open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Organizational tools, standings and other changes
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9

Author Topic

Batolemaeus
Caldari
Free-Space-Ranger
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2010.02.26 12:02:00 - [121]
 

Edited by: Batolemaeus on 26/02/2010 12:03:07
Edited by: Batolemaeus on 26/02/2010 12:02:25
Originally by: Carniflex

To avoid spiders that climb thru your social network collecting corporation membership information please make corporation assosiation hidden by default. If people want to show it they are free to put a tick in the box to make it public


Seconded.
A good social network allows users good control over how much information they want to display. I'd like to see options to turn off alliance/corp display, online state and set who can send me mails and convos, and who can not.
It would solve your problem. If someone is not logged in, he can't see any corp/alliance info. If he's logged in, he can see whatever the user in question had set for his public profile.

Ris Dnalor
Minmatar
Fleet of Doom
Posted - 2010.02.26 12:14:00 - [122]
 

meh. just meh.

Sgt Blade
Caldari
Save Yourself Inc.
Posted - 2010.02.26 12:31:00 - [123]
 

Will we be able to use/look at the calendar out of game and if so, may there be a possibility to use it via corp websites/forums.

Thebriwan
LUX Uls Xystus
Posted - 2010.02.26 12:36:00 - [124]
 

Hello!

I just want to add my 5 cents (Euro of course ^^).

I like the calendar very much. Now I can enter my buy-next-plex-date in game! ugh

The overhaul of the standing system sounds good to me. But we need more differentiation. I agree that the actual 200 are overkill. But 5?
I think more in the direction of 9 or 11.

And last but not least the corp member list.
I'd like to have a setting where I can say: show it to the world - or not.
If that's not possible I don't want this list seen by anybody outside of my corp.

There is a great deal of afford in getting information about a corp (attacking or being attacked YARRRR!!) and this list would make a big part of it far to easy.

Best regards
Thebriwan

Daemonspirit
Six Degrees of Separation
Posted - 2010.02.26 12:41:00 - [125]
 

HEHEHEHEHEHE....

Make all the corporation member rosters publicly viewable, I've always thought it weird there wasn't a place to find out corp rosters.


The Cosmopolite
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2010.02.26 13:08:00 - [126]
 

Edited by: The Cosmopolite on 26/02/2010 13:42:32

Under the heading of Feedback on Proposed Standings Changes here are a couple of comments:

First, and most simply, the proposal to remove the ability to set standings to NPC entities on the grounds this is 'non-functional'. Well, no, that's simply not true. In the first instance there are many cases where you would want to do this as a corporation or alliance (or individual):

1) Simple roleplay reasons. I realise it may be regarded as a minority sport but it is important to many.
2) An entity that takes a position of setting school corps and NPC corps used as default membership corps (eg. Amarr players in Viziam) either positive or negative for whatever reason.
3) An entity that wishes to set a factional warfare militia default corp (eg. 24th Imperial Crusade) either positive or negative (those corps are NPC corps in functional terms).

Indeed, the current situation, due to the oddities of the alliance standing system that Greyscale refers to is that alliances cannot set NPC entities to any standing, including factional warfare default corporations. So everyone has to do it using the corp to corp interface.

The better reform would be to keep the ability to set NPC corps to whatever someone wishes and extend this to alliances.

In essence, if the reason for the removal of this ability is that it is 'non-functional' and no-one actually benefits from it then that reason is not well-founded and the suggested change should be dropped.


Second, and a bit more complicated is the proposal that alliance standings override corp standings, and corp standings override personal standings rather than, as at present, high over-riding low or low over-riding high depending on how overviews are set up.

This is complicated because two aspects of standings are being folded into one in the proposal. Let me explain - the blog says that standings will have priority in the following way: alliance-alliance, alliance-corp, alliance-personal, corp-alliance and so on.

The two aspects determined by the above schema are: (1) priority of the setting entity (alliance-...) and (2) priority of the entity that has been set (...-alliance).

