| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Ryder Azorria
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
363
   |
Posted - 2013.05.20 11:14:00 -
[61] - Quote
CCP Praetorian wrote:Hey guys.
Cool thread, full of good ideas!
We agree that it would be better to be able to restrict access to PC battles, and are currently discussing how we would implement that.
What we are discussing is doing this in phases, i.e. start with giving CEO's and directors the ability to kick from matches, set roles on members that you want participating in PC matches, to forming up into larger teams prior to the PC match taking place. We will add this to the roadmap and share more details in few weeks time for feedback and discussion.
A few weeks? Really? This is something you really need to fix a lot quicker than that. |
steadyhand amarr
BetaMax Beta
CRONOS.
560
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 11:30:00 -
[62] - Quote
Please learn how software development works I'm sure they want to it faster but must always avoid knee jerk reactions and instead plan it out and implement it correctly so it does not break more things |
Jason Pearson
Seraphim Initiative.
CRONOS.
1231
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 11:35:00 -
[63] - Quote
PC, the ability to capture and hold territory in your Corporations name.
Owning territory is not a right, it should not be easy and there should be so many pitfalls. But the rewards for owning territory should make up for it. I said it before PC when everyone was crying about how it would only contain "good" Corporations. Damn right it'll only contain good Corporations, PC is not for "every" player, like it or not.
You shouldn't be expecting New Players to be getting involved in PC, they should be focusing on FW or other game options when they are released. When rewards for FW come out and people take it more seriously, that'll be their place for a while. Eventually, when we expand into other regions, there will be a chance for smaller corps to get into PC, but as it is right now, there isn't a place for them.
Also, Holding Corps are the simplest form of security and maintaining your corporation. You don't treat the people in the other corp any differently from your own, there is no looking down on them. You put them there on a trial basis, a long enough time that if people do get into your corporation and are spies, they've put in the effort and rewarded for it.
It seems to me that you guys either lack the will to do such methods, or doubt the intelligence of new players coming into the game. When I first joined DUST (having never played EVE, still haven't.), I wanted to create a corp. I created a corp and got a few members, I already wrote down how I was to manage the Corporation, with the one being a main one and the other being a trial corporation for new blood to be tested. Now if you guys can't managed that, or plan for it, and I was planning this with a 16man corp, you're doing something wrong.
|
Deluxe Edition
TeamPlayers
EoN.
289
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 14:39:00 -
[64] - Quote
CCP Praetorian wrote:Hey guys.
Cool thread, full of good ideas!
We agree that it would be better to be able to restrict access to PC battles, and are currently discussing how we would implement that.
What we are discussing is doing this in phases, i.e. start with giving CEO's and directors the ability to kick from matches, set roles on members that you want participating in PC matches, to forming up into larger teams prior to the PC match taking place. We will add this to the roadmap and share more details in few weeks time for feedback and discussion.
Lol @ a few weeks. I guess adding a kick function and assigning roles is a month long job. |
Vector Art
Sebiestor Field Sappers
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 15:12:00 -
[65] - Quote
Deluxe Edition wrote:CCP Praetorian wrote:Hey guys.
Cool thread, full of good ideas!
We agree that it would be better to be able to restrict access to PC battles, and are currently discussing how we would implement that.
What we are discussing is doing this in phases, i.e. start with giving CEO's and directors the ability to kick from matches, set roles on members that you want participating in PC matches, to forming up into larger teams prior to the PC match taking place. We will add this to the roadmap and share more details in few weeks time for feedback and discussion.
Lol @ a few weeks. I guess adding a kick function and assigning roles is a month long job.
lol it's a little more complicated than that 
Theres this wonderful post by a dev over on the EVE forums somewhere outling the path to adding new content and it takes time.
