YASP v.1 (Yet Another Space Proposal)

San

Elite
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Posts
3,114
Location
That freaking cold place (in RL)
Society
OldTimers
Avatar Name
Sandal San Tolk
This is putting aside the fundamental discussion whether we like the entire setup or not. It is instead an attempt to establish ways and means to make it work better by doing away with remaining ambiguities which could entrap players in situations they didn't choose to be in. In expectation of some rolling eyeballs as well as near-term finalization of this task to be uncertain, a naming pattern from the realm of software development was chosen (cf. YACC, YAML etc.)

In light of the multitude of preceding discussions, and in defiance of certain perceived audacities "from above" (i.e. like support replying to complaint against harrassment by repeat killing that "you're supposed to round up help"), it is to be established that there are exactly two legitimate motivations for attacking another player in space:

1. The expectation of loot
2. The expectation of a pvp battle

Condition 1 is fulfilled before and ceases to be valid after a player unequipped for combat has been killed once and either was looted or found to not carry lootables. The message that a player was killed is sent through the universe-wide messaging system so everybody is informed. Therefore also pirates not being witness at the scene cannot claim to be unaware.

Condition 2 is established or can be reasonably assumed when both players are armed.

Condition 2 is not established and cannot be assumed when a player did not choose to arm his ship. This means he neither wants to engage in pvp nor in space hunting, which would be grounds for expecting loot.

Taken together this makes a simple pattern which can be detected and transgression prohibited by algorithm: Per single entry into space, a player whose ship is not armed can be shot and killed only once. Afterwards he can no longer be targeted and is free to travel. The sequence restarts if the player lands on a planet and enters space anew. This gives a sense of certainty to the traveller, and saves the pirate unnecessary expenses. A few further conditions are to be checked as follows.

There is a possible exploit in that a player already in unattackable state could take over goods from another player by trading inside a space station. This is either to be prohibited, or the sequence then restarted and the player informed of it. Attaching weapons to the ship or changing to an armed ship while in space also resets the flag. On the other hand, removing an attached weapon (or it becoming unusable by decay) allows for the flag to be set after one kill as per the rule above.

Psychological powerplay by preventing an evidently inferior target from getting on with a planned journey is harrassment and remains harrassment, whether MA currently allows it to happen or not. Their obvious expectation of additional income from it makes it only the less tolerable. Drop this attitude, and there will be a potential for more income from increased activity. Currently there are many players who just avoid space like the plague because they don't like becoming the punching ball of another player's overblown ego and abhor the endorsement of those. The choice to travel through space does NOT constitute an agreement to battle other players. It only constitutes an agreement to bearing the risk of potential loss of carried goods, and is to be understood as disincentive against free transport of said goods. The agreeability of this disincentive again is not subject of this proposal.

As a sidenote, there are reports that the spawning within the safe zone around the SS upon entering space does not always work and players find themselves unexpectedly in the danger zone. This is to be fixed and avoided under all circumstances. A possible solution could be a safety bubble such as the one deployed after using a teleport chip. This should allow for enough time if the player moves towards SS without delay.

Hope this makes sense. For me, it would add certainty of what to expect and the ability to be a lot more relaxed about other folks' attitudes. There is psychology at work here which antagonizes players or groups of players against each other far beyond simple logic. This is to be reckoned with instead of ignored and downplayed. The reward will be much greater than short-sighted profit-taking which only makes players seek to avoid repeat experiences.
 
It might work, although would probably take more coding than expected.

There is a possible exploit in that a player already in unattackable state could take over goods from another player by trading inside a space station. This is either to be prohibited, or the sequence then restarted and the player informed of it.

Or simply pick up a passenger with loot. Or let someone with loot use your vehicle.

Obviously flags need to be set both for avatars and vehicles, and it's 'green' only if the vehicle and all its passengers are flagged.

