DUST Search - CPM Topic: How would you fix AWOXing

hooc order wrote:

Iron Wolf Saber wrote:

Short disclaimer before going off into the sunset on fixing the issue.

I'll admit it is far too easy and there needs to be some 'challenge' added for it to happen. Over time though corps will eventually burn all the alts out of the corp so this problem might die down or be reasonably managed within the coming weeks well before CCP pushes out a Sony patch to fix it.

/kick or /votekick option would result in well... lets say far more drama and actual 'real grief' than Awoxing itself.

Example 1 of why kick is bad.
Timmy wanted to enjoy PC for the first time, he is rather fresh and nobody else was available to help fight at the minute the battle started. Timmy we come to find out is far better than originally though far better than the guy he is filling in for. Johnny logs on a minute late to the fight and see that Timmy took his spot. Johnny /kicks Timmy right in the middle of a what would have been a game winning hack and costs the corporation the planet. Johnny would have got fired but he's the CEO and blames Timmy for the loss and kicks him from the corp for something not his fault.

Example 2 of why kick is bad.
Floyd is a spy, he got the role to kick people from a corp match. The corp all goes into a battle and Floyd being very sneaky invites his not so friendly friends and makes them squad leader, and then kicks everyone that isn't his friends out. End Result nobody suspects Floyd because Floyd isn't in the fight and there is not a single friendly on the field. The one sided match does into a grand Mario Kart Race.

TL:DR
Barring the /kick option. What other 'out of the box' solutions would you have? Role? Other Mechanics? Corp Tools? Flagging?

Anyways the floor is yours guys and gals; have at it.

No.

CRM is owned by a corp with a CEO
Clones are owned by a corp with a CEO
District that holds the Clones and CRM is owned by a corp with a CEO

If a CEO of a corp cant control what minds can or cannot enter his clones and CRMs in his district then the whole concept of owning a district is friggin idiotic.

If CCP wants infiltration into the game then they can damn well make game play out of...not some bullsh*t broken game mechanic that crap players like you can exploit.

Sorry Tin Pup no one in the community likes your version of "Meta". Either tell CCP what the community has told you over and over and over again or step down from the council.

