start hitting Singularity closer to the release of Inferno. Until then, I fear that you will simply have to bear with the current game mechanics and the fact that corporations can indeed shed their wars at the moment by joining and leaving an alliance the same way as individual pilots can avoid wars altogether by staying in NPC corporations, as already indicated by GM Homonoia previously.

GM Karidor | Senior Game Master
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2012-03-02 12:45:49 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:
Both references of dec shield usage have been validated by CCP for use as legitimate mechanics.
…and the question is why

let me guess....
maybe reason is: they are owners of the game? Roll

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Jada Maroo
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#35 - 2012-03-02 12:54:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Jada Maroo
Cyprus Black wrote:


This is widely considered a bad decision by the playerbase. Go to any EvE news website and any EvE podcast (yes that is a challenge) and read/hear what they're saying. The message is the same: WTH were the GMs thinking when this came down?



The only people who noticed are the talentless pussies who have to fill killboards shooting careless nooblets and Hulks in high sec.
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Crouching Woman Hidden Cucumber
#36 - 2012-03-02 13:01:51 UTC  |  Edited by: IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
GM Homonoia wrote:
At the moment, until the system is revamped, I simply advise you to attack people that want to fight back



I think there should just be a system whereby we can decide when we want to participate in PVP, some kind of 'PVP pennant' or 'PVP banner' I don't know I'm sure you can work out a name. Anyway when you have this on you can shoot other players and they can shoot you and when you have it off you cannot shoot other players and they cannot shoot you. This system would basically let us achieve what you outline in your post and should really improve the game for everyone.
Ptraci
3 R Corporation
#37 - 2012-03-02 13:11:39 UTC
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:
and when you have it off you cannot shoot other players and they cannot shoot you.


Umm yeah except there should be a big big cooldown period on said "pennant". Like you turn it on and in a couple days you can start shooting people but it's also obvious to everyone that your pennant is turning on so that there are no surprises, and if you turn it off then it goes off immediately (provided you're not actually engaged in combat) but you can't turn it on again for a month.

Why? Oh abuse, etc. Plus decide - either you want to fight or you want to carebear in high sec. Not both. Trying to do both is what the problem really is. The guy who wants to throw rocks and then hide in the crowd and say "rocks? no, not me, I didn't throw rocks". Of course this decision should not be permanent but it should have consequences that you have to live with. Otherwise get the heck out of high sec.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#38 - 2012-03-02 13:11:47 UTC
Cyprus Black wrote:
I'm a one man corp. Attacking others my own size or larger IS the point and it's not working.

It was originally myself vs a 7 man corp (now six, lol spying is fun). Then it turned into a fight of myself vs over a hundred people in an alliance. I was fine with this. Then the original corp dropped alliance and I can no longer fight them. How is this heavily favoring one side if that one side is just one person?


You spend a little isk to go grief another corp through legitimate, albeit nonsensical, game mechanics.

They spend a little isk to grief you back by shuffling your wardec onto an alliance and off themselves through another set of silly game mechanics.

It all sounds very Eve-like to me. Lots of griefing and tears and isk being sink'd. :)

I can't wait to see what the new wardec rules will look like.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
dave3NG
Finite Future
#39 - 2012-03-02 13:16:09 UTC
+1 to be brave enough to suggest WoW game mechanics on the Eve forum. I want an /afk flag until I can quit smoking.
Jada Maroo
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#40 - 2012-03-02 13:16:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Jada Maroo
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:


I think there should just be a system whereby we can decide when we want to participate in PVP, some kind of 'PVP pennant' or 'PVP banner' I don't know I'm sure you can work out a name.


I actually agree with this - for high sec. If people don't want to pew, they shouldn't have to stay docked because someone else decided they want to pew them in high sec. But fix fleet wars and have some sort of new opt-in aggressive high sec play mechanic that gives you a "hazard pay" bonus to high sec activities if you participate.

Something like: before going into a mission, dead space, or mission mining site you can decide to disable Concord protection. If you do, Concord doesn't charge you for their normal services and you get paid like a 50% bonus or something. Same with courier missions - would give a whole new use for cov ops haulers.

Other than that, suicide gank or live in WHs, low sec, or null if you want to pew.