Also: there is no storage at SS, but can you put stuff on the ground? (I've never tried :D) If yes, picking something up another action that should reset the flag.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: San

I think your suggestion needs a lot of checks and flags, plus the universe-wide messaging would be unsatisfactory too.
It would be better if an unarmed and no-loot combination cannot be pvp-ed at all - and given possibly a green circle instead of a triangle as an identifier. The check would need to be made for anyone entering the vehicle and possibly also at server borders (unless it can be carried over without errors).
 
It sound very complicated, I would prefer a simpler solution..I think both old and new players will be confused.
 
I think your suggestion needs a lot of checks and flags, plus the universe-wide messaging would be unsatisfactory too.
It would be better if an unarmed and no-loot combination cannot be pvp-ed at all - and given possibly a green circle instead of a triangle as an identifier. The check would need to be made for anyone entering the vehicle and possibly also at server borders (unless it can be carried over without errors).

The message is what we already have. If you could be ensured that it was heeded, you could shake off the dust and move on without troubling yourself any further.

That we have the entirety of space as lootable pvp zone is a fact that this proposal tries to work with. There are many other threads discussing the premise as such, but I see the chances of getting it changed as slim. Too much money is invested in the status-quo. Let's assume it stays, at least for this thread.
 
It sound very complicated, I would prefer a simpler solution..I think both old and new players will be confused.

I don't think it is complicated at all ;) Only two rules and strictly deterministic. No confusion is possible if the system decides when you're enabled to shoot and when not.

Implementing it into code needs some attention to detail as Haruto points out, yes. They are quite capable of doing that. Much more complicated to deal with is the enduring acrimony we have now.
 
This is putting aside the fundamental discussion whether we like the entire setup or not. It is instead an attempt to establish ways and means to make it work better by doing away with remaining ambiguities which could entrap players in situations they didn't choose to be in. In expectation of some rolling eyeballs as well as near-term finalization of this task to be uncertain, a naming pattern from the realm of software development was chosen (cf. YACC, YAML etc.)

In light of the multitude of preceding discussions, and in defiance of certain perceived audacities "from above" (i.e. like support replying to complaint against harrassment by repeat killing that "you're supposed to round up help"), it is to be established that there are exactly two legitimate motivations for attacking another player in space:

1. The expectation of loot
2. The expectation of a pvp battle

Condition 1 is fulfilled before and ceases to be valid after a player unequipped for combat has been killed once and either was looted or found to not carry lootables. The message that a player was killed is sent through the universe-wide messaging system so everybody is informed. Therefore also pirates not being witness at the scene cannot claim to be unaware.

Condition 2 is established or can be reasonably assumed when both players are armed.

Condition 2 is not established and cannot be assumed when a player did not choose to arm his ship. This means he neither wants to engage in pvp nor in space hunting, which would be grounds for expecting loot.

Taken together this makes a simple pattern which can be detected and transgression prohibited by algorithm: Per single entry into space, a player whose ship is not armed can be shot and killed only once. Afterwards he can no longer be targeted and is free to travel. The sequence restarts if the player lands on a planet and enters space anew. This gives a sense of certainty to the traveller, and saves the pirate unnecessary expenses. A few further conditions are to be checked as follows.

There is a possible exploit in that a player already in unattackable state could take over goods from another player by trading inside a space station. This is either to be prohibited, or the sequence then restarted and the player informed of it. Attaching weapons to the ship or changing to an armed ship while in space also resets the flag. On the other hand, removing an attached weapon (or it becoming unusable by decay) allows for the flag to be set after one kill as per the rule above.

Psychological powerplay by preventing an evidently inferior target from getting on with a planned journey is harrassment and remains harrassment, whether MA currently allows it to happen or not. Their obvious expectation of additional income from it makes it only the less tolerable. Drop this attitude, and there will be a potential for more income from increased activity. Currently there are many players who just avoid space like the plague because they don't like becoming the punching ball of another player's overblown ego and abhor the endorsement of those. The choice to travel through space does NOT constitute an agreement to battle other players. It only constitutes an agreement to bearing the risk of potential loss of carried goods, and is to be understood as disincentive against free transport of said goods. The agreeability of this disincentive again is not subject of this proposal.