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

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 4484	Posted - 2013.05.21 06:34:00 - [1] - Quote Short disclaimer before going off into the sunset on fixing the issue. I'll admit it is far too easy and there needs to be some 'challenge' added for it to happen. Over time though corps will eventually burn all the alts out of the corp so this problem might die down or be reasonably managed within the coming weeks well before CCP pushes out a Sony patch to fix it. /kick or /votekick option would result in well... lets say far more drama and actual 'real grief' than Awoxing itself. Example: Timmy wanted to enjoy PC for the first time, he is rather fresh and nobody else was available to help fight at the minute the battle started. Timmy we come to find out is far better than originally though far better than the guy he is filling in for. Johnny logs on a minute late to the fight and see that Timmy took his spot. Johnny /kicks Timmy right in the middle of a what would have been a game winning hack and costs the corporation the planet. Johnny would have got fired but he's the CEO and blames Timmy for the loss and kicks him from the corp for something not his fault. Barring that what other 'out of the box' solutions would you have? Role? Other Mechanics? Corp Tools? Flagging? Anyways the floor is yours guys.
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 4484	Posted - 2013.05.21 06:35:00 - [2] - Quote I also did suggest to as a current in game fix you can utilize until CCP addresses it is to use two corps to do your planetary conquest in. The main corp which initiates the attacks and has only trusted players and the grunt corp which gets invited by squad leaders from the main corp. While this may sound cumbersome some of the best PC corps out there right now have been doing this as they 'EXPECTED' this to happen and this was the best way for them to figure out who is and isn't on their side. From there refine your recruitment policies, actually sit down and interview the guy in question you be amazed on how many you can filter out just having a voice to voice chat with the player and start building up your corp's security policy and structure. Don't use the same alliance but do use same chat channel. Eve online does this plenty of times for various reasons other than preventing spies, there are corps for example that their sole function is to pay and maintain the alliance name. Only the most trusted of the CEOs of the alliance are allowed in it. While cumbersome to some its actually makes quite a bit of sense. You don't need alts in the holding corp just trusted officers over there residing over the recruits.
Lance 2ballzStrong SyNergy Gaming EoN. 1774	Posted - 2013.05.21 06:39:00 - [3] - Quote Don't think anyone needs to go off on a tangent, and create a wall o txt to solve the issue. - Assign roles to members allowing them to take part in PC - Maybe give Directors / CEO's the power to kick from game, or a vote to kick from game. The vote has to be initiated by these leaders. Simple. Also, if you haven't seen this yet: 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.
Naedeus DUST University Ivy League 46	Posted - 2013.05.21 06:39:00 - [4] - Quote Well... my main question(s) is, would kicking a AWOXer/Spy/Saboteur remove them from the Planetary Conquest match all together? Or will it remove them from the team, placing them on a 'third' team to allow them to continue playing in the match? I think if we answer those questions, we'll be able to solidify what we'd want to do about making AWOXing harder.
The Robot Devil BetaMax. CRONOS. 263	Posted - 2013.05.21 06:41:00 - [5] - Quote CEO makes a merc a SL and only SL can join PC. SL should be a role of trust and only trusted, known mercs should be allowed to be designated SL. Anyone should be able to make a squad and pull in mercs to fill the squad but there should be a corporate role for SL.
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 4485	Posted - 2013.05.21 06:42:00 - [6] - Quote I normally don't wall of text too much unless its a really touchy subject. This is a very touchy subject.
2100 Angels The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION 119	Posted - 2013.05.21 06:43:00 - [7] - Quote One method that had occurred to me was the use of the role system (when fully implemented to dust) to give certain players the ability to take a squad into PC games. This way the corporation has some control to restrict who gets into the game, while at the same time doesn't eliminate the meta game entirely. Infiltrators would still be able to get into games provided they convince management that they are trustworthy in the battle, or prove themselves trustworthy enough to get rights to the role of PC squad leader (or something)
Sloth9230 Reaper Galactic ROFL BROS 1441	Posted - 2013.05.21 06:45:00 - [8] - Quote Roles, and the ability to mark the traitor as an enemy cutting him off from the clone supply so he can't suicide over and over to his heart's content, oh, and shoot the bastard without losing WP for it.
Lance 2ballzStrong SyNergy Gaming EoN. 1774	Posted - 2013.05.21 06:47:00 - [9] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: I normally don't wall of text too much unless its a really touchy subject. This is a very touchy subject. I wasn't implying your OP lol I'm talking about people who'll come in here talking about EVE, and how great it is, and how DUST people should HTFU and QQ less, bla bla bla. People should make their suggestions to the point. Have something more to add, then feel free, but add a TL;DR version below your suggestion...por favor.
Sloth9230 Reaper Galactic ROFL BROS 1441	Posted - 2013.05.21 06:49:00 - [10] - Quote Lance 2ballzStrong wrote: por favor. I like to say it with a drunken french accent.

Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 4487	Posted - 2013.05.21 06:51:00 - [11] - Quote Lance 2ballzStrong wrote: I wasn't implying your OP lol I'm talking about people who'll come in here talking about EVE, and how great it is, and how DUST people should HTFU and QQ less, bla bla bla. People should make their suggestions to the point. Have something more to add, then feel free, but add a TL;DR version below your suggestion...por favor. I know its New Eden and all but right now you guys don't have to tools and the sorts to handle the entire thing easily before, during and after it happens. Some tools to alleviate the issues to allow 'quick footed' players to minimize damage while 'wise and cautious' can avoid being victims entirely while 'fast and reckless' will continue to be plagued by it. Right now it doesn't matter which of the three above you are, you can be a victim.
Bendtner92 Imperfects Negative-Feedback 544	Posted - 2013.05.21 06:52:00 - [12] - Quote Ironwolf, both of your examples suck you know. In example 1 it's sad for Timmy, but in that case he should find a better corp for him since that CEO (or director or whoever that kicked him) is just dumb. If a corp doesn't have a CEO and directors that can manage the kick function properly they don't deserve to be in charge of anything. I don't see how this is a problem. In example 2 you argue that once a player have been giving the ability to kick people from the match it's a problem that he can actually make use of that to sabotage the match? Like really? The corp shouldn't have given him the ability then. I don't see how this is a problem.
Gemini Reynolds Sanmatar Kelkoons Minmatar Republic 100	Posted - 2013.05.21 06:52:00 - [13] - Quote Reserved for a more intelligent reply when I've got half a moment longer than now
GLiMPSE X Gigolos of the Interwebz 23	Posted - 2013.05.21 06:54:00 - [14] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Lance 2ballzStrong wrote: I wasn't implying your OP lol I'm talking about people who'll come in here talking about EVE, and how great it is, and how DUST people should HTFU and QQ less, bla bla bla. People should make their suggestions to the point. Have something more to add, then feel free, but add a TL;DR version below your suggestion...por favor. I know its New Eden and all but right now you guys don't have to tools and the sorts to handle the entire thing easily before, during and after it happens. Some tools to alleviate the issues to allow 'quick footed' players to minimize damage while 'wise and cautious' can avoid being victims entirely while 'fast and reckless' will continue to be plagued by it. Right now it doesn't matter which of the three above you are, you can be a victim. That's not true. the wise and cautious can insulate themselves just as well as any role based solution can. "Right now it doesn't matter which of the three above you are, you can be a victim."....stop being melodramatic Keep that web of trust small and your potential for being exploited is significantly reduced.
Piercing Serenity Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group 338	Posted - 2013.05.21 06:55:00 - [15] - Quote Send the CEO a notification when one of his squad leaders picks up a member, allowing the CEO to confirm or deny the member entry into the battle? This way, there are checks and balances between spies and CEOs. A spy could get a bunch of convincing alts together and do his thing. Or, his plan could be foiled because CEO A realizes that he doesn't recognize three people getting invites. Similarly, if the CEO says "This player has the green light", then anything that happens to him is his fault That's how I'd do it anyway
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 4487	Posted - 2013.05.21 06:56:00 - [16] - Quote Bendtner92 wrote: Ironwolf, both of your examples suck you know. In example 2 you argue that once a player have been giving the ability to kick people from the match it's a problem that he can actually make use of that to sabotage the match? Like really? The corp shouldn't have given him the ability then. I don't see how this is a problem. How would the corp know? There is no logging and its the director's word against everyone else.
Bendtner92 Imperfects Negative-Feedback 544	Posted - 2013.05.21 06:59:00 - [17] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Bendtner92 wrote: Ironwolf, both of your examples suck you know. In example 2 you argue that once a player have been giving the ability to kick people from the match it's a problem that he can actually make use of that to sabotage the match? Like really? The corp shouldn't have given him the ability then. I don't see how this is a problem. How would the corp know? There is no logging and its the director's word against everyone else. Then implement ways so you know who's the one doing the kicking. Like a notification that says "You have been kicked from the match by Floyd".