Would you rather have a "patch" now that is so buggy it makes things worse or wait a few weeks to get a patch that actually works? |
Gunface McShooter
Mikramurka Shock Troop
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 15:16:00 -
[66] - Quote
No kick function CCP, it's a lazy stopgap measure that takes the fun out of being a spy. Add a roles system like, eve, sure. Makes Spy vs. Spy stuff more fun. No vote to kick either, that's not the sort of thing that belongs in a corporation kind of thing anyway. Don't hold people's hands, give them the tools to do things properly, and if they're incapable of doing things properly, then they'll pay the price. It's nice to see that atleast IWS has the right attitude, and hopefully smarter, cooler (and probably more attractive) heads will prevail. (And spying will exist in a non-gimped form). |
EnglishSnake
Zumari Force Projection
Caldari State
1082
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 15:18:00 -
[67] - Quote
OP is spot on
For the time being PC will be dominated by those who cant fight |
Daedric Lothar
Onslaught Inc
RISE of LEGION
371
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 15:21:00 -
[68] - Quote
Lol, kick feature. I don't see what the problem is.
You have a contract, you have a guy show up at the appropriate time wearing the right credentials and he applies to fight. Of course he gets in, of course he gets in with the people he is with. He is coded to the cloning machine, of course he stays in the fight. If you want to add a kick feature, why not also add a rebind feature, where the Jenzar can then switch to a red and start killing you properly.
I mean hell. The intro video to the stupid game shows the EVE guy backstabbing the merc and dropping an orbital on him. Don't go all Carebear on us CCP.
|
BASSMEANT
ZionTCD
Unclaimed.
252
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 15:47:00 -
[69] - Quote
1. REALLY??? now you're gonna implement a V2K? oh wait, no... it's gonna be a CEO kick? c'mon man... just put the V2K in the game like folks are asking for. quit vaging around about it. i told you they would ask for it. they are. i told you they would ask for FF on, they are. c'mon man... quit being so obtuse
2. "lazy stopgap measure that takes the fun out of being a spy"
spy, loooooooooooooool. looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool
spy = lazy stopgap measure that makes it possible for sucky players to avoid having to fight a real fight face to face. because lord knows... you guys want ANYTHING but to have to fight a standard fight on a level field. yeah yeah... whatever. go spy, sissy.
Peace
B |
Daedric Lothar
Onslaught Inc
RISE of LEGION
375
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 16:43:00 -
[70] - Quote
Lets get some real spy action going on
Feedback/Request Thread |
|
|
DJINN Jecture
Purgatorium of the Damned
7
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 17:00:00 -
[71] - Quote
Create a Team Leader or General role. Like IRL he can remove a player from the Team and deny them access to the clone reserves at any time. In barge or on the field. Problem solved. No need to kick the player or deny them access to the field or even put them on the other team.
The value of the spy would then be in how well they can hide their allegiance not how many times they can suicide. |
DJINN Jecture
Purgatorium of the Damned
7
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 17:04:00 -
[72] - Quote
Vector Art wrote:Deluxe Edition wrote:CCP Praetorian wrote:Hey guys.
Cool thread, full of good ideas!
We agree that it would be better to be able to restrict access to PC battles, and are currently discussing how we would implement that.
What we are discussing is doing this in phases, i.e. start with giving CEO's and directors the ability to kick from matches, set roles on members that you want participating in PC matches, to forming up into larger teams prior to the PC match taking place. We will add this to the roadmap and share more details in few weeks time for feedback and discussion.
Lol @ a few weeks. I guess adding a kick function and assigning roles is a month long job. lol it's a little more complicated than that Theres this wonderful post by a dev over on the EVE forums somewhere outling the path to adding new content and it takes time. Would you rather have a "patch" now that is so buggy it makes things worse or wait a few weeks to get a patch that actually works?
Patch now FTW Beta testing is fun |
Sloth9230
Reaper Galactic
ROFL BROS
1430
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 17:29:00 -
[73] - Quote
DJINN Jecture wrote:Create a Team Leader or General role. Like IRL he can remove a player from the Team and deny them access to the clone reserves at any time. In barge or on the field. Problem solved. No need to kick the player or deny them access to the field or even put them on the other team.
The value of the spy would then be in how well they can hide their allegiance not how many times they can suicide.
Yup. |
DJINN Jecture
Purgatorium of the Damned
7
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 17:39:00 -
[74] - Quote
CCP Praetorian wrote:Hey guys.
Cool thread, full of good ideas!
We agree that it would be better to be able to restrict access to PC battles, and are currently discussing how we would implement that.
What we are discussing is doing this in phases, i.e. start with giving CEO's and directors the ability to kick from matches, set roles on members that you want participating in PC matches, to forming up into larger teams prior to the PC match taking place. We will add this to the roadmap and share more details in few weeks time for feedback and discussion.
Didn't CCP say that in closed beta? When do these phases start? The awoxing is only happening because you have not started the phases sir. |
DigiOps
Kirkinen Risk Control
Caldari State
260
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 17:49:00 -
[75] - Quote
So, if anyone wants to be a spy, they may have to actually interact with the target corp and gain their trust. Spying shouldn't be easy. I enjoy the possibility, but the fact that anyone can do it makes it less appealing. |
Grezkev
The Red Guards
EoN.
279
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 18:00:00 -
[76] - Quote
Even BF3 allows platoon leader function to control who has access to match.
Yea...I just compared this game to Battlefield 3.
To pretend that what the OP is asking is outrageous, is stupid. Think about this...why do people use spies? Because it gives and upper hand AND it's a dive into "realism". If you reject the notion that people do spying because it makes the game seem more real, then you're in denial.
As such, the game should have realistic ways for Corps to handle their membership. Why don't we hear about "spies" on the battlefields of WW2 teamkilling and executing their fellow soldiers? Because everyone who fights in the military is chosen to fight by superiors. |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
League of Infamy
996
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 18:10:00 -
[77] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Banned From Forums wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Better solution in the meantime since it is likely going to take a major Sony patch to 'resolve' the issue.
Make an alt corp move all the grunts to that corp and keep all the squad leaders in your current, that way the only way they can get into PC is invites from the main corp's squad leaders only. Use a combined channel to announce times and call outs on inbound or use your forums. Grunt corp does no PC itself what so ever.
Anyone that gives trouble you boot em out. A better solution would be "Kick Scrub From Squad" option. That's all we need! Ain't happening until next Sony patch most likely which is an atagonizing 3 months. Fix your issue now and survive the next 3 months. Or die a slow death due to back stabbing and lax security in that time. Choice is yours. Adapt or Die.
Better adaptation is to simply sit PC out until it's both finished and debugged.
Why risk ISK, create extra logistical work for your leadership, take on the task of managing PC combat timers and teams et al when Lag is more common in PC than the rest of the game. No tools are provided to manage players/mitigate TK etc.
Hard freezes are more common in PC, comms breaks are more common in PC and who ques which squads when can bias server hosting which has a clear impact on play quality of the match...
PC is fun when it works and people are playing it without leaning on unfinished game mechanics but honestly the more of it I play the closer I am to simply saying "naw, I'll wait the three months".
But while I'll be around regardless none of those experiences are isolated to myself or my corp even remotely and none of them help provide a positive impression of Dust at this early stage of it's release.
"Adapt or Die" can apply to game implementations or entire games as well.
0.02 ISK
Cross |
Arthur Uthyrsson
Krusual Covert Operators
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 18:14:00 -
[78] - Quote
Much like the "everybody's running proto" thing, this is a problem that will solve itself. Everybody, everybody who is participating in PC is new at it, be they CEO, director, soldier, spy. The directors and CEOs are going to get better at operational security and counter-intelligence, and the successful corps will find the right balance and succeed, while the unsuccessful ones will pursue solutions that are less effective and they will fade from PC.
That said, the spies will get better at espionage and sabotage, but that's how games work.
For the very interested, here's a short reading list that might help:
The Prince and The Art of War by Niccolo Machiavelli (there are free translations online)
Sixteen Strategies of Zhuge Liang edited by Xuanming Wang (lighthearted and fun with good info)
Mastering the Art of War edited by Thomas Cleary
Stratagems and Spoils by F. G. Bailey
|
Cass Barr
Red Star.
EoN.
18
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 18:15:00 -
[79] - Quote
Institute Corp roles, and only allow people with the right permissions to join a squad to a PC battle. It looks like most people agree on this part.
However a kick function is touchy, and for good reason. Most people, myself included, think that espionage and sabotage should still remain viable tactics, once implementing those tactics actually requires some work and planning. If a kick function is implemented, it shouldn't actually come in the form of kicking the offenders from the battle, not immediately. It should only disconnect them from the clone reanimation system, after which they still have to be killed before they are removed from the battle. They should remain on the TechNet as a blue, an always visible red, or a new color entirely. They cannot be replaced with loyal personnel until they are killed. For reasons I'll explain shortly, I would also create a one minute thirty second spawn timer where all players have to spawn into the game before it runs out, or be automatically spawned in the MCC with whichever fitting they have selected at the end of the timer.
This would allow things to play out in multiple ways.
1. A rogue director brings in a hostile squad. They're cut off from the clones while everyone's in the MCC because hey, it's obvious these guys are hostile. They immediately spawn in, and cause some TK'ing havoc. They eventually die themselves, and are replaced with friendlies. This confusion and the time it takes to get a replacement squad in gives the other team a not insignificant head start.
2. A rogue director brings in a hostile squad. They're cut off from the clones while everyone's in the MCC because hey, it's obvious these guys are hostile. They don't immediately spawn in, opting instead to wait on the 1:30 spawn timer. Now the team has to make several choices. Do they post guards at the base spawns to kill them if they spawn there? Do they hack objectives and give the rogues additional places at which to spawn? This again gives the other team a good headstart on taking objectives and setting up defenses.
3. A rogue director has either several other spies in his squad with him or has several other members of the Corp/Alliance he's "helped" decide they want to switch allegiances. As such his squad is all wearing the right Corp tags. This may or may not go unnoticed beforehand depending on how stringent his Corp is about specifying individual squad members, and how good he is at allaying suspicion should questions be asked. It will probably be increasingly less likely to be noticed as battles grow larger in size. This squad could have the added benefit of having surprise on their side. As such they are not disconnected from the reanimation system beforehand and could potentially waste a LOT of clones before the subterfuge is discovered.
4. In any of these instances, if the rogues can escape being killed after they are disconnected from the clones, they have to be hunted down if the team wants to replace them with friendlies. The hostile team would also need to make sure they don't kill their own agents. If the rogues decide to call in vehicles or run around in the hills, this could end up being a significant time drain on the team, to the point that it might be preferable to simply fight a few men down rather than devote resources to chasing a scout around the mountains or trying to actually kill a LogiLAV that never stops.
So in this system you have varying degrees of work for varying levels of payoff, and if played smartly all have significant ways to influence a battle. Meanwhile corporations are provided with controls to prevent unauthorized access to PC battles and a way to mitigate damage should kicking be introduced, without kicking being a "get out of paying for your mistakes" free card. |
Lance 2ballzStrong
SyNergy Gaming
EoN.
1760
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 18:18:00 -
[80] - Quote
Arthur Uthyrsson wrote:Much like the "everybody's running proto" thing, this is a problem that will solve itself. Everybody, everybody who is participating in PC is new at it, be they CEO, director, soldier, spy. The directors and CEOs are going to get better at operational security and counter-intelligence, and the successful corps will find the right balance and succeed, while the unsuccessful ones will pursue solutions that are less effective and they will fade from PC.
I don't know what this has to do with CEO's and Directors not having the power to choose who fights in battles 
Nobody is arguing that spies are the problem, the problem is the lack of power to control anything. CEO / Director has no power to choose the team, no power to kick from battle.
Operational security has nothing to do with a broken mechanic that's being exploited. |
|
|
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
League of Infamy
996
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 18:20:00 -
[81] - Quote
CCP Praetorian wrote:Hey guys.
Cool thread, full of good ideas!
We agree that it would be better to be able to restrict access to PC battles, and are currently discussing how we would implement that.
What we are discussing is doing this in phases, i.e. start with giving CEO's and directors the ability to kick from matches, set roles on members that you want participating in PC matches, to forming up into larger teams prior to the PC match taking place. We will add this to the roadmap and share more details in few weeks time for feedback and discussion.
I look forward to hearing more about this, especially where on the roadmap it's been added (i.e. an eta at least for phase one).
I've been speaking to people who aren't in Dust yet and PC is an attractive feature that seems to be winning over possible new players but in its present form it could very well sour them to the game as well. Clear and expedient information on planned resolutions to this will be key in mitigating/managing unfavorable reactions from first time players.
@My fellow Merc and EVE players.
Quoting New Eden doctrine/catch phrases in response it an incomplete mechanic is both inaccurate and short sighted. Adapting to the effects and changes within the sandbox is one thing. Just like learning that in New Eden you won't have your hand held to keep you from making mistakes. But that's not equivalent to being unable to manage your assets/resources/corp because the game client lacks the features to permit it at present.
QQ over losing your faction fit Cap because you jumped into OMS uninvited? Yeah HTFU.
Point out that an unfinished mechanic is unfinished and exploitable? That simply needs addressed and phrases/attitudes applied to matters internal to the sandbox aren't really appropriate.
0.02 ISK
Cross |
Lance 2ballzStrong
SyNergy Gaming
EoN.
1760
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 18:27:00 -
[82] - Quote
Cross Atu wrote:
@My fellow Merc and EVE players.
Quoting New Eden doctrine/catch phrases in response it an incomplete mechanic is both inaccurate and short sighted. Adapting to the effects and changes within the sandbox is one thing. Just like learning that in New Eden you won't have your hand held to keep you from making mistakes. But that's not equivalent to being unable to manage your assets/resources/corp because the game client lacks the features to permit it at present.
QQ over losing your faction fit Cap because you jumped into OMS uninvited? Yeah HTFU.
Point out that an unfinished mechanic is unfinished and exploitable? That simply needs addressed and phrases/attitudes applied to matters internal to the sandbox aren't really appropriate.
0.02 ISK
Cross
There's too much logic here sir. People know nothing but "HTFU" + "Welcome to New Eden" as their one and only contribution to a thread, while completely ignoring the issue(s) of something that the Dev stated WILL be fixed.
The word "fix" entails that something is either broken, not functioning as intended, or finishing something that was incomplete. |
Arthur Uthyrsson
Krusual Covert Operators
Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 21:44:00 -
[83] - Quote
Lance 2ballzStrong wrote:Arthur Uthyrsson wrote:Much like the "everybody's running proto" thing, this is a problem that will solve itself. Everybody, everybody who is participating in PC is new at it, be they CEO, director, soldier, spy. The directors and CEOs are going to get better at operational security and counter-intelligence, and the successful corps will find the right balance and succeed, while the unsuccessful ones will pursue solutions that are less effective and they will fade from PC.
I don't know what this has to do with CEO's and Directors not having the power to choose who fights in battles Nobody is arguing that spies are the problem, the problem is the lack of power to control anything. CEO / Director has no power to choose the team, no power to kick from battle. Operational security has nothing to do with a broken mechanic that's being exploited.
I'm not a CEO or director, and have never been (heck, I'm not even in a real corp at the moment), but I think CEOs and directors are not helpless to stop spies while we wait for finer control over individual battles. If an order of battle is drawn up ahead of time, with all participants knowing their squads and squad leaders, any deviation from the plan can be immediately spotted and the spy's squad filled by corp members before he or she can bring in more saboteurs. The squad leaders can be selected from among trusted individuals; and if a spy is appointed, then that's just good tradecraft--you can't win every battle (except, apparently, for STB and a few other corps who have been kicking it, I suppose).
Just my own 2 ISK. |
Lance 2ballzStrong
SyNergy Gaming
EoN.
1765
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 21:54:00 -
[84] - Quote
Arthur Uthyrsson wrote:I'm not a CEO or director, and have never been (heck, I'm not even in a real corp at the moment), but I think CEOs and directors are not helpless to stop spies while we wait for finer control over individual battles. If an order of battle is drawn up ahead of time, with all participants knowing their squads and squad leaders, any deviation from the plan can be immediately spotted and the spy's squad filled by corp members before he or she can bring in more saboteurs. The squad leaders can be selected from among trusted individuals; and if a spy is appointed, then that's just good tradecraft--you can't win every battle (except, apparently, for STB and a few other corps who have been kicking it, I suppose).
Just my own 2 ISK.
don't think you understand how it works. CEO's and directors have no power in who gets into matches. I don't know how assigning squad leaders would magically stop people from joining a PC game and inviting outsiders.
The problem is this whole sabotage thing is WAY too easy.
Join corp > join PC game > invite friends
That's it. People call that spy work? lol |
Bojo The Mighty
Bojo's School of the Trades
1151
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 22:22:00 -
[85] - Quote
In the game of chess it is customary to allow the pawns to move first...
Knowledge gained merely by observation has definitely helped. My hat is off to Duni though for blazing the trail. Where it led was....noteworthy, regrettable. Looks like on that day, everyone was a student of Duni. |
Arthur Uthyrsson
Krusual Covert Operators
Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 22:33:00 -
[86] - Quote
Lance 2ballzStrong wrote:Arthur Uthyrsson wrote:I'm not a CEO or director, and have never been (heck, I'm not even in a real corp at the moment), but I think CEOs and directors are not helpless to stop spies while we wait for finer control over individual battles. If an order of battle is drawn up ahead of time, with all participants knowing their squads and squad leaders, any deviation from the plan can be immediately spotted and the spy's squad filled by corp members before he or she can bring in more saboteurs. The squad leaders can be selected from among trusted individuals; and if a spy is appointed, then that's just good tradecraft--you can't win every battle (except, apparently, for STB and a few other corps who have been kicking it, I suppose).
Just my own 2 ISK. don't think you understand how it works. CEO's and directors have no power in who gets into matches. I don't know how assigning squad leaders would magically stop people from joining a PC game and inviting outsiders. The problem is this whole sabotage thing is WAY too easy. Join corp > join PC game > invite friends That's it. People call that spy work? lol
I guess I fail at explaining. If everybody in the corp knows what's supposed to happen (who's supposed to be squad lead, who's in which squad), then they'll all be able to keep an eye out for people who deviate from the plan.
So if everybody in the corp is on board, then the sabotage thing should go
Join corp -> join PC game -> create a squad -> have squad filled by loyal corp members
It does take some communication and coordination. It's not perfect, but it's not nothing. |
Cass Barr
Red Star.
EoN.
19
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 22:36:00 -
[87] - Quote
Arthur Uthyrsson wrote:Lance 2ballzStrong wrote:Arthur Uthyrsson wrote:I'm not a CEO or director, and have never been (heck, I'm not even in a real corp at the moment), but I think CEOs and directors are not helpless to stop spies while we wait for finer control over individual battles. If an order of battle is drawn up ahead of time, with all participants knowing their squads and squad leaders, any deviation from the plan can be immediately spotted and the spy's squad filled by corp members before he or she can bring in more saboteurs. The squad leaders can be selected from among trusted individuals; and if a spy is appointed, then that's just good tradecraft--you can't win every battle (except, apparently, for STB and a few other corps who have been kicking it, I suppose).
