These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Getting Rid of the Undesirables (for good this time)

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#741 - 2012-10-18 00:51:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Karl Hobb
Touval Lysander wrote:
Quote:
"More selective kill right selling – this is similar to the one above, only for kill rights instead of bounties. This basically allows the owner of the kill right to select more carefully who can purchase the kill right.


So I suspect his answer was assuming you had seen this and the argument itself (when it's a given that it's going to happen) was lame. Dunno.

That's what the default mechanic should be, not this boolean gangbang bullshit where someone from the CW 2.0 team was like "just use the Suspect flag, it'll make it easier for all of us."

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#742 - 2012-10-18 00:54:11 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
The "future iterations" stuff is speculative. If I'm going to bet money, then I'll bet that CCP won't iterate on this content for years, if at all, just like they didn't for FW. That line seems to me to be an effort to placate the angry, dissatisfied players into letting them push through the terrible crap they've already coded.

All of us here, even the people arguing against my points for example, are smarter than that. We're fully aware that what CCP says, and what CCP does, are completely unrelated to each other.

I'll accept that. But fyi, they did make it quite clear that lotsa' data is going to be accumulated in the first roll-out. If it proves to be as bad as we're expecting, they'll focus, I'm sure.

I'm acutely aware of the technical, financial and time constraints on such a big change. Time is their friend and upsetting a few initially to get it "right" as it were - in the longer term - is w/o doubt their biggest priority.

Forgive my 3 year old naivety - but it is tainted with 30 years of being in business.

I wouldn't be taking it so personally Blink

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#743 - 2012-10-18 00:57:12 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
Quote:
"More selective kill right selling – this is similar to the one above, only for kill rights instead of bounties. This basically allows the owner of the kill right to select more carefully who can purchase the kill right.


So I suspect his answer was assuming you had seen this and the argument itself (when it's a given that it's going to happen) was lame. Dunno.

That's what the default mechanic should be, not this boolean gangbang bullshit where someone from the CW 2.0 team was like "just use the Suspect flag, it'll make it easier for all of us."

I saw the word "technical issues" used as an argument somewhat.

Given that their work is some of the best I've ever seen I'm prepared to be a little more circumspect.

Their reponses may seem trite in some cases but arguing badly and doing something badly are two different animals.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#744 - 2012-10-18 01:01:47 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
I saw the word "technical issues" used as an argument somewhat.

Regarding flagging a fleet, not necessarily a corporation.

Touval Lysander wrote:
Given that their work is some of the best I've ever seen I'm prepared to be a little more circumspect.

Their reponses may seem trite in some cases but arguing badly and doing something badly are two different animals.

Given their recent track record of not listening to the playerbase's concerns over how horrible a feature is, and given the fact that they've pretty much ignored wholesale years of player suggestions in favor of LOL BOOLEAN, I'm not going to be at all surprised when this gets rolled out and isn't iterated on for years.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#745 - 2012-10-18 01:24:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
"Technical issues" isn't an excuse at all. It simply can't be. It's impossible for it to be.

They have had a working system for many, many years now. And now they're going to get rid of it, but at the same time tell us "sorry guys, it's simply too difficult to code something like that"? I'm just not buying it.

Would you buy it if Toyota got rid of the combustion engine, started a new line of cars that are pedal-powered, and then put out a press release stating that they simply can't get over the technical hurdles of making their cars more fuel efficient?

No. You'd just have one broke-ass Japanese car company.

And as far as iteration goes, I'm betting this content won't be touched again. They didn't touch FW from 2007, until they rolled out a mega-broken "fix" that made things even worse. And even though they could easily mitigate the bad stuff by getting rid of the 4x LP price multipliers (I bet they'd just have to change like one line of code for that), they left it intact for a full year in order to address it in an expansion.

Please.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Shederov Blood
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
#746 - 2012-10-18 01:37:27 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
combustible engine
lol.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:
... FW ...
Not to mention War Declarations. Roll

Who put the goat in there?
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#747 - 2012-10-18 01:39:26 UTC
Don't make fun of my writing; I actually write really well, in multiple languages.