The problem is with (2). The proposed system destroys granularity. It means that an alliance can't set a corp in another alliance to blue if it has the other corp's alliance red. (People may ask why this would happen: believe me, it happens a lot due to historical reasons but more regularly due to business arrangements behind the scenes - money talks)

The following schema restores some flexibility: alliance-personal, alliance-corp, alliance-alliance, corp-personal, corp-corp, corp-alliance.

What you note is that the priority of the setting entity remains unchanged. If an alliance sets a standing against a corp it overrides the standing that a corp in that alliance has set to a corp. But if an alliance chooses to set a different standing to a corp in another alliance it has set at some different standing (corp blue in alliance that is red), for whatever reason, then that standing will take priority.

Personally, I think the current system of high over-riding low or vice versa according to overview has a lot going for it. But I think my schema above fits with the reform agenda while retaining useful flexibility that I can assure people will be used in a practical way quite often.

It also, to my mind, makes far more sense. It allows exceptional settings. The proposed schema really does not. It forces standings to be changed wholesale.

Third, one or two small matters: the granularity reduction seems odd and many people use different levels extensively. Why reduce in-game standing choices to simplify EVE Gate? Seems the wrong way round.

Just to clarify, and I think this is what is meant, a starbase will still obey corp standings? You just propose it will obey alliance too and with priority? Yes?

The Cosmopolite

Dierdra Vaal
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2010.02.26 13:13:00 - [127]
 

Originally by: Phantom Slave
While CCP *not* displaying the information is what most of you are looking for, it really won't take long before somebody creates a program to dive through every known player's "Show Info" and grab their current corp status and create a database of everybody in a corp.


Only if they make all pilots info public through Spacebook. Which would be a massive mistake to begin with.

foxische
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2010.02.26 13:31:00 - [128]
 

at least 10-20 options for standings and same amount for color tags would be great

The Cosmopolite
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2010.02.26 13:40:00 - [129]
 

Edited by: The Cosmopolite on 26/02/2010 14:00:56

Postscript/Addendum

Referring to my remarks on standings priority schema, I should add that still my proposed inversion of the priority of the entity that the standing is being set against results in a loss of flexibility in the particular case of corp to corp relations. In the case where two corps in mutually red alliances still wish to be mutually blue (probably fairly rare but conceivable, I've heard of it happening and a standings system should allow it in my view) they cannot achieve this on any schema where the priority of the entity that sets the standing is set in stone as alliance over corp over personal.

This is why the current system, which essentially allows the setting entities to select from the two distinct standings philosophies of prioritising positive relations or prioritising negative relations has much going for it in terms of flexibility.

The only inconvenient thing about the current system is that it relies on discipline on overview settings throughout an organisation. But that is a very minor thing compared with the benefit of being able to choose a standings philosophy.

This is a deeper point. Not only does the proposed change eliminate the choice of what standings philosophy an organization uses (negative more important than positive [or vice versa]), it also implicitly imposes a particular organizational philosophy: alliance trumps corporation trumps individual.

Now, it so happens that my own organization adopts that philosophy more or less when it comes to standings. But I think it is a loss to eliminate the possibility of alliances adopting a different philosophy.

Oh and a very pertinent and practical supplementary question: neutral standing - will this over-ride other standings (positive or negative) as with all others in a reliable way in the modified system?

Cosmo


Britomartida
Pumpkin Scissors
DarkSide.
Posted - 2010.02.26 13:53:00 - [130]
 

Color-based standings is GOOD, but 2 settings for positive and 2 for negative standings is NOT enough. At least 3, 4 is prefer.

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2010.02.26 14:16:00 - [131]
 

Standings granularity/5 levels

We're reading your feedback on this and thinking about it. To be clear, we are not saying at this point that we are planning on changing this, but we're also not saying that we're not going to change. What will likely happen is that in a week or two we'll sit down in a room, go over all the arguments and use cases presented, and figure out what we want to do. To this end, the best way to make your case here is probably in the form of specific use cases.

Standings towards NPCs

As with the above, we're thinking about this some more - and again, use cases showing the value that being able to do this brings to you are very useful to us.

Originally by: Aidan Patrick
Label systems are very powerful


We agree (see the mail system), and we considered doing one for contacts, but it ended up being out of scope for this release (layman's translation: too large a job and/or too much of a risk to schedule into this release without losing confidence in our overall ability to deliver on the team's goals).

Originally by: Don Pellegrino
so alliances will have to set all the alts of the pilots to blue so that they don't get shot at by a corp POS?


Non-standings (ie, NULL rather than neutral) do not count. If your alliance does not have your alt in their contacts at all, but your corp does, then the corp standing will be used.

Originally by: Dragon Greg
Calendar view capability should be tied to a role/role by title, it should not be a blanket free for all.


If I understand correctly, you're asking for role limitations on corp/alliance calendars? If so then yes, this will be in. Our current plan is that corp events require the Communications Officer role, and alliance events require the same role but in the executor corp (directors/CEOs have all roles, obviously).

Originally by: Ehrine Ashbark
I've got a potentially major issue with the proposed change to how in-space tags are selected. The way I read this, if our alliance has another alliance set Red, but a corp in that alliance set blue, the displayed tag for that corp will be red with no way to specify otherwise. We already use a carefully selected order on our overview settings to make sure that corps set blue get that tag even if their alliance is red (mutually agreed standings with them - if our alliances end up in a fight, we won't shoot each other). With this change, they'll just show as red which is very undesirable.


The design intent on this (it hasn't been implemented yet, so this is not set in stone) is that your standings ordering will go like this:

Alliance->Person, Alliance->Corp, Alliance->Alliance, Corp->Person, Corp->Corp, Corp->Alliance, Person->Person, Person->Corp, Person->Alliance

So while the larger organization's FROM standing takes precedence, the smaller organization's TO standing takes precedence. In your specific example, this means that if Alliance A sets Alliance B hostile, but sets Corp C in Alliance B friendly, then Corp C will show up friendly. If they set Person D in Corp C hostile, that person will show up hostile, the rest of corp will show up friendly and the rest of their alliance will show up hostile.

Originally by: Isaac Starstriker
allowing players to set standings to alliances for themselves


Yes. One of the side effects of bringing alliances into the same system as everything else is that Alliance<->Personal standings should now be supported.

Loardriver
Posted - 2010.02.26 14:16:00 - [132]
 

Edited by: Loardriver on 26/02/2010 14:39:42
Edited by: Loardriver on 26/02/2010 14:38:58
Sorry for bad english, next text - mashine trasnlite:

Well let standings -9,5, 1,8, or underutilized, and -10 / -5 / 0 / -5 / 10 and little rude, IMHO, a step needed to 2,5, ie -10 / -7.5 / -5 / -2.5 / 0, etc.
How many of us there Standings? 3? Ally / corp / personal, ... Well, for example, "plus" and the color of one standings over, if the red and so clear that the "minus", then you want to change the color and symbol system.

Let's face it: personal standings exact number is not valid, or you treat a man good, or bad, or indifferent to you it meansб so "+" / "-" / "=" should be responsible only for personal standings.

The rest remains on the color separation: You need to decide what is more important - ally stadning or corporate (here is the color palette with step stedninga in 2,5 units). Fill the entire box inside the frame in the color that priority (ally / corp)- here have dealt with the players, (I carebear, I am interested only personal standing.)The square inside the frame painted, and then insert a square in 1 / 4, in the lower right corner it will mean fewer standings (say a large square is the ally, and the small is a corporation).

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/4739/contacts2.jpg

Explanation:
line of 8 squares - color standings with a step 2,5

High standing 5 icons description to the pictures from left to right (priority standings ally, secondary Corp.):
1 - bad man in the normal corp hostile ally.
2 - friend in a bad copr who a friend of the enemies ally.
3 - your personal enemy in friendly corp of a neutral ally.
4 - 4 a good friend in ****ty copr of a friendly ally. (well, flew once together, and now he is in the building in which the rat is all that bad, or CEO, you personally do not like)
5 - (better let there be a minus instead of the same) - the rat bastard in a good corp of a friendly ally.

optional for the players in npc corp: in the upper right corner of the square, you can add the current SS, enabled / disabled individually.
I think this system will be clearer and easier for visual perception and awareness of those who fast in front of you.

