Forums » Suggestions
@Greenwall: I agree that notifications of a change to IFF should be sent. This should be included in any improvement to active key identification.
Station keys should also be separated from capship keys.
However, checking keys before jumping into conq station sectors should be the norm. Other then the hassle involved in looking for active keys, checking access rights before entering sectors known to be contested is not a big ask.
Station keys should also be separated from capship keys.
However, checking keys before jumping into conq station sectors should be the norm. Other then the hassle involved in looking for active keys, checking access rights before entering sectors known to be contested is not a big ask.
checking access rights before entering sectors known to be contested is not a big ask
I agree, but that is not where my contention lies
I agree, but that is not where my contention lies
"Nobody has successfully explained how not constantly checking IFF status is lazy."
I don't think it's lazy to not check IFF status. Visiting a private station, much like walking into somebody's private home, is a matter of trust. If I trust them, I don't need to constantly check whether they're on a sex offender list. If I don't trust them, well, then I'm probably not visiting them anyway. If I am visiting people I mistrust, I'm going to be cautious. Pay attention to surroundings, keep track of where people are, keep exit strategies in mind, possibly carry a weapon, make sure backup knows where I am, etc. Or in the case of VO, I'd double-check the status of my key. (Well, realistically I'd just jump in and find out the hard way, because I'm Rin, but yeah.)
Note that this setting doesn't only exist to backstab people, though. If I wanted to temporarily revoke station access from somebody, it would be easier to just toggle their IFF and docking privileges than to revoke and later re-issue the key.
I don't care if notifications are added, so long as they're subject to some kind of flood control. This could be as simple as restricting how frequently you can toggle somebody's settings, or it could be done by only checking whether a notification should be made periodically (e.g. every ten seconds). If the latter solution is used, it could be implemented client-side with an option for the period length so people can tweak it to suit them.
I also would not mind if the nav map checked your keys and popped up a confirmation when IFF is disabled or you lack a key, like with training sectors. Two caveats. The most important is that there should be a "don't warn me again" checkbox. The other caveat is that since private stations are in unmarked sectors, this warning feature should only be enabled for a given station after you discover it.
I don't think it's lazy to not check IFF status. Visiting a private station, much like walking into somebody's private home, is a matter of trust. If I trust them, I don't need to constantly check whether they're on a sex offender list. If I don't trust them, well, then I'm probably not visiting them anyway. If I am visiting people I mistrust, I'm going to be cautious. Pay attention to surroundings, keep track of where people are, keep exit strategies in mind, possibly carry a weapon, make sure backup knows where I am, etc. Or in the case of VO, I'd double-check the status of my key. (Well, realistically I'd just jump in and find out the hard way, because I'm Rin, but yeah.)
Note that this setting doesn't only exist to backstab people, though. If I wanted to temporarily revoke station access from somebody, it would be easier to just toggle their IFF and docking privileges than to revoke and later re-issue the key.
I don't care if notifications are added, so long as they're subject to some kind of flood control. This could be as simple as restricting how frequently you can toggle somebody's settings, or it could be done by only checking whether a notification should be made periodically (e.g. every ten seconds). If the latter solution is used, it could be implemented client-side with an option for the period length so people can tweak it to suit them.
I also would not mind if the nav map checked your keys and popped up a confirmation when IFF is disabled or you lack a key, like with training sectors. Two caveats. The most important is that there should be a "don't warn me again" checkbox. The other caveat is that since private stations are in unmarked sectors, this warning feature should only be enabled for a given station after you discover it.
Note that this setting doesn't only exist to backstab people, though. If I wanted to temporarily revoke station access from somebody, it would be easier to just toggle their IFF and docking privileges than to revoke and later re-issue the key.
I disagree. In every situation I have ever experienced, whether being the owner or being on the user end, station access has always been an on or off thing. If people want to halt access to a station they pull the key. The difference in the amount of work it takes to delete/recreate a user key compared to toggling IFF and docking on and off is a matter of a couple keystrokes - so effectively they are the same. The only thing toggling IFF makes easier is trolling and harassing people.
This cannot be simplified to a matter of "who you trust". Users have *no* way of knowing who the owners of keys are -- it's possible for someone to infiltrate a trusted owner key and troll its users. And the inconspicuous nature of the IFF toggle could conceivably be abused to the extent (with the proper timing) that prevents even the most avid checker of the setting to not notice it being on or off until it's too late.