It's just really difficult to keep my composure when I'm frothing at the mouth with rage.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#748 - 2012-10-18 01:52:32 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
"Technical issues" isn't an excuse at all. It simply can't be. It's impossible for it to be.

They have had a working system for many, many years now. And now they're going to get rid of it, but at the same time tell us "sorry guys, it's simply too difficult to code something like that"? I'm just not buying it.

Transferable killrights? They were? When?

Quote:

Would you buy it if Toyota got rid of the combustible engine, started a new line of cars that are pedal-powered, and then put out a press release stating that they simply can't get over the technical hurdles of making their cars more fuel efficient?

If they were pedal -powered they'd be pretty fuel efficient wouldn't they? Lol

Quote:

And as far as iteration goes, I'm betting this content won't be touched again. They didn't touch FW from 2007, until they rolled out a mega-broken "fix" that made things even worse. And even though they could easily mitigate the bad stuff by getting rid of the 4x LP price multipliers (I bet they'd just have to change like one line of code for that), they left it intact for a full year in order to address it in an expansion.

Please.

Not so sure about iteration being ignored. I think JitaGate set the stage for utterance of qualiflied and robust calls by CCP.

And yeah, it is maybe one line of code (unless they're really bad coders) but the rebuild and rollout is costly and time-consuming etc. notwithstanding the danger of rolling out "patches" versus "expansions".

And this is the thing. CCP is not always going to be cognizant of the impacts of any changes until they are actually rolled out - and tested - over time.

At some point, we HAVE to be the testers. If people can't accept that as a natural part of continuous development - which CCP is very good at - then you know, there's bucketloads of release and forget software available.

I say that with all sincerity and without prejudice.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#749 - 2012-10-18 01:57:26 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
"Technical issues" isn't an excuse at all. It simply can't be. It's impossible for it to be.

They have had a working system for many, many years now. And now they're going to get rid of it, but at the same time tell us "sorry guys, it's simply too difficult to code something like that"? I'm just not buying it.

Transferable killrights? They were? When?

I was talking about the flagging mechanics in general. The all-encompassing suspect flag replacing current aggression mechanics, that stuff.

We're going from a system where it's possible to be aggressed to an individual or a corporation to a system where you can only be aggressed to everybody, solely on the premise that the old system would be too difficult to recreate with modernized code. Derp.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#750 - 2012-10-18 02:10:55 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
We're going from a system where it's possible to be aggressed to an individual or a corporation to a system where you can only be aggressed to everybody, solely on the premise that the old system would be too difficult to recreate with modernized code. Derp.

To be fair I don't think CCP has ever mentioned it being too difficult to recreate, rather that the code was much cleaner. And I can see where they're coming from, especially considering how many SQL calls must be made in order to track a single engagement (they may handle it differently, who knows). Also, despite all my cries of "LOL BOOLEAN", the new Crimewatch system seems to be a fairly modern, if unsophisticated, state machine on the back-end.

But, like we all keep saying, the new CW mechanics aren't the big issue, it's the total lack of feature being delivered to kill rights and the completely idiotic gaming of said system.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#751 - 2012-10-18 02:20:35 UTC
So am I correct in assuming that the situation is so critical, that they have no choice but to roll out this system? If they don't, then the servers are going to explode and hamsters will rain down on England? Because if not, then they shouldn't touch the system we have now, since it's preferable to what they're about to shove down our unwilling gullets.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#752 - 2012-10-18 02:25:14 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
So am I correct in assuming that the situation is so critical, that they have no choice but to roll out this system?

lol, no. I'm with Lord Zim on this, it's undoubtedly yet another attempt to make high-sec safer. While they may tout this system as allowing a lot of other things to go through, I'm fairly certain they could have simply written this new system and retained the old rules. No, I'm not fairly certain, I know.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#753 - 2012-10-18 02:26:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
So am I correct in assuming that the situation is so critical, that they have no choice but to roll out this system? If they don't, then the servers are going to explode and hamsters will rain down on England? Because if not, then they shouldn't touch the system we have now, since it's preferable to what they're about to shove down our unwilling gullets.