As a sidenote, there are reports that the spawning within the safe zone around the SS upon entering space does not always work and players find themselves unexpectedly in the danger zone. This is to be fixed and avoided under all circumstances. A possible solution could be a safety bubble such as the one deployed after using a teleport chip. This should allow for enough time if the player moves towards SS without delay.

Hope this makes sense. For me, it would add certainty of what to expect and the ability to be a lot more relaxed about other folks' attitudes. There is psychology at work here which antagonizes players or groups of players against each other far beyond simple logic. This is to be reckoned with instead of ignored and downplayed. The reward will be much greater than short-sighted profit-taking which only makes players seek to avoid repeat experiences.



It would require the PVP test to be based on if the individual has loot which goes against the PVP model used today. I would envision the coding for this to be extremely difficult due to the needed changes to the global PVP Concept. As such, I doubt that this is implementable within the current Entropia environment without a complete rewrite of EU.
 
It would require the PVP test to be based on if the individual has loot

Not at all! The test is based on whether the individual is prepared for battle or not, and/or has suffered an attack already or not. Setting the no-attack flag does not depend on the detection of loot, but on the record of a previous death by pk during the current space trip, combined with the state of armament.
 
The message is what we already have. If you could be ensured that it was heeded, you could shake off the dust and move on without troubling yourself any further.

That we have the entirety of space as lootable pvp zone is a fact that this proposal tries to work with. There are many other threads discussing the premise as such, but I see the chances of getting it changed as slim. Too much money is invested in the status-quo. Let's assume it stays, at least for this thread.

What I mean is that individual death messages in chat are going to be completely unsatisfactory in terms of expecting everyone to know - especially 20+ or more minutes later when you approach your destination - that you shouldn't be attacked.
Yes, I didn't mention my own preferences, but was assuming pvp basically stays (for any vehicles armed or lootables on board). My point is that allowing one innocent kill on someone with no loot anyway will be difficult to implement, and pirates probably wouldn't want it either. I'd expect they would prefer to know who definitely has no loot on them too....

edit: on the complexity - ok, if done right it is only more complicated than my suggestion by the set flag of killed once still being active. Do anything like access tt machine (of which there are some in the 'space environment') or trade with someone could reset the flag. So, not much more complicated, I accept that.
I still think it should be done in an adapted way, but close to what you have suggested, ok
 
Last edited:
Oh dear cod - the horseshit people like this who spends less than an hour a week in space come with has no end does it. Stick it deep son, real deep.
 
  • Like
Reactions: San
Actually it is really very simple. The logic consists of only one input flag per player involved (which are combined when travelling with passengers), one input flag pertaining to the ship currently used, and one output flag. Input flags change upon certain events.

Input: ARMED/UNARMED; SCATHED/UNSCATHED;
Output: ATTACKABLE/UNATTACKABLE;

Output flag logic:
  • SCATHED_ALL := SCATHED(pilot) & SCATHED(passenger 1) & ...
  • UNATTACKABLE := SCATHED_ALL & UNARMED
State-changing events:
  • Player enters space => SCATHED := false
  • Player is killed by another player => SCATHED := true
  • Player obtains lootable items by whatever means while in space => SCATHED := false
  • Vehicle has usable weapon attached (main and/or copilot weapon) => ARMED := true
  • Vehicle has no usable weapon attached (or weapon becomes unusable) => ARMED := false
Upon SCATHED about to change state from true to false, i.e. the player is about to obtain lootable items in space while already having been pk'd, a warning is issued.

That is all I can think of for the moment. Anything overlooked I blame on insufficient caffeine level.
 
Not at all! The test is based on whether the individual is prepared for battle or not, and/or has suffered an attack already or not. Setting the no-attack flag does not depend on the detection of loot, but on the record of a previous death by pk during the current space trip, combined with the state of armament.

Ok, the present system is based solely on where you are. You are either in PVP or you are not. there are no status test involved.

So, these new tests would need to be written in and tested (wait, this is MA.. maybe not).. :scratch2:
 
  • Like
Reactions: San
So, these new tests would need to be written in and tested (wait, this is MA.. maybe not).. :scratch2:

The motivation would be a lot less support cases to suffer, hopefully.
 
Or, they could just accept the fact that their implementation of "space" is terribad, pay everyone who invested in a space ship (tp) their money back, delete "space" and put all of the planets in the TP lists so we can just TP whenever we want, wherever we want, which would make the most sense.
 
The motivation would be a lot less support cases to suffer, hopefully.

Sorry, but it would also be a large loss of revenue for MA. As much as we don't like it, Space generates a large amount of cash for MA as it's formatted now so any changes need to show how they would re-coop those funds and ignoring support cases doesn't cost MA anything.

I've not seen any plan that approaches this. TBH, they all are about how I can get from point A to point b in the fastest time without having any hassles (while also forgetting all the people it would effect).

And MA is not going to mothball Space just because some individuals want instant satisfaction in their travel. Some of us still like to experience the adventure of traveling.
 
Solution to pvp space:



1) If you're not carrying lootables then you cannot be shot and you cannot shoot anyone.

2) You can only loot as much tt as the tt you're carrying.



This lets us travelers with no loot go unmolested, and makes the pussies put their money where their mouth is.
 
Actually it is really very simple. The logic consists of ....

That is all I can think of for the moment. Anything overlooked I blame on insufficient caffeine level.


Well, my version only needs a check for loot (and warning I guess) when a vehicle enters space (or when a player enters a vehicle that is space-capable at a hanger or ss dock).
[*] UNATTACKABLE := NOLOOT_ALL & UNARMED
So it is even simpler - and for the other reasons I mentioned I would say better for both sides as well.
There is also the question of what code needs to be written and where to be added.
Your SCATHED has to be falsified if a player does various things after being scathed (so in various parts of the system), my version doesn't.

I realise both are perfectly doable, but MA has only just screwed up the refining of fruit to seeds/ the making of fertiliser, and not caught the 'problem' in the initial vu. We are at a level of 2+2 is easier than 2+3 maybe?:laugh:
 
Solution to pvp space:



1) If you're not carrying lootables then you cannot be shot and you cannot shoot anyone.

2) You can only loot as much tt as the tt you're carrying.



This lets us travelers with no loot go unmolested, and makes the pussies put their money where their mouth is.

This is no solution, it defeats the whole concept. Knowing in advance who has loot or not, you can as well abolish it all. Again, whether we wish the whole muckheap to hell or not is not the subject of this thread, only to try and work a little better within the existing conditions.
 
Oh dear cod - the horseshit people like this who spends less than an hour a week in space come with has no end does it. Stick it deep son, real deep.

More like less than an hour a month and slapping the reasons for it right in your face. You don't even realize who is trying to help you here, "son". I am too old to be impressed.
 
Sorry, but it would also be a large loss of revenue for MA. As much as we don't like it, Space generates a large amount of cash for MA as it's formatted now...

source please?
 
source please?

Vehicle decay
Ammo Used
Tool Decay
Welding wire used
Warp Engine Decay
Thruster decay
Fuel used
SI Increases on Vehicles (which cannot be extracted once in vehicle)

This all adds up
 
Lootable space Needs to go.

Start boycotting everything to do with lootable space. Note all the positives in which MA could make money versus the limited audience and income from a utter minority. This is a game and they need to cater to the masses. Minorities in this industry will are not what contributes to the bottom line that keeps the coders coding - the mass activities do that.