GLiMPSE X Gigolos of the Interwebz 23	Posted - 2013.05.21 06:59:00 - [18] - Quote Piercing Serenity wrote: Send the CEO a notification when one of his squad leaders picks up a member, allowing the CEO to confirm or deny the member entry into the battle? This way, there are checks and balances between spies and CEOs. A spy could get a bunch of convincing alts together and do his thing. Or, his plan could be foiled because CEO A realizes that he doesn't recognize three people getting invites. Similarly, if the CEO says "This player has the green light", then anything that happens to him is his fault That's how I'd do it anyway Too much control -- if we looked at this in the RP light you could easily see a mercenary squad leader, bringing his band of mercenaries into battle. The commander of this mercenary army would have little say over these squad leaders choices in a team. This enforces the idea of only allowing trusted members to lead squads. Let's not take sand out of the sandbox. I am a big proponent of awoxing, not because i'd invest the time to do it myself but because it adds depth to the game.
hooc order Deep Space Republic Gentlemen's Agreement 108	Posted - 2013.05.21 07:02:00 - [19] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Short disclaimer before going off into the sunset on fixing the issue. I'll admit it is far too easy and there needs to be some 'challenge' added for it to happen. Over time though corps will eventually burn all the alts out of the corp so this problem might die down or be reasonably managed within the coming weeks well before CCP pushes out a Sony patch to fix it. /kick or /votekick option would result in well... lets say far more drama and actual 'real grief' than Awoxing itself. Example 1 of why kick is bad. Timmy wanted to enjoy PC for the first time, he is rather fresh and nobody else was available to help fight at the minute the battle started. Timmy we come to find out is far better than originally though far better than the guy he is filling in for. Johnny logs on a minute late to the fight and see that Timmy took his spot. Johnny /kicks Timmy right in the middle of a what would have been a game winning hack and costs the corporation the planet. Johnny would have got fired but he's the CEO and blames Timmy for the loss and kicks him from the corp for something not his fault. Example 2 of why kick is bad. Floyd is a spy, he got the role to kick people from a corp match. The corp all goes into a battle and Floyd being very sneaky invites his not so friendly friends and makes them squad leader, and then kicks everyone that isn't his friends out. End Result nobody suspects Floyd because Floyd isn't in the fight and there is not a single friendly on the field. The one sided match does into a grand Mario Kart Race. TL:DR Barring the /kick option. What other 'out of the box' solutions would you have? Role? Other Mechanics? Corp Tools? Flagging? Anyways the floor is yours guys and gals; have at it. No. CRM is owned by a corp with a CEO Clones are owned by a corp with a CEO District that holds the Clones and CRM is owned by a corp with a CEO If a CEO of a corp cant control what minds can or cannot enter his clones and CRMs in his district then the whole concept of owning a district is friggin idiotic. If CCP wants infiltration into the game then they can damn well make game play out of...not some bullsh*t broken game mechanic that crap players like you can exploit. Sorry Tin Pup no one in the community likes your version of "Meta". Either tell CCP what the community has told you over and over and over again or step down from the council.
Lance 2ballzStrong SyNergy Gaming EoN. 1774	Posted - 2013.05.21 07:03:00 - [20] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: I know its New Eden and all but right now you guys don't have to tools and the sorts to handle the entire thing easily before, during and after it happens. Some tools to alleviate the issues to allow 'quick footed' players to minimize damage while 'wise and cautious' can avoid being victims entirely while 'fast and reckless' will continue to be plagued by it. Right now it doesn't matter which of the three above you are, you can be a victim. fair enough. Fully agree that people with an open door policy will be at a higher risk, and that corp CEOs / directors are atm, in charge of who gets in the corp. Corps looking to help the community are the ones most affected by this though. I won't get into this argument here, cuz that's a thread derailment waiting to happen. +1 for the thread.

The Robot Devil BetaMax. CRONOS. 263	Posted - 2013.05.21 07:03:00 - [21] - Quote Lance 2ballzStrong wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: I normally don't wall of text too much unless its a really touchy subject. This is a very touchy subject. I wasn't implying your OP lol I'm talking about people who'll come in here talking about EVE, and how great it is, and how DUST people should HTFU and QQ less, bla bla bla. People should make their suggestions to the point. Have something more to add, then feel free, but add a TL;DR version below your suggestion...por favor. Again TL;DR, maybe that is the reason everyone is so mad about not having security in place. Try reading sometimes, it is amazing what you can learn if you spend more than one second skimming over text. Eve players are saying htfu because they have lived it, warned us about it and now they are laughing at all the crying threads because they knew it would happen just like the rest of us did. The mechanic that needs to be added is responsibility for the failure of management to protect assets and control their members. So yes, htfu and put security first and crying second. That's how you solve this problem, not by adding more mechanics to complain about later. The first time the kick function is used to screw over a corp it will be OP and you'll be here crying how it is unfair, new players can't do it, vets are scrubs and how anyone who plays the game differently than you is bad. Just because you play the game one certain way doesn't mean we should. TL;DR. Read more and bad things probably will not happen as often. READ MORE and TL;DR less.
GLiMPSE X Gigolos of the Interwebz 23	Posted - 2013.05.21 07:05:00 - [22] - Quote hooc order wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Short disclaimer before going off into the sunset on fixing the issue. I'll admit it is far too easy and there needs to be some 'challenge' added for it to happen. Over time though corps will eventually burn all the alts out of the corp so this problem might die down or be reasonably managed within the coming weeks well before CCP pushes out a Sony patch to fix it. /kick or /votekick option would result in well... lets say far more drama and actual 'real grief' than Awoxing itself. Example 1 of why kick is bad. Timmy wanted to enjoy PC for the first time, he is rather fresh and nobody else was available to help fight at the minute the battle started. Timmy we come to find out is far better than originally though far better than the guy he is filling in for. Johnny logs on a minute late to the fight and see that Timmy took his spot. Johnny /kicks Timmy right in the middle of a what would have been a game winning hack and costs the corporation the planet. Johnny would have got fired but he's the CEO and blames Timmy for the loss and kicks him from the corp for something not his fault. Example 2 of why kick is bad. Floyd is a spy, he got the role to kick people from a corp match. The corp all goes into a battle and Floyd being very sneaky invites his not so friendly friends and makes them squad leader, and then kicks everyone that isn't his friends out. End Result nobody suspects Floyd because Floyd isn't in the fight and there is not a single friendly on the field. The one sided match does into a grand Mario Kart Race. TL:DR Barring the /kick option. What other 'out of the box' solutions would you have? Role? Other Mechanics? Corp Tools? Flagging? Anyways the floor is yours guys and gals; have at it. No. CRM is owned by a corp with a CEO Clones are owned by a corp with a CEO District that holds the Clones and CRM is owned by a corp with a CEO If a CEO of a corp cant control what minds can or cannot enter his clones and CRMs in his district then the whole concept of owning a district is friggin idiotic. If CCP wants infiltration into the game then they can damn well make game play out of...not some bullsh*t broken game mechanic that crap players like you can exploit. Sorry Tin Pup no one in the community likes your version of "Meta". Either tell CCP what the community has told you over and over and over again or step down from the council. Go back to cod? I hear there is very little depth in that game.
Korvin Lomont United Pwnage Service RISE of LEGION 27	Posted - 2013.05.21 07:05:00 - [23] - Quote What about locking PC Battles? Similar to the locking of squads. This way only invitd members can take part in the battle. Of course if a spy manages to get the role to lock a battle than you have a problem but honostly I think Awoxing itself is not the real problem the real problem is its far to easy and Directors or CEO can do nothing to prevent it...
DJINN Marauder Purgatorium of the Damned League of Infamy 654	Posted - 2013.05.21 07:06:00 - [24] - Quote You should only be allowed to kick players if the player doing the kicking is in the game....also if the spy reaches that status... Applaus to him. That also solves problem 1 where the CEO kicks someone from outside game.
The Robot Devil BetaMax. CRONOS. 263	Posted - 2013.05.21 07:07:00 - [25] - Quote Bendtner92 wrote: Ironwolf, both of your examples suck you know. In example 1 it's sad for Timmy, but in that case he should find a better corp for him since that CEO (or director or whoever that kicked him) is just dumb. If a corp doesn't have a CEO and directors that can manage the kick function properly they don't deserve to be in charge of anything. I don't see how this is a problem. In example 2 you argue that once a player have been giving the ability to kick people from the match it's a problem that he can actually make use of that to sabotage the match? Like really? The corp shouldn't have given him the ability then. I don't see how this is a problem. Example one. If the CEO can't properly secure the corporation then you should find a better corp or a box of tissues. Example two. See example one.
xAckie Ahrendee Mercenaries 148	Posted - 2013.05.21 07:08:00 - [26] - Quote Bendtner92 wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Bendtner92 wrote: Ironwolf, both of your examples suck you know. In example 2 you argue that once a player have been giving the ability to kick people from the match it's a problem that he can actually make use of that to sabotage the match? Like really? The corp shouldn't have given him the ability then. I don't see how this is a problem. How would the corp know? There is no logging and its the director's word against everyone else. Then implement ways so you know who's the one doing the kicking. Like a notification that says "You have been kicked from the match by Floyd". Yep, bad examples were bad. On this issue, I still think you dont get it - like the others. Only when CCP admits the mechanics are broke does the tune change. On the rest of stuff you do -keep up the good work
Bendtner92 Imperfects Negative-Feedback 545	Posted - 2013.05.21 07:10:00 - [27] - Quote The Robot Devil wrote: Bendtner92 wrote: Ironwolf, both of your examples suck you know. In example 1 it's sad for Timmy, but in that case he should find a better corp for him since that CEO (or director or whoever that kicked him) is just dumb. If a corp doesn't have a CEO and directors that can manage the kick function properly they don't deserve to be in charge of anything. I don't see how this is a problem. In example 2 you argue that once a player have been giving the ability to kick people from the match it's a problem that he can actually make use of that to sabotage the match? Like really? The corp shouldn't have given him the ability then. I don't see how this is a problem. Example one. If the CEO can't properly secure the corporation then you should find a better corp or a box of tissues. Example two. See example one. Example zero: CCP is already planning fixes. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=655927#post655927 https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=833365#post833365
Khamelaya The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION 10	Posted - 2013.05.21 07:11:00 - [28] - Quote 1. Corp roles, only members of a specific rank can join a PC battle. A quick fix could be ability to password a battle. 2. More fine grained control of tactical resources in a match, such as intel, installations and deployables. I believe CCP stated in an interview that at some point uplinks and target information would only be available to members of your squad rather than the whole team. If this is implemented then kicking someone out of the squad would significantly hamper their ability to do harm. For this to work though we would need better team structure to support multiple levels of command in a team. Tools to facilitate access (or denial) to communication and shared resources between squads. 3. Ability to cut off access to clones. Once that player is killed and unable to respawn, they should be able to request to join the opposing team. Basically the ability to defect. The opposing team could then choose to welcome the defector to champion their glorious cause or just ignore the disloyal scumbag. The above would make it much harder for spies to infiltrate a match, but still make it rewarding if they are able to do so.
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 4487	Posted - 2013.05.21 07:12:00 - [29] - Quote Bendtner92 wrote: Example zero: CCP is already planning fixes. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=655927#post655927 https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=833365#post833365 There are fixes but there are also discussion of those fixes. This is your guy's chance to try and change something.
Lance 2ballzStrong SyNergy Gaming EoN. 1776	Posted - 2013.05.21 07:13:00 - [30] - Quote The Robot Devil wrote: Again TL;DR, maybe that is the reason everyone is so mad about not having security in place. Try reading sometimes, it is amazing what you can learn if you spend more than one second skimming over text. Eve players are saying htfu because they have lived it, warned us about it and now they are laughing at all the crying threads because they knew it would happen just like the rest of us did. The mechanic that needs to be added is responsibility for the failure of management to protect assets and control their members. So yes, htfu and put security first and crying second. That's how you solve this problem, not by adding more mechanics to complain about later. The first time the kick function is used to screw over a corp it will be OP and you'll be here crying how it is unfair, new players can't do it, vets are scrubs and how anyone who plays the game differently than you is bad. Just because you play the game one certain way doesn't mean we should. TL;DR. Read more and bad things probably will not happen as often. READ MORE and TL;DR less. . you made no effort to put feedback or suggestions in your post. You said 'crying' x3, 'TL;DR X3', 'htfu' x2, and made 0 contribution. Well done. i find it funny you mention security, when atm ceo's and directors have no tools in place to help. I can see how a CEO in charge of of thousands of people, and can't choose who plays in PC as being ok right? How about adding something constructive and not spam "HTFU" all over the forum like you've been doing. Kthxbai



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page