The system we have now was what they are trying to get rid of specifically. It wasn't so much the code that was the issue but rather the system that necessitated it due to all the edge cases possible.

They didn't choose not to recreate it because they couldn't, they chose not to because it isn't what they want. that being the case the timing isn't terribly important as much as the fact that limited engagements are being given a much less than robust solution.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#754 - 2012-10-18 02:26:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
Karl Hobb wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
So am I correct in assuming that the situation is so critical, that they have no choice but to roll out this system?

lol, no. I'm with Lord Zim on this, it's undoubtedly yet another attempt to make high-sec safer. While they may tout this system as allowing a lot of other things to go through, I'm fairly certain they could have simply written this new system and retained the old rules. No, I'm not fairly certain, I know.

Abso-*******-lutely.

The worst part is that they simply can't man up and admit their agenda. The obviously want even the "griefer" sub bucks, so they're taking their chances with lies, hoping that we won't notice, and thus create these "technical hurdle" excuses, which wouldn't work on any but the most uninformed players. They're insulting our intelligence by doing this.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#755 - 2012-10-18 02:29:05 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
The system we have now was what they are trying to get rid of specifically. It wasn't so much the code that was the issue but rather the system that necessitated it due to all the edge cases possible.

Then clean up the edge cases and codify the rules. FFS, it's not rocket science.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#756 - 2012-10-18 02:32:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Karl Hobb wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
The system we have now was what they are trying to get rid of specifically. It wasn't so much the code that was the issue but rather the system that necessitated it due to all the edge cases possible.

Then clean up the edge cases and codify the rules. FFS, it's not rocket science.

Codifying the edge cases created the issue from what I understand.

To be specific the idea was to simplify code and behaviors. If you have to code in the edge cases both issues remain unresolved.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#757 - 2012-10-18 02:34:03 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Karl Hobb wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
The system we have now was what they are trying to get rid of specifically. It wasn't so much the code that was the issue but rather the system that necessitated it due to all the edge cases possible.

Then clean up the edge cases and codify the rules. FFS, it's not rocket science.

Codifying the edge cases created the issue from what I understand.

The same people who said that also said that they don't know what happens when one person remote-reps another.

It's funny, because the players know. If they just asked us, we could have made them a nice, colorful chart.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#758 - 2012-10-18 02:37:15 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Karl Hobb wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
The system we have now was what they are trying to get rid of specifically. It wasn't so much the code that was the issue but rather the system that necessitated it due to all the edge cases possible.

Then clean up the edge cases and codify the rules. FFS, it's not rocket science.

Codifying the edge cases created the issue from what I understand.

The same people who said that also said that they don't know what happens when one person remote-reps another.

It's funny, because the players know. If they just asked us, we could have made them a nice, colorful chart.

Great, now all that remains is the same work of debugging and recursion testing and maintaining the model that you essentially just rewrote in all its complexity and nullifying any gains you made. Progress?
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#759 - 2012-10-18 02:41:20 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Great, now all that remains is the same work of debugging and recursion testing and maintaining the model that you essentially just rewrote in all its complexity and nullifying any gains you made. Progress?

Take an interesting and rich aggression model that rewards planning and knowledge, and has been proven through the years, and replace it with a very simple model that retains none of the richness. Progress?

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#760 - 2012-10-18 02:44:13 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Great, now all that remains is the same work of debugging and recursion testing and maintaining the model that you essentially just rewrote in all its complexity and nullifying any gains you made. Progress?

Take an interesting and rich aggression model that rewards planning and knowledge, and has been proven through the years, and replace it with a very simple model that retains none of the richness. Progress?

Depends on what you are trying to achieve. If it's one promoting consequence, yes. But as we are seeing there are some who don't want consequence as it means taking the total control they had over aggression selection away.