Dont do 20 threads by 20 different people, or do that but also PM each other and unite to get something real going.

Im in.
 
Vehicle decay
Ammo Used
Tool Decay
Welding wire used
Warp Engine Decay
Thruster decay
Fuel used
SI Increases on Vehicles (which cannot be extracted once in vehicle)

This all adds up

Oh. IC. Your finger in the wind is your source. OK. I was hoping for some actual numbers. I noticed different people have different ideas of what large amounts of cash and revenue are, so we might have different ideas about how much is at stake for MA here.
 
Or, they could just accept the fact that their implementation of "space" is terribad, pay everyone who invested in a space ship (tp) their money back, delete "space" and put all of the planets in the TP lists so we can just TP whenever we want, wherever we want, which would make the most sense.

I think it depends quite a bit on whether space is actually a form of protectionism for the 'individual environments': that there is by design an effort, time and cost involved in moving between them. Oh, and danger is an element too, as we know...

I accept that the question can be asked of MA of whether any particular development (and cost) is actually worth it (for us and them). Thus it is justified to consider scrapping it all with adequate compensation too.

However, I have seen that working together as crew on an MS, with the conversations that take place too, to be a lot of fun at times, and the sort of thing I would like to see more of for those people who like it. Beacon missions and fort battles have had their charm too, but I do think space has a lot of potential. I very much hope MA can step up to the plate for the development time they have promised for so long now....
 
Why so complicated?

Once a player get killed in space, flag him unattackable for 30min, enough time to go to any planet.

That timer could be easy coded, and a bubble around the ship (not that much work to code aswell), can show everyone he is immortal.

Timerbreakdown on several events:
Picking up a passanger - timer ends
Getting goods pickup/loot/trade - timer ends
Firing a shot - timer ends

Even those who are armed, may not like to fight again, if they lost first fight :)

Not that hard to code, easy to understand and does exactly what OP wants.
 
V.2 after tomorrow's update as found appropriate.
 
V.2 after tomorrow's update as found appropriate.
As there was no change, this remains current. Bump!

Why so complicated?

Once a player get killed in space, flag him unattackable for 30min, enough time to go to any planet.

That timer could be easy coded, and a bubble around the ship (not that much work to code aswell), can show everyone he is immortal.

Timerbreakdown on several events:
Picking up a passanger - timer ends
Getting goods pickup/loot/trade - timer ends
Firing a shot - timer ends

Even those who are armed, may not like to fight again, if they lost first fight :)

Not that hard to code, easy to understand and does exactly what OP wants.
Sounds good, too! Only I suggest 60 minutes, some travel with Sleipnir.

I don't think my version is more complicated where the logic to code is concerned, but I tend to make too many words around it ;)
 
Condition 1 is fulfilled before and ceases to be valid after a player unequipped for combat has been killed once and either was looted or found to not carry lootables. The message that a player was killed is sent through the universe-wide messaging system so everybody is informed. Therefore also pirates not being witness at the scene cannot claim to be unaware.

Very bad idea!


I prefer pirates waste ammo on NO LOOTers and contribute to loot that way, instead having a system, that easy prevent them from wasting ammo on NO Looters.
 

Very bad idea!


I prefer pirates waste ammo on NO LOOTers and contribute to loot that way, instead having a system, that easy prevent them from wasting ammo on NO Looters.

There are more than enough ways to spend. There are mobs to hunt in space or they can shoot each other up all day long. I don't care what they waste their money on as long as it's not on me. I refuse to be their plaything and I refuse to take this shit lying down for someone else's giggles. "I" stands for all like-minded who prefer to contribute in other ways and would do so more also in space if they weren't forced through this bs. Now go contribute to loot. Shoo.
 
It sound very complicated, I would prefer a simpler solution..I think both old and new players will be confused.

We have a simple solution: It's pvp, stop whining.
 
Back
Top