Matalino
Posted - 2010.02.26 14:31:00 - [133]
 

Originally by: CCP Karuck
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
On the issue of corp membership lists:

The bit where it becomes more complicated is that your public EVE Gate profile will (according to the current plan) contain the information available in your show info window. This includes your corporation membership. This is all currently available ingame, so we're not releasing any new information... However, obviously it's substantially easier to collect this data from the web than it is to collect it ingame currently.



Exactly, and since we have some pretty smart customers it's only a question of time when someone creates a spider that crawls a big portion of the EVE Gate website to automatically gather this information. That is a scenario we want to prevent.
Also don't forget that even though this information has been hard to get to, EVE Gate will change the landscape of player to player interactions and bring the social networking aspect to it. We want people to network and make new friends, and the more data we hide the harder that gets.
It's all a question of finding the right balance, and that's one of the reasons for this devblog.

This change is HUGE! Currently it takes a great deal of effort to gather intellegence regarding corp membership. This makes that information trivial. This will have alot of fallout effects, and it is hard to predict exactly what they would be. Information on many of the attacking corps is already available on kill boards. It is the "carebear" corps that will be most affected by this change, as their information is currently much more private.

As for spiders collecting information from the EVE Gate site: do you plan to allow privacy settings, or are all characters fully visable on the site. If you are not going to allow privacy settings, then you might as well make all of that information available through the API and save the server some load.

Mikal Drey
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2010.02.26 14:31:00 - [134]
 

hey hey

5 standing levels seem to be just right (imho) although i would say that all hostiles are generally treated equally orange/red = kill PERSONALLY id consider 3 levels (hate/meh/love) but 5 is pretty much spot on.

what i would like to see (not sure this has been mentioned yet) is for various levels of security being added based on standings. eg. a pos forcefield access being allowed for "Blues" eg2 Docking Rights granted for "Dark Blue" only maybe even going so far as CHA's being open mods instead of pos linked structures and the "holding corp" giving standing access.

SeerinDarkness
Minmatar
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2010.02.26 14:32:00 - [135]
 

Furthermore for Myself and every other Alliance Executor and Ceo...
This is NOT going to require a reset of everyone's exsisting standings is it?
SeerinDarkness

R Mika
Posted - 2010.02.26 14:33:00 - [136]
 


Regarding Standings:

Good stuff:
Alliance standings re-write (Needed!)
Standings precedence (Great!)

Needs to be considered (I know you already got an earful here):

Granularity of standings needs to be available for outposts and POSes. As far as I can see, you need a system with varying numbers for standings (like exists now), or a set of configurable rules involving AND, OR, and NOT coupled with ALLOWED and DISALLOWED at the outposts and POSes, themselves. Perhaps there are other methods, but these two seem most obvious.

Questions:

Does this purposed new system remove the hard limits on settable standings for alliances?

Suggestions:

The ability to reset personal, corp, and alliance standings by selecting groups from a list, right clicking, and choosing "reset" would be phenomenal.

Much like other social networking tools, how much any person, corp, or alliance shares about itself should be configurable. This is basic.


CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2010.02.26 14:37:00 - [137]
 

Originally by: Jowen Datloran
Why does there seems to be elements in this blog that goes directly against the idea of creating a sandbox game? A sandbox game thrives on complexity and details in its features, and improving functionality of these features should not mean a reduction of the complexity.


I'd argue that the degree of emergence a given ruleset allows for is determined by the breadth of its functionality, not the complexity of its mechanics. If one were setting out to make specific counterexamples to "more complex = better", it's trivially easy to add complexity in a way which simply confuses the user without enabling any additional choices. Adding functionality creates more choices, requiring players to build more complex mental models and exercise a greater degree of planning; adding complexity merely forces a player to learn how to manipulate the specific implementation, and in doing so places knowledge barriers in front of meaningful choices.