For instance, someone could sit within visual range, but outside of radar range, of a conquerable station and deactivate IFF the moment an unwitting person undocks. That person, even if they had the very unlikely habit of checking IFF before they undocked, would find themselves under attack the moment they undocked, and, depending on what type of ship and cargo they were carrying, could be seriously fucked without any recourse or way to ascertain who perpetrated the attack.
In any case, there seems to be wide spread support for at least some notification of the IFF status change. A good middle ground compromise to the issue.
I disagree. In every situation I have ever experienced, whether being the owner or being on the user end, station access has always been an on or off thing. If people want to halt access to a station they pull the key. The difference in the amount of work it takes to delete/recreate a user key compared to toggling IFF and docking on and off is a matter of a couple keystrokes - so effectively they are the same. The only thing toggling IFF makes easier is trolling and harassing people.
This cannot be simplified to a matter of "who you trust". Users have *no* way of knowing who the owners of keys are -- it's possible for someone to infiltrate a trusted owner key and troll its users. And the inconspicuous nature of the IFF toggle could conceivably be abused to the extent (with the proper timing) that prevents even the most avid checker of the setting to not notice it being on or off until it's too late.
For instance, someone could sit within visual range, but outside of radar range, of a conquerable station and deactivate IFF the moment an unwitting person undocks. That person, even if they had the very unlikely habit of checking IFF before they undocked, would find themselves under attack the moment they undocked, and, depending on what type of ship and cargo they were carrying, could be seriously fucked without any recourse or way to ascertain who perpetrated the attack.
In any case, there seems to be wide spread support for at least some notification of the IFF status change. A good middle ground compromise to the issue.
"I disagree. In every situation I have ever experienced, whether being the owner or being on the user end, station access has always been an on or off thing. If people want to halt access to a station they pull the key. The difference in the amount of work it takes to delete/recreate a user key compared to toggling IFF and docking on and off is a matter of a couple keystrokes - so effectively they are the same. The only thing toggling IFF makes easier is trolling and harassing people."
Personal preference, I guess. I'd rather keep them in the list of keyholders. Easier to keep track of things that way, since it makes a clear distinction between people who should not have access ever, and people who are only temporarily denied access, without me needing to write down notes or remember things.
"This cannot be simplified to a matter of "who you trust". Users have *no* way of knowing who the owners of keys are -- it's possible for someone to infiltrate a trusted owner key and troll its users."
I don't understand. This seems trivial. You look at the owner list. Do you know and trust all of those people? Then you're fine. No? Then you're not so fine. If your trusted friends give owner keys to every random alt they see, then maybe you should reevaluate how much you trust them.
Is it possible to escalate a user key to an owner key by capturing the station with it? If so, then I understand your concern, but that seems like an exploit that should be fixed directly, not worked around by nerfing other stuff.
"And the inconspicuous nature of the IFF toggle could conceivably be abused to the extent (with the proper timing) that prevents even the most avid checker of the setting to not notice it being on or off until it's too late."
Feature, not a bug. If Joe McBadGuy tells n00bster98 that he'll escort him on his cargo run, there is no "I promise I'll be nice" checkbox that he has to untick well in advance before murdering n00bster98. He just shoots him with no warning. Why should stations be different? Why should I need to give somebody warning ahead of time before I tell my station turrets to shoot them?
"could be seriously fucked without any recourse or way to ascertain who perpetrated the attack."
False. All they have to do is double-click the owner key and see who's listed. It was one of those people. This could be inconvenient if the list includes many, many people, but in that case you were an idiot for trusting those many, many people. And if you know who gave you the key (e.g. Itan after capturing the station from pirates), then you can hold them responsible for providing a key to whichever hooligan violated your trust, even if you don't know who precisely did it.
That said, I'm all for improving accountability. It should be easier to see who created a key, or at least who gave it to you. Owners should also be given a log of actions taken by other owners, and users should be given a log of actions taken against them (possibly including who did it, though IMO that level of accountability should be an optional feature controlled by the owners).
Personal preference, I guess. I'd rather keep them in the list of keyholders. Easier to keep track of things that way, since it makes a clear distinction between people who should not have access ever, and people who are only temporarily denied access, without me needing to write down notes or remember things.
"This cannot be simplified to a matter of "who you trust". Users have *no* way of knowing who the owners of keys are -- it's possible for someone to infiltrate a trusted owner key and troll its users."
I don't understand. This seems trivial. You look at the owner list. Do you know and trust all of those people? Then you're fine. No? Then you're not so fine. If your trusted friends give owner keys to every random alt they see, then maybe you should reevaluate how much you trust them.
Is it possible to escalate a user key to an owner key by capturing the station with it? If so, then I understand your concern, but that seems like an exploit that should be fixed directly, not worked around by nerfing other stuff.
"And the inconspicuous nature of the IFF toggle could conceivably be abused to the extent (with the proper timing) that prevents even the most avid checker of the setting to not notice it being on or off until it's too late."
Feature, not a bug. If Joe McBadGuy tells n00bster98 that he'll escort him on his cargo run, there is no "I promise I'll be nice" checkbox that he has to untick well in advance before murdering n00bster98. He just shoots him with no warning. Why should stations be different? Why should I need to give somebody warning ahead of time before I tell my station turrets to shoot them?
"could be seriously fucked without any recourse or way to ascertain who perpetrated the attack."
False. All they have to do is double-click the owner key and see who's listed. It was one of those people. This could be inconvenient if the list includes many, many people, but in that case you were an idiot for trusting those many, many people. And if you know who gave you the key (e.g. Itan after capturing the station from pirates), then you can hold them responsible for providing a key to whichever hooligan violated your trust, even if you don't know who precisely did it.
That said, I'm all for improving accountability. It should be easier to see who created a key, or at least who gave it to you. Owners should also be given a log of actions taken by other owners, and users should be given a log of actions taken against them (possibly including who did it, though IMO that level of accountability should be an optional feature controlled by the owners).
Doesn't unchecking them mean all with key are affected?
That said, I'm all for improving accountability.
Really, pizza? We're talking about conquerable stations in a damn video game, not a government agency IRL.
I feel the excessive logging would put too much of a restriction on various exotic roleplaying. The primitive system currently in place allowed interesting drama to occur over the years involving subterfuge, espionage, and betrayals. If not for those hilarious incidents, I would imagine that more of the 3/4 of the vets would grow bored quickly and wouldn't be sticking around to this day.
For an open sandbox game such as this, we should be encouraging diverse player-set goals, rather than catering to the carebears' whims all of the time.
Really, pizza? We're talking about conquerable stations in a damn video game, not a government agency IRL.
I feel the excessive logging would put too much of a restriction on various exotic roleplaying. The primitive system currently in place allowed interesting drama to occur over the years involving subterfuge, espionage, and betrayals. If not for those hilarious incidents, I would imagine that more of the 3/4 of the vets would grow bored quickly and wouldn't be sticking around to this day.
For an open sandbox game such as this, we should be encouraging diverse player-set goals, rather than catering to the carebears' whims all of the time.
@ starblazzz
Yes
Yes
This cannot be simplified to a matter of "who you trust"....
....I don't understand. This seems trivial.
Ok, well, either something has changed since I last played, or Rin doesn't understand the key system.
When I last played, one's possession of a user key did not give you access to see who was on the owner key. They are two entirely different keys and only those on their respective lists can see who else was on the list.
Feature, not a bug. If Joe McBadGuy tells n00bster98 that he'll escort him on his cargo run, there is no "I promise I'll be nice" checkbox that he has to untick well in advance before murdering n00bster98. He just shoots him with no warning. Why should stations be different? Why should I need to give somebody warning ahead of time before I tell my station turrets to shoot them?
Because stations are not ships. Nobody is piloting a station. It is not a reasonable expectation one should have that a station could, at any point in time, suddenly start shooting at you with no warning whatsoever. ANY other time turrets target you in game there is a notification sent indicating a status change. A key being revoked gives a status change that is sufficient to give one pause before entering a conq station with high value items. IFF should carry the same notification.
Further more, with other remotely controlled entities in the game, you have some sense of incoming danger: furies and squadrons have to fly towards you. They don't simply materialize around your ship and start firing at you.
....I don't understand. This seems trivial.
Ok, well, either something has changed since I last played, or Rin doesn't understand the key system.
When I last played, one's possession of a user key did not give you access to see who was on the owner key. They are two entirely different keys and only those on their respective lists can see who else was on the list.
Feature, not a bug. If Joe McBadGuy tells n00bster98 that he'll escort him on his cargo run, there is no "I promise I'll be nice" checkbox that he has to untick well in advance before murdering n00bster98. He just shoots him with no warning. Why should stations be different? Why should I need to give somebody warning ahead of time before I tell my station turrets to shoot them?
Because stations are not ships. Nobody is piloting a station. It is not a reasonable expectation one should have that a station could, at any point in time, suddenly start shooting at you with no warning whatsoever. ANY other time turrets target you in game there is a notification sent indicating a status change. A key being revoked gives a status change that is sufficient to give one pause before entering a conq station with high value items. IFF should carry the same notification.
Further more, with other remotely controlled entities in the game, you have some sense of incoming danger: furies and squadrons have to fly towards you. They don't simply materialize around your ship and start firing at you.
I don't think Inc would even bother fixing tiny things in conquerable stations. He is already planning to replace the whole thing with some other concept. He's stated many times in the past that conquerable stations are prototypes for something else, merely a testing ground.
Greenwall, i'm going to post this image one more time. I'm not sure how long it has been since you have logged in, but this is what is shown on the edge of nation space.
No protection. You are asking for protection in an area of space that says it has no protection. Thus my -1 stands.
No protection. You are asking for protection in an area of space that says it has no protection. Thus my -1 stands.
I'm not asking for protection, you must be thinking of someone else.
Ah, thank you. Yes, I was misunderstanding the key system. I had actually popped into the game to double-check that I could see who the owners of a key were, and I could. Because it was an owner key. A user would not have that owner key. Derp!
We need an option to issue keys that include information about the ownership of the asset. I do want that feature to be optional, mind you. I like the idea of enabling shadow cabals and the like to issue keys anonymously. But those keys should be viewed with distrust, for obvious reasons. (This applies to the logging stuff I mentioned before as well.)
Anyway, my arguments about trust hold. It's a hell of a lot less convenient, but there is nothing stopping you from simply asking, "Who gave me this key?" If nobody answers, don't trust it. If somebody does answer, hold them accountable. They know who the other owners are. If one of those other owners turns out to be an asshole, then you can hold the one who issued you the key accountable for associating with that asshole and spreading a key that the asshole had power over. You don't even need to know who the asshole is; knowing they exist and the key issuer partners with them is sufficient.
"It is not a reasonable expectation one should have that a station could, at any point in time, suddenly start shooting at you with no warning whatsoever."
I think it is very unreasonable to expect that an armed player-owned asset in a game like this couldn't suddenly start shooting at you with no warning whatsoever.
"Further more, with other remotely controlled entities in the game, you have some sense of incoming danger: furies and squadrons have to fly towards you. They don't simply materialize around your ship and start firing at you."
Neither do station turrets.
We need an option to issue keys that include information about the ownership of the asset. I do want that feature to be optional, mind you. I like the idea of enabling shadow cabals and the like to issue keys anonymously. But those keys should be viewed with distrust, for obvious reasons. (This applies to the logging stuff I mentioned before as well.)
Anyway, my arguments about trust hold. It's a hell of a lot less convenient, but there is nothing stopping you from simply asking, "Who gave me this key?" If nobody answers, don't trust it. If somebody does answer, hold them accountable. They know who the other owners are. If one of those other owners turns out to be an asshole, then you can hold the one who issued you the key accountable for associating with that asshole and spreading a key that the asshole had power over. You don't even need to know who the asshole is; knowing they exist and the key issuer partners with them is sufficient.
"It is not a reasonable expectation one should have that a station could, at any point in time, suddenly start shooting at you with no warning whatsoever."
I think it is very unreasonable to expect that an armed player-owned asset in a game like this couldn't suddenly start shooting at you with no warning whatsoever.
"Further more, with other remotely controlled entities in the game, you have some sense of incoming danger: furies and squadrons have to fly towards you. They don't simply materialize around your ship and start firing at you."
Neither do station turrets.
I think it is very unreasonable to expect that an armed player-owned asset in a game like this couldn't suddenly start shooting at you with no warning whatsoever.
Fuck yes. This is true, ESPECIALLY in grayspace. It's not supposed to be safe anywhere in there.
It's on you and your stupidity if you enter a conquerable station sector with trident parts without checking whether if it's owned by someone you trust.
Fuck yes. This is true, ESPECIALLY in grayspace. It's not supposed to be safe anywhere in there.
It's on you and your stupidity if you enter a conquerable station sector with trident parts without checking whether if it's owned by someone you trust.
but there is nothing stopping you from simply asking, "Who gave me this key?"
It's not the asking that's the problem, it's that the likelihood that you will get a genuine, truthful answer is dependent on A) people with knowledge being online and monitoring 100 and actually responding to you (rare) and B) being able to discern between those who lie and those who don't lie (not as easy as it sounds).
I'm willing to bet that incarnate and/or ray did not put extensive thought into the scenarios in which IFF would be used, nor did they run extended tests or observations of how it is used by current players. More than likely it was a conversation like "what basic settings should we have on owner keys? Ok great, next line of business."
Now, years later, thousands of keys issued, what has IFF been used for? Nothing but the extremely rare occasion of trolling someone: put an alt in a guild, see what key names they use, capture station and issue a user key with a similar looking key name and then lie in wait and deactivate IFF when prey is near docks. It's an overly predatory and deceptive use of massive amount of inescapable firepower when used effectively.
If we get notifications when keys are given and revoked, I see no reason why we shouldn't also get notifications with the settings of the keys are changed (no reason other than dev supported trolling, that is - it would be interesting to see if they actually support this use).
I think it is very unreasonable to expect that an armed player-owned asset in a game like this couldn't suddenly start shooting at you with no warning whatsoever.
That's because you are basing your opinion on what player-owned assets in VO have consisted of historically. Up until stations, remote controlled player-owned assets required players to be present in sector to effectively initiate hostility, had a timeout, and they had, relatively speaking, a small amount of DPS and very short range. Stations are a different animal entirely.
Consideration needs to be given to the fact that users should have a minimum level of tactical awareness available to them should they want it. Relying solely upon checking the status of a thrice-level nested indicator for this awareness is not reasonable at all when we are talking about the massive amount of firepower that is trained on you the moment it is toggled without warning.
I mean, really what we should have is some HUD printout indicating various danger levels of any sector you are in. So if you enter a conq station sector, you would see (or choose to see) right in your face what your privileges are. If someone decided to flip the switch you would see it change on your HUD before the turrets could hit you.
It's not the asking that's the problem, it's that the likelihood that you will get a genuine, truthful answer is dependent on A) people with knowledge being online and monitoring 100 and actually responding to you (rare) and B) being able to discern between those who lie and those who don't lie (not as easy as it sounds).
I'm willing to bet that incarnate and/or ray did not put extensive thought into the scenarios in which IFF would be used, nor did they run extended tests or observations of how it is used by current players. More than likely it was a conversation like "what basic settings should we have on owner keys? Ok great, next line of business."
Now, years later, thousands of keys issued, what has IFF been used for? Nothing but the extremely rare occasion of trolling someone: put an alt in a guild, see what key names they use, capture station and issue a user key with a similar looking key name and then lie in wait and deactivate IFF when prey is near docks. It's an overly predatory and deceptive use of massive amount of inescapable firepower when used effectively.
If we get notifications when keys are given and revoked, I see no reason why we shouldn't also get notifications with the settings of the keys are changed (no reason other than dev supported trolling, that is - it would be interesting to see if they actually support this use).
I think it is very unreasonable to expect that an armed player-owned asset in a game like this couldn't suddenly start shooting at you with no warning whatsoever.
That's because you are basing your opinion on what player-owned assets in VO have consisted of historically. Up until stations, remote controlled player-owned assets required players to be present in sector to effectively initiate hostility, had a timeout, and they had, relatively speaking, a small amount of DPS and very short range. Stations are a different animal entirely.
Consideration needs to be given to the fact that users should have a minimum level of tactical awareness available to them should they want it. Relying solely upon checking the status of a thrice-level nested indicator for this awareness is not reasonable at all when we are talking about the massive amount of firepower that is trained on you the moment it is toggled without warning.
I mean, really what we should have is some HUD printout indicating various danger levels of any sector you are in. So if you enter a conq station sector, you would see (or choose to see) right in your face what your privileges are. If someone decided to flip the switch you would see it change on your HUD before the turrets could hit you.
-1 but i like getting trolled,i always assume i have no rights as a white straight christian male of deutsch or austrian heritage smoking blunts on hitlers birthday.
/me tries to wrap his head around redneck's post
Bad idea. Might be contagious.
-1. Temporarily adjusting the IFF is useful in situations where you want the key available to a broad range of people but would like to make a quick limitation so you can move some important cargo or prevent access during other tactical operations that I won't go into. Returning the IFF is much quicker and far more efficient than revoking then reissuing the key to dozens of people.
There's no downside to having the current implementation since only takes a few seconds to check the status of your key.
There's no downside to having the current implementation since only takes a few seconds to check the status of your key.
In that situation, YT, an alert about deactivation or reactivation wouldn't be a bad thing.
It may only take a few seconds to check the status of a key, but the setting could change immediately after you checked it without you even knowing. That is the problem.
It may only take a few seconds to check the status of a key, but the setting could change immediately after you checked it without you even knowing. That is the problem.