DUST Search - CPM Topic: How would you fix AWOXing

All Channels

General Discussions

CPM Topic: How would you fix AWOXing

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Blapathon Tanker Grief University 26	Posted - 2013.05.22 07:39:00 - [211] - Quote hooc order wrote: 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. You are not the majority of the players of DUST 514. You are merely a loud minority. Too loud, in fact. Go back to your corner until you can quit being nasty to the other children. My constructive solution which may have been already suggested is a squad leader role. A person who is flagged for permission to assemble a squad for planetary conquest. it's possible that you might get an AWOXer. but this forces him to gain the trust of the corporation in order to be able to compromise the corp. It will disallow the current gold standard of having a single sleeper whom may or may not even be a relevant factor simply crash the party. But it would leave the door open to torch a match IF you are willing to put in the effort. it will mean that the officers have control, and it will free directors from having to micromanage a roster that must be checked off of each name allowed in. It will also keep me from being lazy with my resources. Ill have to be more creative to infiltrate your corporation to torch a district. I'll have to risk exposing my assets. But when I inevitably do the hilarity of watching corps purge their officers will be hilarious.
Ydubbs81 RND Ahrendee Mercenaries 1299	Posted - 2013.05.22 09:48:00 - [212] - Quote Wow, these CPMs are wild....they are only going to "poke" CCP with ideas that they like, whether it is a representation of the majority of the community or not.
Selinate deux DUST University Ivy League 70	Posted - 2013.05.22 10:06:00 - [213] - Quote AWOXing itself shouldn't need fixing. CCP should make it such that its the corp's fault for allowing spies into their corp and trusting them in the first place. Since from what I've read, it seems like the only way that the people who are infiltrating these corps are recycling accounts to get in, it should be CCP's responsibility to take care of this by considering it an exploit. If you infiltrate a corp with one alt that you keep, fine. If you do it on the same PSN account, fine. If you start making new PSN accounts with the sole purpose of doing this, then you're crossing the exploit line. I'm not sure if they can differentiate this or not, but that's the route I would go.
Jason Pearson Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 1266	Posted - 2013.05.22 10:28:00 - [214] - Quote https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=80497&find=unread

CCP Eterne C C P C C P Alliance 1690	Posted - 2013.05.22 10:59:00 - [215] - Quote Moving this thread from General Discussions to Feedback/Requests.

St Izm RestlessSpirits 3	Posted - 2013.05.22 11:20:00 - [216] - Quote Ydubbs81 RND wrote: Wow, these CPMs are wild....they are only going to "poke" CCP with ideas that they like, whether it is a representation of the majority of the community or not. That's exactly what i'm saying!
EnglishSnake Zumari Force Projection Caldari State 1101	Posted - 2013.05.22 11:28:00 - [217] - Quote St Izm wrote: Ydubbs81 RND wrote: Wow, these CPMs are wild....they are only going to "poke" CCP with ideas that they like, whether it is a representation of the majority of the community or not. That's exactly what i'm saying! Thats what alot have been saying CPM only doing stuff which will benefit them, ther corps and alliance to gain the upperhand and to hold onto it for aslong as possible
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe Planetary Response Organisation 329	Posted - 2013.05.22 12:05:00 - [218] - Quote I couldn't be arsed to read all 11 pages, so I may step on someone else's toes here, but this is my idea. Make a "battlefield commander" role in corporations. Anyone with this role can assign squad leaders (possibly including themselves) to a corporate sponsored battle. When the battle is joined those squad leaders, along with anyone in their squads, enter the battle.
Nova Knife Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State 1017	Posted - 2013.05.22 21:06:00 - [219] - Quote Ydubbs81 RND wrote: Wow, these CPMs are wild....they are only going to "poke" CCP with ideas that they like, whether it is a representation of the majority of the community or not. Just FYI, this isn't true. We appropriately pimped the three (Well, two... one of them turned out not to be so easy) 'short term' options suggested by the community that they could've done to address the issue and had out within weeks instead of forcing people to wait months for the next expansion. The options presented to CCP for the immediate future were as follows: Kick from match Password control over matches Using a placeholder role from Eve as a "Can join" or "Squad leader" role for PC (This turned out to be more difficult than one might think) Don't rush into making ugly fixes. Do nothing, and allow the current player 'solution' of holding corps to play out, even if it's messy as hell Most of us didn't just comment on the issue we liked most, we discussed the benefits (and perceived concerns) of each option and left it in CCP's hands to do whatever they felt best. That being said : @ Ydubbs There's rarely a case when 'the majority' of the community wants anything. In this case, the majority of the community realizes that awoxing is too easy, but to say that the majority agreed on any short term solution is completely false. One can easily selectively read and say "But there is so many posts saying people want X" but the truth is that almost every suggestion in favor of something had an equal (or almost equal) amount of people saying "But X is bad". In the long term, most people can agree that giving corps proper management tools (Whatever those tools may be) is the optimal solution, and it is. This thread was not about the long term, though. It was about finding something CCP can do -now- (If anything needed to be done at all) In cases like this, it really doesn't matter what option the CPM likes most. Our job isn't to pick what CCP does. It's to make sure they know the benefits and harm each option can cause and leave it to them to do whatever solution is 'right'.
Ulysses Knapse Bojo's School of the Trades 398	Posted - 2013.05.22 21:19:00 - [220] - Quote I wouldn't mind a /kick function, so long as it only took effect after the affected individual died (not before) AND it was only usable by the CEO and Platoon Commander (while in battle, whenever that comes out...)