What we're trying to achieve here is to reduce complexity considerably, while reducing functionality as little as possible. Generally speaking, broad functionality requires a degree of complexity to implement, but for me at least the goal is always to achieve maximal functionality with minimal complexity, as this combination ensures that the feature is both accessible and engaging. Go is a shining example of this.

Originally by: Kata Amentis
If you ever have a feature where you've got to decide which way around to do things, both ways are technically possible and you can see cases for each, give us an interface and let the player choose.


There are two arguments against this:

1) Adding the option almost always requires more programming work. As our software engineers like to tell us, anything is possible, but everything costs something. Given finite programming resources, we have to prioritize in terms of what will give us the most value for a day's work; frequently, giving the user more customization options means giving up something else.

2) Giving the user more options is a tradeoff between complexity and functionality (see above).

As a result, it's often the case that adding options will both reduce the accessibility of a feature, and require us to drop something else we wanted to do. There has to be therefore a compelling reason to add that option, and in our previous discussions on this issue we haven't found a strong enough reason to commit to doing so. This does frequently mean saying "yes, there are edge cases where doing it the other way would be better, but we can't accommodate them". In a perfect world we would be able to always expose these options in a way that doesn't reduce accessibility at all, but in a perfect world we'd have an infinite number of developer-hours (design, programming, QA and art) to implement such things.

Originally by: Estel Arador

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
The long and short of it is that this system is intended to fill the role of a "friends" system for EVE Gate, and as such we want to have simple and intuitive, both mechanically and in terms of UI.

Have you considered using a seperate system for EVE Gate? You wouldn't have to mess with the current standings mechanics and can design an independent system which is perfect for a social network.


Yes, we did have a good think about this. Our conclusion was that having two entirely separate systems that fulfilled basically the same function but worked in completely different ways through different interfaces was less desirable than having a unified system which had to make a few compromises. The current approach means that 1) relationships ingame and on EVE Gate are seamlessly synchronized, 2) EVE Gate is to some degree pre-populated with relationships, and 3) a single system covering both leads to a much more complete and useful dataset, that we can then build future gameplay features on top of.

Batolemaeus
Caldari
Free-Space-Ranger
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2010.02.26 14:48:00 - [138]
 

Quote:
Firstly, the way standings are calculated for color tags in the overview and so on. Currently the code goes down the list of tags, checks if a pilot (or whatever) meets the criteria for each in turn, and as soon as it finds a match it uses that tag. When it comes to standings, it checks to see if any standings (personal, corp or alliance) that apply meet the criteria. This means that, in the default setup with the blues first, it's essentially "highest standing counts". (If you flip the tag ordering, you can force it to do "lowest standing counts" instead, I believe.)


Wait a second.

How much time is spent determining the bracket/overview color vs. actually rendering the damn thing?
Or, to rephrase it: Is the standing system part of the huge performance hog that is the overview/bracket rendering process, and would it be possible to get some fps by (optionally?) simplifying it?

Tekumze Wolf
Minmatar
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2010.02.26 14:49:00 - [139]
 

1) Political standings != social standings
2) Granularity is good. Just hide it under advanced options while standard dialog would present you with 5 presents which under advanced settings can be cuztomizable for ease of use.

The system underneath should allow complexity while the interface should hide most of it (unless you specifically want it)

The Cosmopolite
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2010.02.26 15:14:00 - [140]
 

On the point of your FROM-TO priority for standings: I think you need to amend your devblog to clarify this as it actually explicitly indicates something quite different. I welcome the fact that your actual working priority schema allows exceptional settings (to some extent).

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

Yes, we did have a good think about this. Our conclusion was that having two entirely separate systems that fulfilled basically the same function but worked in completely different ways through different interfaces was less desirable than having a unified system which had to make a few compromises. The current approach means that 1) relationships ingame and on EVE Gate are seamlessly synchronized, 2) EVE Gate is to some degree pre-populated with relationships, and 3) a single system covering both leads to a much more complete and useful dataset, that we can then build future gameplay features on top of.


I suspect, with all the respect in the world, that if you stick to this decision you may well come to rue it later on and in fact especially with regard to future gameplay features.

My feeling is that building social network reputation tracking (which is what we are talking about as I see it) on top of the existing superstructure of the in-game political/diplomatic standings system is going to produce needless complexity and confusion out of needless superficial simplicity.

I don't think that having two tracks of reputation and standing is at all inherently complicated or problematic. You could still streamline and improve the diplomatic standings system and have a personal reputation/relations system in parallel. I would still put both in-game. I think your options for cleaner and less confusing future development (for instance, with regard to Incarna and DUST 514) would be much better. I think your options for reform of the current standings system would also be much better. There would even be options for useful linkages between the two tracks in areas of gameplay where it makes sense (agents, Incarna possibly, maybe DUST, markets (white, grey and black), contract developments, I don't know - you would see further and more than I obviously).

In a way, and I mean this constructively, this resembles the same basic error that was made with Sov v1 and POS. It's taking a system designed for one thing and trying to make it work as something that is actually quite different.

Problems are emergent phenomena as well and we players are all only really seeing the obvious problems.

I'm not anti-change re the standings system. I favour reform and believe me, I have long known that alliances 'don't really exist' - the alliance mechanic is, I am sure I insult no-one gratuitously here, a bodge job. Reform of it is long, long overdue. (And I do hope the grotesque disbandment by one player nonsense is also up for meaningful reform.)

I guess I'm whistling in the wind here. But I urge second thoughts on unifying diplomatic standings and personal reputation/relations networks. I think the difficulty is that if they are the same thing you need some complex options to get the requisite full functionality. Whereas two tracks can have simpler options and provide complex emergent functionality, especially if there is some interplay in some game areas (agent-based PvE or contracts for eg). I think the truth about standings is that they have long needed unpicking as a total system in EVE and there's an opportunity here for you to either do it or prepare the way for doing it later.

Adding in something else that you might actually want to unpick from the current standings system along with other things currently in it seems to tie your hands in future to some extent.

Cosmo

Dragon Greg
Posted - 2010.02.26 15:45:00 - [141]
 

Edited by: Dragon Greg on 26/02/2010 15:53:43
Edited by: Dragon Greg on 26/02/2010 15:49:18
Originally by: CCP Greyscale


Originally by: Dragon Greg
Calendar view capability should be tied to a role/role by title, it should not be a blanket free for all.


If I understand correctly, you're asking for role limitations on corp/alliance calendars? If so then yes, this will be in. Our current plan is that corp events require the Communications Officer role, and alliance events require the same role but in the executor corp (directors/CEOs have all roles, obviously).


Hmmm .. this will take two replies in topic.

1. In principle, yes. Role limitations on corp/alliance calendars, however not just for creating events. But equally important for viewing events as well. One does not go without the other.

Fiddling our way into obtaining such information (kinda important) is something which should require us to actually do some work as a spy or agent. Aside of that, there is zero point at all for (example) backbone operators to coordinate their events in the public eye, a calendar feature set works wonders for logistics in eve, but not if it is just out in the open.

At the same time, aside of role limitations for adding/editing as well as viewing calendar events, I do hope there will be options to mark events to specific filters. For example alliance / corporation directors only / corporation members with role by title X / andsoforth.

2. That being said, from your reply I understand that creating alliance event entries in the calendar is tied to characters with roles in the executor corp. That's just wierd and counterproductive for in game and organisational best practices.
People making events will be folks who push events, the FC's and entertainers, the guys running the backbones, etcetera.
Not some alt in an executor corp nobody uses like a real corporation for reasons of security.
If I understand your statement correctly, each person you would want to push events on an alliance level will either require an administrator who is around 23/7 to mark events or an executor corp which lets in anyone's alt simply for working a calendar. I see the theory, but in game the practice of these things is very, very different.

Why not provide an executor configurable option for this, to (pretty much) not use it for reasons of best practices, or to alternate to a simple system like channel operator status so he or she adds (and if necessary removes) pilot names to a list for those able / allowed to make events for an alliance.

I do hope this is taken into account. I realise and appreciate the focus on keeping things as simple and straightforward as possible, but since this is EVE the need for more powerful tools for human and other resources (including information) management is absolutely vital if this is to be a grand feature set that is adopted in widespread and actual use, as opposed to something which ends up as a Facebook which is nice for the individual but too simple / insecure / inflexible for organisations to adopt.

Antihrist Pripravnik
Scorpion Road Industry
Posted - 2010.02.26 15:46:00 - [142]
 

Originally by: Captian Conrad
Originally by: Hans Soloist
In response to "The question then is whether the corp member list should be globally viewable, or just viewable to corporate members." This is a no brainer, I think this should be corp only, this would provide way to much intel to enemies without having them work for it.


I think it would be best to allow the corp to decide mabye?


This. It would be far too dangerous to list all members of newb-made corporations and would efficiently destroy any chance of forming a corporation that consists mainly of players new to the game.

Dragon Greg
Posted - 2010.02.26 15:51:00 - [143]
 

Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik
Originally by: Captian Conrad
Originally by: Hans Soloist
In response to "The question then is whether the corp member list should be globally viewable, or just viewable to corporate members." This is a no brainer, I think this should be corp only, this would provide way to much intel to enemies without having them work for it.


I think it would be best to allow the corp to decide mabye?


This. It would be far too dangerous to list all members of newb-made corporations and would efficiently destroy any chance of forming a corporation that consists mainly of players new to the game.


Let's keep it simple and sound. A privacy profile should be set to disallowed/hidden by default for patchday. Players can choose to open up to these things. In player corporations this is even more important, no CEO or Director should be able to switch people's profiles to public for them.

Dragon Greg
Posted - 2010.02.26 16:00:00 - [144]
 

@ Greyscale

Something which I am wondering about, what are the current thoughts or options on the table for external integrations of the actual data. Hooking up the Calendar with a third party forum or Calendar function would rock, but is this something which would be available through the API or is there something else in the works?

Irongut
Sex Money Guns
Posted - 2010.02.26 16:26:00 - [145]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
On the issue of corp membership lists:

The bit where it becomes more complicated is that your public EVE Gate profile will (according to the current plan) contain the information available in your show info window. This includes your corporation membership. This is all currently available ingame, so we're not releasing any new information... However, obviously it's substantially easier to collect this data from the web than it is to collect it ingame currently.



Except corp member lists are NOT available in game unless you're a member of the corp yourself. To find a member list for another corp is a long process of scouring killboards and putting names found there into the P&P search in game to find out if they are still members.

While we're on the subject of this social network nonsense, please make EVE Gate an opt in system. I do not use Farcebook or ****ter irl so why would I want to use the equivalent in EVE?

Kata Amentis
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
Posted - 2010.02.26 16:27:00 - [146]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

There are two arguments against this:

---snip---




Indeed, as i said. It's an idea to keep in mind, having more player choice is going to make coders cry. Coders want simpler implementations (from coding viewpoint), designers want better implementations (from player usage viewpoint). (tbh i've done both in RL, and argued both ways to suit me)

In this particular case the main discussion seems to be about:

Showing information:

Forced show all -> implement new code
Force show none -> dont implement much
Add check for player choice -> implement same new code + add check boxes + look at check before showing/not showing.

The whole public/private check box interface is already there for certs. Reuse that, adapt to new function... If the EveGate wants to show this kind of information, it'll have to check too. I really hope EveGate does allow some form of player control on what it shows, that is a really nasty can of worms to mishandle.


Standings:

Alliance standings first
Corp standings first
Personal standings first

Isn't this just a question of which way around the loop is run? Isn't that kind of dynamic code already in for which colour an icon is supposed to be when a player orders that on the overview settings? So reuse and adapt...


