Page 5 of 26 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 390

Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.
Thread: How dangerous will the universe be?

  1. #61
    I'm not sure how scams would even work in game? They've said in the player/player trading proposal that each trade will have what's to be traded (money/items) visible, with confirmations. You'd have to be a right twit to fall for anything there and I'd say "tough, you clicked ok"! If you do something outwith that trade mechanism (like mailing them money) then, again, tough... Don't be such a plonker next time!

    Ganking should be taken care of with in-game mechanisms, if they can pull it off properly.

    Basically, it should be as hands-off as possible, I hope, when the game launches. And there are always the fallback options of moving to private groups if the galaxy turns out to be full of asshats! The danger there is that a large section of people could move to private groups because of the asshats, which would only increase the issue for the rest of the punters in open play. Hopefully it doesn't go that way.

    Pecisk - "I will sound as broken record, but this won't change." David Braben - "So some news - we will be reversing this change shortly"

  2. #62
    Originally Posted by Andrew Sayers View Post (Source)
    Between this and the paradox of choice, you can make a really powerful argument for streamlining the experience. And it's not just games - for example, if you ever go near Linux desktop development, you'll see vitriol getting liberally thrown about the exact same question. Or type about:config into your Firefox URL bar to see the thousands upon thousands of choices they've been forced to leave in because someone out there wanted it.

    But as John says, you can go too far the other way. Last I heard, the balance of vitriol was strongly against GNOME, because they'd taken the removal of options to such an extreme everyone was missing at least one thing they absolutely needed (equivalent to removing the scanner from ED because it gave you too much choice about who to attack next). Joel Spolsky has a couple of excellent articles from a general software perspective, making the case for leaving things in.

    Frontier are in a unique position really - on the one hand, they've taken money from a bunch of backers with widely differing opinions, so they have some moral responsibility to give them all what they want. On the other hand, it gives them an unprecedented ability to engage in a mature debate about what type of compromises are acceptable to whom.
    Very interesting stuff. I'm one of the people who think GNOME has got it about right, but perhaps I'm one of the least demanding people!

    I share some of Fromhell's concerns about developers trying to make games that are all things to all people. What usually happens then is you get certain "features" that are just expected by critics and gamers and become ubiquitous within genres. Not very innovative.

    The good think about Elite: Dangerous is that is part of a series. It has a rich history and a rich universe that has been explored through fiction and it has delivered specific features in each incarnation. Frontier have an obligation to deliver on this, not on all expectations (how could they?)
    Lave Radio Podcast // Swift Dispatch - Stories & eyewitness accounts

  3. #63
    Originally Posted by Oddball View Post (Source)
    if someone has scammed you of real money then I feel its a different story because this is technically fraud. I am sure that FD will be keeping a close eye on any real transactions that are made.
    Actually, that's a very interesting point. Has the EVE community looked at all into the following legal argument:

    1. I can buy X credits for Y amount of my local currency
    2. I can buy object Z for X credits, therefore Z is worth Y amount of local currency
    3. Joe Bloggs tricked me into giving him Z
    4. Therefore Joe Bloggs has stolen Y pounds from me, and should be punished in court

    I know virtual currency is a young concept and all, but it seems like this would be a fairly serious threat to any EVE-like game.

  4. #64
    Originally Posted by Oddball View Post (Source)
    Scamming someone of items and currency within the game is nothing compared to being blown to bits by someone.
    It's interesting you say that because in my experience players seem okay with being killed in-game (because it is part of the game) and yet being scammed irks them a great deal. Perhaps it is because there are not so many games where scamming is tolerated (let alone normal) and so the culture hasn't caught up

    Originally Posted by Oddball View Post (Source)
    However, if someone has scammed you of real money then I feel its a different story because this is technically fraud. I am sure that FD will be keeping a close eye on any real transactions that are made.
    Scamming real money is a matter for real law enforcement. Yes, people do need to separate the two, especially when the lines are blurred (like in the forum game currency scam I mention in the OP).
    Lave Radio Podcast // Swift Dispatch - Stories & eyewitness accounts

  5. #65
    Originally Posted by Andrew Sayers View Post (Source)
    Actually, that's a very interesting point. Has the EVE community looked at all into the following legal argument:

    1. I can buy X credits for Y amount of my local currency
    2. I can buy object Z for X credits, therefore Z is worth Y amount of local currency
    3. Joe Bloggs tricked me into giving him Z
    4. Therefore Joe Bloggs has stolen Y pounds from me, and should be punished in court

    I know virtual currency is a young concept and all, but it seems like this would be a fairly serious threat to any EVE-like game.
    Perhaps there needs to be a test case?

    Do CCP make players sign a disclaimer so that they give up rights in this respect?
    Lave Radio Podcast // Swift Dispatch - Stories & eyewitness accounts

  6. #66
    Originally Posted by jabokai View Post (Source)
    I'm not sure how scams would even work in game?
    Here's an example I've been muttering about during the mining thread:

    There will probably exist various types of contamination (radiation etc.) for mined goods, which requires specialised scanners to detect. I could fill my hold with worthless junk and palm it off on you just because you didn't know the minutia of mining.

    Selling radioactive dust to newbies could lead to them just avoiding all P2P trades, but using JeffRyan's scam against pirates demanding your cargo might yet be possible.

  7. #67
    Originally Posted by Andrew Sayers View Post (Source)
    There will probably exist various types of contamination (radiation etc.) for mined goods, which requires specialised scanners to detect. I could fill my hold with worthless junk and palm it off on you just because you didn't know the minutia of mining.
    That's not a scam, that's just the buyer being a bit of a plum! And if it requires specialist scanners, he could possibly sell it on to a cruddy outpost with no such scanners... lesson learned and no real harm.

    Alternatively, once a miner cans his goods, the quality/contamination level is presumably set. Perhaps this will have to be made visible (via the trade UI) to the buyer.

    Better if the game handles scams than GMs IMHO.

    Pecisk - "I will sound as broken record, but this won't change." David Braben - "So some news - we will be reversing this change shortly"

  8. #68
    Originally Posted by jabokai View Post (Source)
    That's not a scam, that's just the buyer being a bit of a plum!
    I'd describe it as a scam myself, and one that I'll try to remember...

    ...

    On the /off-topic subject of the devs streamlining the design, I do tend to feel that way about the cockpit issue. It seems like the devs are putting a lot of time/money into the cockpit in order to make it the best experience possible for those that want it. The more money they put there, the more expensive it is to provide the HUD only option.

    However, it's complicated by the fact that there seems to be an accessibility issue for some people. To what extent should needs (rather than wants) of minorities be taken into account? There's got to be a cut-off somewhere, but it seems that much harsher to exclude people on accessibility grounds, rather than on taste.

  9. #69
    Originally Posted by JohnStabler View Post (Source)
    Crowd-sourcing a solution is an interesting concept. However, I wonder if charging victims to report crimes may have a chilling effect which results in people just rage quitting.
    Ok, this is a crazy proposal, but it just might be crazy enough to work:

    • Charge players 10 credits to file a griefing report
    • Give a bounty of up to 100 credits for successful reports
      • rejected reports filed in good faith generally get their 10 credits back
      • reports filed in bad faith generally get nothing back
    • Allow these bounties to be bought and sold like any other information packet
      • the owner of the bounty can't affect the report, only collect the money
    • Prioritise griefing reports sold at over 10 credits

    This would encourage players to report in good faith, while still giving pause to those that believe everyone that beats them is a griefer. And in a game with capitalism at its core, letting people float their bounties on the open market would give the griefee some fun and let them hedge their bets if they really don't like the risk.

  10. #70
    Originally Posted by Andrew Sayers View Post (Source)
    Ok, this is a crazy proposal, but it just might be crazy enough to work:

    • Charge players 10 credits to file a griefing report
    • Give a bounty of up to 100 credits for successful reports
      • rejected reports filed in good faith generally get their 10 credits back
      • reports filed in bad faith generally get nothing back
    • Allow these bounties to be bought and sold like any other information packet
      • the owner of the bounty can't affect the report, only collect the money
    • Prioritise griefing reports sold at over 10 credits

    This would encourage players to report in good faith, while still giving pause to those that believe everyone that beats them is a griefer. And in a game with capitalism at its core, letting people float their bounties on the open market would give the griefee some fun and let them hedge their bets if they really don't like the risk.

    In your example what would constitute griefing ?

  11. #71
    Originally Posted by Andrew Sayers View Post (Source)
    Ok, this is a crazy proposal, but it just might be crazy enough to work:

    • Charge players 10 credits to file a griefing report
    • Give a bounty of up to 100 credits for successful reports
      • rejected reports filed in good faith generally get their 10 credits back
      • reports filed in bad faith generally get nothing back
    • Allow these bounties to be bought and sold like any other information packet
      • the owner of the bounty can't affect the report, only collect the money
    • Prioritise griefing reports sold at over 10 credits

    This would encourage players to report in good faith, while still giving pause to those that believe everyone that beats them is a griefer. And in a game with capitalism at its core, letting people float their bounties on the open market would give the griefee some fun and let them hedge their bets if they really don't like the risk.
    10 credits is not enough to stop nuisance reporting. Make it 200 credits which is refunded on successful completion of the bounty contract.