Maximus Stryker Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 474	Posted - 2013.05.22 22:08:00 - [221] - Quote Nova Knife wrote: There's rarely a case when 'the majority' of the community wants anything. In this case, the majority of the community realizes that awoxing is too easy, but to say that the majority agreed on any short term solution is completely false. One can easily selectively read and say "But there is so many posts saying people want X" but the truth is that almost every suggestion in favor of something had an equal (or almost equal) amount of people saying "But X is bad". In the long term, most people can agree that giving corps proper management tools (Whatever those tools may be) is the optimal solution, and it is. This thread was not about the long term, though. It was about finding something CCP can do -now- (If anything needed to be done at all) In cases like this, it really doesn't matter what option the CPM likes most. Our job isn't to pick what CCP does. It's to make sure they know the benefits and harm each option can cause and leave it to them to do whatever solution is 'right'. Still not sure how having a kick function in PC for CEO and Directors is bad. I am searching for the elaborate post where someone outlines why it is so bad but I can't find it (these forums are big). If you have a link to that explanation, I would love to read it.
Nova Knife Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State 1018	Posted - 2013.05.22 22:53:00 - [222] - Quote @ Max: The concern with kicks are mostly twofold: 1) That it doesn't actually address the issue at hand : It is too easy for people to get into a PC battle, no matter how long they have been with a corporation. There's no effort involved in the joining. Kicks are a reactionary measure, and require a CEO/Director to be in the battle. Some corps have enough (or active enough) directors to make this possible, but I do not think most do. This means that even if CCP implements a kick, 'awoxing' will still be very much possible, just as easy, and not hindered in the slightest. People will just wait until the people with kick power are offline or not in the match. In this case, the issue itself still exists, and the ease of joining matches without effort remains. (Thus maintaining the recruitment bottleneck we're seeing now, because you still don't want 'untrusted' people have access to PC) 2) While someone would be able to kick an 'awoxer' out of a match, there is concern that kicks would be abused mostly for other situations instead, which are much less fun for the people being kicked. Such as : "Director wants their BFF in the match instead of X player." "Director gets accidentally teamkilled due to incompetence (on either part)" "Director simply doesn't like player X" This list does indeed go on, but the basic point is that kicks will be rarely ever used to combat 'awoxers' (And perhaps even benefit them) People have argued this point with "If your leadership is bad, just leave", and that is a valid statement. However, in reality... While some people are not attached and would easily hop corps to find one with leaders who aren't jerks... There is a large number of people who will stay in a corp/clan/group/guild/whatever despite any abuse by someone in a leadership position, because they are loyal to their fellow members and enjoy playing with them. Many FPS clans that have and will migrate to dust have been together for years. While sometimes people mess around with power for 'lulz', most of these people will never leave their group no matter what their leader (or directors) do. Being kicked for awoxing is a legit thing, being kicked 'just because' is an incredibly unfun experience for everyone involved except the person who actually has the power to kick. (Especially if you get kicked after spending and losing a bunch of proto ****, and they just don't want to share loot with you)
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 4557	Posted - 2013.05.22 23:11:00 - [223] - Quote Maximus Stryker wrote: In cases like this, it really doesn't matter what option the CPM likes most. Our job isn't to pick what CCP does. It's to make sure they know the benefits and harm each option can cause and leave it to them to do whatever solution is 'right'. Still not sure how having a kick function in PC for CEO and Directors is bad. I am searching for the elaborate post where someone outlines why it is so bad but I can't find it (these forums are big). If you have a link to that explanation, I would love to read it.[/quote] 1. AWOXing is the weakest form of punishment that is well deserved in Dust 514/New Eden for recklessly inviting everyone and their sister into your corp. /kick or /votekick would eliminate the punishment entirely of poor recruiting practices and may raise expectations of being a reckless recruiter allowing anyone in. This can set a dangerous precedent in the future. AWOXing itself should serve as a warning shot to the Greater Damages that can be done by poor recruiting practices. 2. What makes /kick ineffective is squad dumping, a creative spy would invite the rouge in and make him squad leader, by the time anyone notices they have a squad full of outsiders. So a spy can still easily get away, cause inconvenience to the team and still may cost you in the end. 3. It can be Socially Destructive. /kick in the hands of the player has always been abused similar to the current Awoxing kicks from corps are. The "I don't trust you /kick from match" generally results in far more drama, complaints, and griefing and I really don't want to deal with the victims of kicks. 4. Lowering of non-buddy buddy player expectations. When abused this would make going into PC a horrible experience for anyone getting into it and then they kicked out for whatever reason. /kick feels far more punishing and starts creating a 'secret' boys club ideology of PC. Instead of being an invitational goal to accomplish. This is where role function is far more superior. 5. Can kill Ringer business as well /Kick a bunch of ringers that were supposed to be there in the first place would cause some messed up businesses deals/practices. I mean in the future what if you get a bunch of guys to pay collateral to join your PC match to help you out and you /kick them all forcing them to lose the contract? 6. Revolving Door symptom, Even if you kick the offending squad they could have been busy inviting more in and you could spend the entire match trying to get your squad in and since they're not your friends they have more people effectively downing the entire team by 7 members and costing a clone every time you kick a body out. 7. Lack of leadership, according to Soki my intel group I work with, most corps do NOT have the sufficient number of leadership positions to facilitate every battle or projected growth of their battles. This will ONLY get worse as timers get adjusted in the future to make not your best time optimal fights happen. 8. When faced with the superior fix of Corp Roles it would be better to have that instead.
bT Broadway Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 6	Posted - 2013.05.23 00:46:00 - [224] - Quote I played the socom series for the ps2 and the ps3. I dont really know how easy it would be to implement something along these lines...but the way you could kick ppl in socom would work perfect here. During the battle, you should be able to go to the stats screen, highlight and press x on the name of the person you want to remove..the little menu will pop up and add a tab that says vote to remove. Once 60-70& of the people in the pc do the same thing to that/those individual(s) who isnt/arent supposed to be there..they will be ejected from the battle and will no longer be able to rejoin. This could be done in the war barge as well so those kinds of things could be taken care of prior to deployment
KEROSIINI-TERO Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 363	Posted - 2013.05.23 01:29:00 - [225] - Quote CHICAGOCUBS4EVER wrote: . . Nova, try acting like someone that is in a position that represents others... your thoughts mean NOTHING. YOUR job is to represent your constituents and provide a platform for US, the players of this game, to iron things out for YOU to then take to CCP and mesh out details. . . You are suggesting that CPM member should not think at all. And also you are suggesting that us, the community, are uniform in opinions and think the same. Because the latter is not true, a CPM member cannot be a text and thought relaying automaton. A CPM will think and he has to as well. Of course, most important is that he hears and considers all points of view. The OP post is very very valuable in gathering information. Also, Nova Knife's point in thinking before possible making things worse is valid.
KEROSIINI-TERO Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 363	Posted - 2013.05.23 01:31:00 - [226] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Kushmir Nadian wrote: Ummmmm....I thought kicking was supported by the lore? I didnt read it but I was told malfunctioning clones got deactivated in the book Templar One. Not sure there's much difference between malfunctioning and betraying. SEMANTICS, really. When you had control of the only clones on the field you could have locked them out and kept the clone on stasis. Right now you don't you cannot prevent a person from reactivating, that leads to a permanent death as the consciousness is lost. A clone must activate somewhere with that conscious abound. CRUs are on demand devices and as long as the implants are batched with the router its going to allow it to build a clone. IMO a /blockclone command would be more ideal as it would force the hostile to use the enemy's clone supply instead. At least he'll be red and he will stop being able from using blue stuff. /blockclone would not work the way you suggested as that would mean smart team commanders would send their nasties ninjas over there on purpose. =P
Jason Pearson Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 1277	Posted - 2013.05.23 01:41:00 - [227] - Quote Seems nobody is interested in posting in my thread, might as well put it here too. Creating a proper Saboteur Role within DUST. As we know, AWOXing (The use of GÇ£spiesGÇ¥ within the enemy team to turn and use the friendly fire function to deplete clones and become a massive hindrance to the team) has become more and more noticed within Planetary Conquest. Some will claim that it has no place within DUST 514, some claim itGÇÖs exactly what we need. What we can agree on, is this current way of becoming a GÇ£spyGÇ¥ is not a good feature, it requires little effort and there is no way to combat it (unless you just kill them repeatedly), but removing it completely means this shooter becomes a SCI FI version of every other shooter out there. Like it or not, we are in New Eden, and we should be embracing the idea where weGÇÖre not safe, we canGÇÖt control everything in a game and if someone wants to smash you, they will try it. I firmly believe, any fix that CCP will implement like a white list or VTK/Kick Role is a bad idea and will not help develop the game any further than it being just a SCI FI shooter, now I do believe we need a plaster for the current issue, but if we did go down this route, we need to make sure it is a temporary fix, it cannot be treated as a permanent fix. To fix this permanently, we need to embrace the role instead of casting it out. Yes we need a way to control it, and yes we need a way to kick players from the battle but it shouldnGÇÖt be instant, below IGÇÖll try and give the idea as to how to fix the problem. This idea is not an instant fix, and would require other things in operation, that will take time. The Ground Commander The Ground Commander (AKA MCC Commander) is a role given out by the CEO, if there is a Ground Commander in the game, only he can use the MCC in PC. This serves as the ability to block spies from becoming the MCC Commander in the future but also allows them to do it if the team is not organised and the corp has dropped the ball. Now, assuming the MCC Commander is present (Or the MCC commander is not a traitor) he should have the ability to strip friendlies of their roles. These players will appear Corpless and become Yellow (Neutral). It is possible a spy can create massive disruption should he become the MCC commander, but itGÇÖs all part of our lovely New Eden universe. Team Yellow When stripped of your roles by the Commander, you become yellow, a neutral, everyone will see you as a yellow player. Any other players on the opposite or same team that is kicked will also become yellow. As a Yellow, you will have no clones as once you die, your consciousness will not be reactivated into a clone on the battlefield. By doing this, we allow players to kick their traitors, but only if they can kill them. And should the commander role be fully integrated into the game where they can deny vehicles to players, the traitors will be at a severe disadvantage. Except.. the traitors can still hack and cause mayhem, and should be rewarded as such. Team Yellow Installations. CRUs A suggestion a while back, was about giving CRUs their own clone count, we could actually do this, but give them to Team Yellow. As stated above, when you are designated as a traitor, you lose your access to your teams clones, this makes it GÇ£HardcoreGÇ¥ mode so to speak, die, and youGÇÖre gone from the game, immediately kicked so that your place is free for other to join. Should you hack a CRU in as a yellow, it will show a counter. This counter could be randomized between 1-10, every CRU that is yellow, you can use, providing its counter is not 0. Make sense? This allows Traitors to utilise the installations effectively, meaning you must control them, or destroy them if you donGÇÖt want to risk the use of traitors. Supply Depots and Turrets These can be utilised Neutrals, Turrets are not automated but can be accessed. Null Cannons. Neutrals effectively turn them off. Should you hack the Null Cannon, it ceases to fire until rehacked. I believe that adding to the ability to turn traitor is something we should look at positively as itGÇÖs what sets aside from the cookie cutter FPS games, we need something different, something that makes our CEOs and Directors fearful when they log off for the night and makes them want to rush home tomorrow to check on their dear corporation. As I said previously, the above suggestion is not a short term fix, CCP wonGÇÖt be able to implement this in a dayGÇÖs time, but it could be a viable solution. A short term fix would be allowing the CEO/Director to kick from the battle, as a TEMPORARY solution, this would mean youGÇÖd still need people in vital roles to actually remove traitors from the battle. If none are on? YouGÇÖre screwed. So please, thoughts and feedback? Anything youGÇÖd add that would be viable or just tell me what you dislike about it.
KEROSIINI-TERO Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 363	Posted - 2013.05.23 02:36:00 - [228] - Quote EnglishSnake wrote: As it is now its killing off new players, they cannot join a corp who is doing or wanting to play PC, they are automatically a spy and its hurting the game yet you cant see that because all you are seeing is ISK in front of your eyes Wait, weren't people complaining about the big corps being OP and getting bigger and even bigger all the time, while dominating PC?
KEROSIINI-TERO Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 363	Posted - 2013.05.23 03:44:00 - [229] - Quote J Lav wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: I won't know until I ask either. Passwords are 'feasible' but the hardest of the options right now. Okay I understand then. I'm not sure how long another solution is away, but I prefer the toggle idea that you can choose to allow only Corp members into PC battles, or open it. It seems simpler than the password to implement, and I don't feel the Corp communication tools are adequate to make the password idea work without a lot of frustration at the moment. Probably the easiest to implement idea I had was to make a Market item that was a "PC pass", ensuring that players have enough SP to obtain it, as a barrier to newly created alts being spies. This makes spies have to work harder on the character in order to sabotage someone, and this would create a barrier to people being unattached to that character since they will have had to play it long enough to get there. I would bury it into the skill tree, behind a core skill, and make people aware of it. This is probably one of the more contentious ideas. ie. requiring engineering and others to be at skill 1 before it can be obtained. Won't work because free to play. Anyone can create any amount of slowly cooking AWOX alts, it only takes a bit more time. Isk is not an issue as the isk will flow in the future. Besides, price being early balancing factor in gameplay things is generally bad.
KEROSIINI-TERO Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 363	Posted - 2013.05.23 03:49:00 - [230] - Quote Rhorian Darkstar wrote: why just leave as it is. like in eve? Corps should be responcible for there own security and background checks. I think 5 mil for pc is a bad idea and a way to screw over small corps like the 80 mil. Because currently bringing in guys without getting caught (remember, you shut down after your AWOX squad begins loading and no one ever sees your name) is very bad. As is unlimited spawing on uplinks, suicide clone usage, taking vehicle quota, taking a man away from fight with no way to regain it. Bad, as is raw kicking. Team Killing itself is actually the one okay thing in this.

KEROSIINI-TERO Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 363	Posted - 2013.05.23 04:12:00 - [231] - Quote To summarize my opinion: Uncontrollable AWOXing is bad. (unlimited joining, spy staying invisible, unlimited clone count sabotage, spawning on same links etc) Raw kicking is bad. (Too much like pulling the plug, not addressing the unlimited joining issue, giving too fundamental control over other people and their client whether they play or not, taking away most of the TK element of metagame infiltration) Password protection is not enough. (When there ARE still AWOXers, the gameplay experience is so crap because of abovementioned reasons - mostly because of things being unlimited) As usual, the right balance is some where in between. The Clone Denial/Respawn Denial/Marking Neutral etc meaning AWOXer is alive and free as long as he stays alive. is the good solution. When implementing, the following has to be addressed: - AWOXer must not be able to join back right away. Join control (roles/pws) - Upon death, AWOXer will be removed from match because otherwise he takes a player slot until the end. (this can be argued if it's a good thing after all) - Not everyone can mark for Respawn Denial. I imagine a nice good traitor hunt would be awesome. And as they would have no respawns, the time and effect would be reasonably limited (unless AWOXers would take passive tactic of not doing much but taking up a slot for roster). Then again the keys are in the hands of traitor hunters how well they can manage the situation and go on their mission.
The Robot Devil BetaMax. CRONOS. 332	Posted - 2013.05.31 09:01:00 - [232] - Quote The Robot Devil wrote: There is no need for it. The problem should fix itself in the next couple of days. If corps are not putting in safe guards now then there is no help for them and they deserve it. Research save a lot of tears. We have almost everything we need, a role that designates a squad leader as a person who can enter PC is probably the best fix. Where is all the AWOXing that was killing this game? Oh yeah, I remember now, I said it would fix itself in a few days. Looks like I was spot on. Time, I would like to thank you for proving my point.
astroghini TRUE TEA BAGGERS EoN. 0	Posted - 2013.07.07 11:52:00 - [233] - Quote There is a problem with teams choosing to split between both offensive and deffensive sides of the game. Then they sabotage the team that they play on. Destroying ships, using grenades, destroying anything they can to make it an unfair advantage for the other team... There should be a way to track how many friendly kills happen so that players can be kicked. Or keep corporations from being able to play on both sides.


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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.