Obviously, I can't see the code, but it's the coders job to scale back designs to be realistic, not the designers. As players we want as much choice and control over what affects us as possible, so we're always going to be pushing for that.


Perhaps I've misunderstood how far along this design is... If it's quite far along, the priorities should be: give us a choice, if can't give choice give us safest as far as in game corp/personal security, if can't give us safest give us best for server (and slate for iteration to make safest/give choice).


/me goes off to have cake and eat it...

Arkady Sadik
Minmatar
Electus Matari
Posted - 2010.02.26 16:48:00 - [147]
 

1) Politics isn't about friendship

You'll have to ask yourself: What does "friend" in EVE Gate mean, exactly? Because I have the impression that, while standings in the game look a lot like "social networks", they aren't.

Positive standings generally mean for most pilots in organized corps/alliances "don't shoot". Does that mean the same as "friend"? Certainly not. While the overlap is probably there, it's not the same. Your corp/alliance gives positive standings because of diplomatic agreements, political necessity, economic reasons (renters), etc., all of which are not "friends". Of course, friends sometimes also get positive standings.

Negative standings generally means "shoot them". Is this the same as "enemy" or "not-friend"? Probably to a larger extent than positive standings, but there are quite a few exceptions. We've had very good relations with a corp we had a mutual war with for years. Are we now enemies or friends?

And finally, most of my friends will be in my corporation or alliance - am I supposed to set them all to positive personal standings?

I'm afraid that equating in-game standings and social network "friendship" just doesn't make muchsense. This will be better with this setup as I can set personal blue standings which get overriden by the alliance standings, but even then - just because I like someone does not mean I won't shoot them. It's like saying that, in a chess club, I may not play against someone because he's a friend of mine.

What I think you should do is to add "personal friendship" in addition to the in-game standings. It's something separate, so treat it as such. Because the social network graphs of in-game standings are extremely interesting.

2) Privacy

I know that Web 2.0 introduced the idea that privacy is bad and all that, but could we please not follow that hype? I do not want my corporation shown on a web site.

And I do not want someone to trivially figure out who all is in my corporation. As explained, that takes away some game play aspects. Please don't.

Ehranavaar
Gallente
Posted - 2010.02.26 16:49:00 - [148]
 

one thing that could be done in this is to increase the number of people you can give bad standings to (personal) from 500 to some more reasonable number like 400k or so which would allow for a lot of expansion of the player base.

given the number of villains circulating in eve 500 is just way too few.

Ehrine Ashbark
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2010.02.26 16:53:00 - [149]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

Originally by: Dragon Greg
Calendar view capability should be tied to a role/role by title, it should not be a blanket free for all.


If I understand correctly, you're asking for role limitations on corp/alliance calendars? If so then yes, this will be in. Our current plan is that corp events require the Communications Officer role, and alliance events require the same role but in the executor corp (directors/CEOs have all roles, obviously).



Restricting this just to the executor corp is a mistake IMO that I'd hope you're going to avoid. I was very glad to see when "bulletins" were brought in recently that they weren't restricted to the executor corp, but could be set by anyone with the "communications officer" role or director. Is there any good reason why the calendar shouldn't be just as open?

Ephemeral Waves
Silver Snake Enterprise
Posted - 2010.02.26 17:02:00 - [150]
 

Your proposed 5 standings isn't enough. We need more granularity. Granted, having two decimal places is overkill but:

My corp likes Corp A and Corp B (+5).

Corp A is allowed into my pos - Corp B is not.

Currently, I'd set Corp A to 5 and Corp B at 4.9 and set permissions to 5. There is no way to do that with the standings that you are proposing.

Further - as mentioned on another forum - if I wanted to tell my pos to ignore nub-corp alts, I would set State War Academy to +0.1. But you are proposing that we will no longer we allowed to set standings to NPC corps so I could no longer do that.

You need to rethink you ideas here.




Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only