Just my own 2 ISK. don't think you understand how it works. CEO's and directors have no power in who gets into matches. I don't know how assigning squad leaders would magically stop people from joining a PC game and inviting outsiders. The problem is this whole sabotage thing is WAY too easy. Join corp > join PC game > invite friends That's it. People call that spy work? lol I guess I fail at explaining. If everybody in the corp knows what's supposed to happen (who's supposed to be squad lead, who's in which squad), then they'll all be able to keep an eye out for people who deviate from the plan. So if everybody in the corp is on board, then the sabotage thing should go Join corp -> join PC game -> create a squad -> have squad filled by loyal corp members It does take some communication and coordination. It's not perfect, but it's not nothing.
Sorry man but you really don't understand what's going on |
Snaps Tremor
The Tritan Industries
RISE of LEGION
261
|
Posted - 2013.05.21 01:16:00 -
[88] - Quote
To anyone from the last few pages complaining that with kick functions a 'rogue director' could mess things up for one whole PC match (!!!!), I don't think you understand how lenient that punishment is for putting someone you can't trust in a position of power.
Rogue directors are not, and will not, be a daily issue in Dust once people wrap their heads around the idea of trust and responsibility in a shootbang videogame. |
Baal Roo
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
1367
|
Posted - 2013.05.21 02:22:00 -
[89] - Quote
Arthur Uthyrsson wrote:Lance 2ballzStrong wrote:Arthur Uthyrsson wrote:I'm not a CEO or director, and have never been (heck, I'm not even in a real corp at the moment), but I think CEOs and directors are not helpless to stop spies while we wait for finer control over individual battles. If an order of battle is drawn up ahead of time, with all participants knowing their squads and squad leaders, any deviation from the plan can be immediately spotted and the spy's squad filled by corp members before he or she can bring in more saboteurs. The squad leaders can be selected from among trusted individuals; and if a spy is appointed, then that's just good tradecraft--you can't win every battle (except, apparently, for STB and a few other corps who have been kicking it, I suppose).
Just my own 2 ISK. don't think you understand how it works. CEO's and directors have no power in who gets into matches. I don't know how assigning squad leaders would magically stop people from joining a PC game and inviting outsiders. The problem is this whole sabotage thing is WAY too easy. Join corp > join PC game > invite friends That's it. People call that spy work? lol I guess I fail at explaining. If everybody in the corp knows what's supposed to happen (who's supposed to be squad lead, who's in which squad), then they'll all be able to keep an eye out for people who deviate from the plan. So if everybody in the corp is on board, then the sabotage thing should go Join corp -> join PC game -> create a squad -> have squad filled by loyal corp members It does take some communication and coordination. It's not perfect, but it's not nothing.
Any player in your corp can make their own squad (entirely unbeknownst to the rest of the corp) and enter into the PC battle. You can't see other corp member's squads unless you are in them, and you can't control which squads enter into the battles.
This:
"Join corp -> join PC game -> create a squad -> have squad filled by loyal corp members"
does not work. You have to create the squad before joining the PC match. Any Squad Leader can join the PC battle, but once they are in, they cannot invite players to squad. |
Imp Smash
On The Brink
CRONOS.
98
|
Posted - 2013.05.21 05:35:00 -
[90] - Quote
I'm with cross and case on this. Both of y'all have put up great posts.
To keep Spying viable but to provide layers of protection for corps I advocate green light permissions. Only squad leaders the directors or CEOs have given green light to can join. That way they will have trusted members running squads. A spy will have to work and play and put in time to gain said trust. Once a game has started, however, I don't junk kicks from game should be allowed. This is because any other trusted members from corp on standby can jump in to replace. Once you are there on the warbarge you are there. It's leadership's job to manage who gets there in the first place. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |