Post 31–40 of 68
8 months ago
Hey Firefly will you please tell Tonmo1 to "Let me build" because he claimed land where I was building and I had problem to cut that area's sand. He tells I had to die 15 times in Void then he will Let me cut sand. Please tell him.
8 months ago
@ Space is green,
I already suggested a no "Teleport to me" toggle on a previous thread, because it would eliminate the threat of anyone claiming near you when you build. I still don't know why it hasn't been implemented or why it wouldn't work. Sure some people who always build never want unwanted guests. So what! That's the way they like it. Whislt those that like to be social can allow anyone to tp to them.
I don't think this issue has anything to do with the age of certain players. I think it has more to do with the issue of having unwanted guests/pests and protecting our claimed areas.
But I feel like we're banging our heads against a brick wall because nobody is listening.
8 months ago
I'm handing out a new set of medals here. I feel like Oprah Winfrey except that I'm not like her in any way. But anyway, Rob12 gets one, Rob12's wife (hi!) gets one, obi2002 gets one and space is green gets one. Here comes another reply testing the limits of my forum software.
@Rob12: you present an interesting take on the 'claim-free border' in post #26 that your wife came up with. By making the border width dynamic it sounds like a unique, new idea, but I think I can prove it ultimately suffers from the same amplification attack that the regular free border claim approach has.
There is nothing stopping a griefer from coming in and chaining 8x8 claims together while you are working/claiming your build and your own radius is small. You might have already claimed more than 8x8, but chances are you are starting out (like Ruan4K was) and then you are in a bigger mess than before, you can't expand anywhere anymore, not even in-between.
That's another problem: if nobody is allowed to claim in the zone in-between the fences, a griefer still stops you dead in your tracks. Once another player builds just outside of the other player's fence, you end up with a zone where potentially both players can claim. What now? Either way, you're still stopped from expanding at a higher pace and rate than with the current system.
And the griefer had to do less work than before to claim a large(r) area. I don't think this ultimately gives you better than 1:1 odds going against them.
So, a great idea and thanks for coming up with it (more on that later), but it is not a solution according to my definition, which nobody has challenged yet.
@CynicalRubixCube: how would this work? You can never know if any player telecharged to your claim[s] as you don't have infinite view distance. Stepping outside of your claim[s] by the griefer takes on average a few seconds and for them to claim the outside land another few seconds.
So you'd need to constantly turn around and walk around 360º degrees (that's why it's called Xbox 360) and then find a player name in some kind of list (uhhh, where?) and click/tap them to remove them from a claim that they now own themselves, since they stepped outside and claimed. Damage already having been done. The frustration of near-misses and near-hits will cost people years of their lives.
It all sounds like a literal race condition—a programming term, feel free to look it up. You can never hope to beat a griefer in (I think) the majority of cases. Manual, real-time action is not something I expect any player to be able to do. It already takes me a lot more time to do certain actions on a mobile phone than on my desktop. Having to pay attention to small letters below a hero, going into the UI, scrolling around and then precisely tapping a button sounds like a nightmare. (Entering the player name by keyboard seems even worse as I don't have Cyrillic enabled by default.)
In all: I don't think this gives you better than 1:1 odds with the griefer in practice, especially not on builds larger than a 1x1 claim. So let's call it 1,0001:1 odds (generous with the 0's here) which is theoretically >1, but unless *many* more players agree this is what we want I'd rather spend my time elsewhere.
Upside: we now have an undefined, theoretical solution that works sometimes for the case where you have a 1x1 claim and are in it while not building and constantly looking around and you are on desktop with the dexterity and reaction speed of a very young person. We've made a tiny bit of progress. Awesome.
My verdict: we found a solution! Praise be CynicalRubixCube! However, I am ignoring this solution for now due to its very limited applicability and the fact it relies on quick and errorless, real-time player behavior (social) instead of having a technical basis. Still: tell me how wrong I am about my analysis and I'll gladly reconsider my verdict.
@obi2002: your post is not a solution, but I admire your courage of stepping into the forum topic :)! Enjoy your medal.
@Hummm: two one-liners:
> Yes, it doesn't completely solve the "claiming" part of the the world, but you forgot, I wasn't trying to solve that piece of the problem.
This topic is the place to look for and discuss solutions for what I'll call the "grief claiming" problem that Ruan4K originally posted (so it's 100% on-topic) and that other players experienced in the past.
Other (your :D!) problems might be equally, more, or less important, but you can create a different topic for those so we don't muddy the waters here. So yes, I forgot that you want to solve a different problem since my brain is in full-on grief-claim problem mode here. My apologies, but to prevent this we need to move that discussion in another topic.
We'd also need to gauge the interest in solving that problem. My current interpretation is that the grief claim problem is more widely encountered (in no# of players) than the preventing of creature spawns due to claiming. With a separate topic we can start getting more reports and seeing it's impact on the player base.
> You can also add some new tutorial pop-ups that explain the concepts and etiquette of claiming.
The concept and procedure for claiming is very well understood. New players are able to quickly purchase a land claim and use it in practice. Ruan4K's post illustrates that even new, Russian players have no problem claiming land.
Etiquette is subjective. I already wrote a few times that new players can't be held accountable for the unwritten and imaginary rules that other players have. We all stem from different countries and cultures. I'm pretty sure that there exists a culture where snuggling up close to someone else is a symbol of love. Even in my culture this is considered affectionate behavior.
So maybe some of these grief claimers just absolutely adore the original work and try to show their support and love by claiming next to it. Their etiquette would then describe any action to remove that claim as hostile and aggressive. Suddenly I am the bad guy for breaking down their gesture of love.
Instead of etiquette I remain convinced that the game rules should be the definite rulebook we play be. I'll say it again: according to the current game rules, if you don't want a land claimed you need to claim it. Problem solved. Objectively.
So in all I don't think this is a solution.
@space is green: enjoy your medal. I'm giving you a one-liner:
> Complete eradication of griefing is not the expected outcome.
Nail on the head. My definition of a solution even literally implies that there is no perfect solution unless we can achieve infinite, ∞:1 odds, but that's literally the single-player game mode. That solution already exists. So we're just looking for something that improves the 1:1 odds we have now for the online game mode.
So, fully agree. But: your post and/or statements themselves do not form a solution, just an addition to my definition of a solution.
@Rob12: your post #32:
> I already suggested a no "Teleport to me" toggle on a previous thread, because it would eliminate the threat of anyone claiming near you when you build.
Yo, is anyone even reading anything I wrote :D? (Answer: yes, some people are reading.) See post #8 here! Before I started dumping my brain I offered again to implement the "incognito mode" button which I think is what you mean.
Nobody has subsequently said: yes, I want that. I wrote that I'd drop everything to work on that if someone, anyone would say: yes, this is a good social (instead of technical) solution for me. It's still up for grabs, but I will not be able to drop everything anymore, my work planning has shifted now after spending most available time in this topic and release notes. I'll see what I can do.
> But I feel like we're banging our heads against a brick wall because nobody is listening.
I'm with you. I think I showed that I read each and every single post and statement to make it clear that I completely went over (and will go over) everyone's suggestions here. Everyone is still free to point out where I am wrong or to vouch for the incognito mode. There are now even more statements from me that you can find logical errors in, so get shooting y'all!
The good news is we're still making progress. Even though nobody has taken the time to let me in on the "Firefly is demonstrably wrong" secret, I am actually developing new thoughts based on the discussion taking place here. In time I'm hopeful that that will lead to new insights and potentially a solution.
Yesterday I developed a new thought based on an argument by Moniq who said (paraphrased): by definition a restriction that works both ways, works both ways. And I said yes, and replied that we also already have asymmetrical restrictions in the game.
And that is a key insight!
Any *solution* (see post #14) according to my definition is *going to have to be asymmetrical*. It's entirely obvious in hindsight, but it quickly and efficiently prunes the solution space.
Claim free border? Symmetrical. No solution.
Obfuscated claim free border with fences? Symmetrical. No solution.
Bigger claims? Symmetrical. No solution.
Timed-out free border? Symmetrical. No solution.
From this flows the fact why an "incognito mode" does (partially) work. It allows you to asymmetrically influence the odds of a griefer visiting your build. At the cost of missing out on some desired social interactions. So far that "cost" has seemed a much bigger downside than the upside of preventing grief claims. But maybe we need to admit that any tool is welcome in this literal battle-of-the-1:1-odds.
So everyone: get your asymmetrical thinking hats on and only think asymmetrically.
My subsequent thought after this insight was: griefers are always reactive. They can not proactively grief a build before it's built, since by definition there is no build to grief. So we must find a way to positively exploit the fact that a builder has the initial first-mover advantage.
I haven't been able to deduce a solution or explore the solution space from here as I went to sleep and just woke up. But I'm glad we're making some progress here due to the openness of the discussion and by sticking together.
8 months ago
Actually, I think Spaces suggestion is better than /anon because you can still interact socially via chat...
Also, maybe it's just me, but I was under the impression that /anon was coming... I didn't realize you were waiting for a "YES, do it!"... but if you are, let me be the first... YES, do it. (although, I still like space's implementation better)
Finally, I think you underestimate my split world solution as a potential for solving the "builder problem" especially when you put it in terms of "They can not proactively grief a build before it's built" because as a hunter that's EXACTLY what they do to me... as soon as they claim, my hunting grounds is ruined.
8 months ago
I also like spaces idea better than full on incognito.
Player #1 would turn off others teleporting to them would remain seen ONLINE and when player #2 wanted to go to them, player #2 would need to ask first. Thats when Player #1 asks the player #2 tping in to also go to this state of not allowing tping(theres some trusr play here), noone but player #2 could come and no outsider untrusted friends of player #2 would be able to visit, if of course player #2 is nice enough to turn it off.
Player #1 could still tp to others when in this lesser incognito mode.
8 months ago
Player #1 would turn off others teleporting to them and would remain seen ONLINE and when player #2 wanted to go to them, player #2 would need to ask if they can visit player #1 first.*
8 months ago
I am the third then to agree that Space is green's idea is a better system than an incognito mode. Players can still decide that it's ok for others to teleport to them if that's what they want, or they can simply toggle it on and off when building on sensitive projects.
However if that can't be done then I wouldn't want incognito.
8 months ago
@ Obi I think I even mentioned that before in the other thread when I was talking about a "teleport to me" toggle. I also even talked about the need for others to ask the players permission, which encourages good social behavior and not discouraged it.
8 months ago
Yes, I was indeed waiting for someone to say that incognito mode would be a solution. Only Moniq replied previously, and shot it down. So I'm still unsure if it actually solves anything. I don't expect any of you to be able to read Moniq's mind, but can we reason why it is not the "actually good solution" we think it is?
What space describes takes lots of work, but if that is THE solution everyone wants, I'm all for it. With one or two weeks time I'll probably be able to design a decent UI and implement it—I'll commit to it full-time. Forget OpenGL 3.3 then, I can only do so much until the Steam release.
More developments: Alex makarov reported a crash this week that I managed to replicate and trace. It's a pretty bad one, but I have the patch finished. There will be an Angeldust v3.7 update with that fix. Also a fix for the (currently unreported by anyone) visual glitch that I know of.
I can cram in incognito mode/space's idea if it solves a problem. If we think we have better ideas or solutions soon I'd rather wait and implement those. I think we need to consider Moniq's standpoint where incognito mode seemingly solves nothing.
8 months ago
More food for thought… What space is green suggests is incognito mode, but toggleable in-game. And appearing online instead of offline. And having players go to your house which is a nice way of still allowing telecharging. But it's still incognito mode with a few tweaks. When I write incognito mode I mean incognito mode in any shape, way or form. That is: preventing players from telecharging to you.
Moniq wrote the following about incognito mode ([Invisibility]):
> Invisibility will not prevent griefers to ruin your build, in fact it will be almost same as it is now with my almost empty friends list.
Moniq believes it will not prevent griefers from ruining your build. There is no other explanation or detail here as to what [ruining] entails and/or how griefers are to get in. So maybe we can say that incognito mode *does* partially solve the problem, just not to the extent Moniq wants. Or it does not solve other problems that Moniq wants to be solved.
Because honestly I can see why incognito mode works. You completely prevent griefers from accessing your build before it is done or fully claimed. This plays into the first-mover advantage I talked of. It would have helped in Ruan4K's case. It would help in Kamikaze Justice's case. It might have helped in Rob12's case.
If you look at it mathematically you actually increase your odds against a griefer. If they have to randomly scout out the location of your build they now have a roughly 0,0000000004% chance of stumbling across it. Your odds become 250.000.000.000:1 against the griefer finding any single claim at a given moment. That seems decent. Note that they do not have an infinite window for finding it as you will eventually finish your build. A finished, ungriefed build can't be grief-claimed by definition.
So: incognito mode, here we go? Or am I wrong here?
Please note that opening a build up to the public—via holo chargers, by making it a wonder or allowing any people to visit—was, is and will be your own responsibility. Game rules allow anyone to then claim in and around your build. Can we agree that that is not a problem anymore?
Post 31–40 of 68