    The other parts of it look like it needs some kind of human moderation and is probably too complicated and time consuming to implement IMO.

    Someone needs to make a decision whether or not the bounty contract is fair and then how to you determine the good faith/bad faith part?

  12. #72
    Originally Posted by JohnStabler View Post (Source)
    However, I think we've gone OT. My question is about unethical meta play and what (if anything) FD should do about it. Much of the problem behaviour that occurs in multiplayer games occurs simply because of human to human interaction and has very little to do with the actual game mechanics.
    Exactly! So, will it be Frontier's role to supervise and manage any unethical behaviour by players within the game? It seems from this thread that there are some who hope it will be, and others (like me) who believe it's up to the players to manage themselves in that respect. Only players who are exploiting loopholes or find bugs which benefit them in ways the game wasn't fundamentally designed to function should be dealt with by Frontier.

    Originally Posted by Andrew Sayers View Post (Source)
    I think we can agree setting that things up right at the macro level doesn't provide strong guarantees at the micro level. Even if retribution is extremely swift, it doesn't stop misbehaviour in the short term.
    You make it sound like Elite: Dangerous players will all be like naughty children who need watching constantly because they cannot be trusted to 'be nice' to each other! You speak of retribution. Retribution for what exactly? What guarantees are you hoping for? Misbehaving is subjective and one mans misdemeanours are another mans fun. I don't want to be flying my ship while handcuffed to my console just because some carebears are afraid I'm going to blow them all to hell while they're AFK (or semi-AFK) mining! Just imagine if you target-locked another player and receive a message saying, "Sorry. You cannot attack this player because they are in the carebear group who have reservations about being randomly attacked by people like YOU! You have now been reported to Frontier for your actions." You look at the title of the game - Elite: Dangerous - and think, "Hmm... should have been called Elite: Unhazardous!"

    Originally Posted by jabokai View Post (Source)
    Ganking should be taken care of with in-game mechanisms, if they can pull it off properly.
    Agreed. Along with all other things in the game, they should be handled by the games design mechanics.

    Originally Posted by JohnStabler View Post (Source)
    Frontier have an obligation to deliver on this, not on all expectations (how could they?)
    I totally agree. Frontier are not trying to create a better game environment to teach people how to play nice with each other. Some people believe it's Frontier's role to give them exactly what they want in this game, regardless of anybody else.

    Originally Posted by Andrew Sayers View Post (Source)
    Ok, this is a crazy proposal, but it just might be crazy enough to work:

    • Charge players 10 credits to file a griefing report
    • Give a bounty of up to 100 credits for successful reports
      • rejected reports filed in good faith generally get their 10 credits back
      • reports filed in bad faith generally get nothing back
    • Allow these bounties to be bought and sold like any other information packet
      • the owner of the bounty can't affect the report, only collect the money
    • Prioritise griefing reports sold at over 10 credits
    This would encourage players to report in good faith, while still giving pause to those that believe everyone that beats them is a griefer. And in a game with capitalism at its core, letting people float their bounties on the open market would give the griefee some fun and let them hedge their bets if they really don't like the risk.

    Sorry, but this seems like you are making a proposal which suits your wants and needs more than being conducive towards all players in general. Rewards for successfully reporting players and if the reports are complete BS they get their credits back??? I know there are a lot of carebears about but this is simply ridiculous.

    Better to ask Frontier to give the option to carebear commanders to paint their ships bright pink (with optional flower patterns) to make all other players aware they do not wish to play the game as it was intended to be played.

    ELITE: DANGEROUS - you're trying to turn it into ELITE: HARMLESS.

  13. #73
    Originally Posted by Nagual View Post (Source)
    In your example what would constitute griefing ?
    A problem in itself.

    A self report system may even create a whole new form of griefing!
    Lave Radio Podcast // Swift Dispatch - Stories & eyewitness accounts

  14. #74
    I hope they make it like it says in the title "Dangerous"... and to hell with carebears.. i've been killed plenty in EvE and every other space game and i had to live with it without reporting and whining, because its part of the game.
    If FD had intended to satisfy the carebears, then they might as well not have had PvP at all.


    Matt Dickinson
    '...your ship will look after you, treat her well!'

  15. #75
    Originally Posted by JohnStabler View Post (Source)
    A problem in itself.

    A self report system may even create a whole new form of griefing!
    may create = most certainly will create

    Originally Posted by Maxeren View Post (Source)
    i've been killed plenty in EvE and every other space game and i had to live with it without reporting and whining, because its part of the game.

    If FD had intended to satisfy the carebears, then they might as well not have had PvP at all.
    Being an ex-Eve player myself, I think I can well appreciate what you're saying. It's a big bad universe out there... so KOS the carebears!

Page 5 of 26 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast