These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Player corp shooting

Author
Iain Cariaba
#21 - 2014-10-05 18:02:06 UTC
Nalha Saldana wrote:
Marsan wrote:
I think the OP has a point. Corps are dangerous enough without worrying about if the guy you recruited yesterday is going to start hunting random people in your corp. It makes no sense that corp on corp violence is treated differently. Also note you can still web things via the dueling mechanic.


Here's a guy that gets my point, its such a unnecessary mechanic.

Also what does it matter what I do? Look at the arguments instead because i have characters everywhere doing a bunch of different things.

The guy that gets your point forgets that the only reason corps are dangerous is because the guy you recruited yesterday might start hunting random people in your own corp. This is something you face even outside of highsec, and highsec should be no different. If you recruited an awoxer, guess what, your recruiter failed his job. If you recruited multiple awoxers, then your recruitment process failed.

As far as Marsan's points. One, you can't teach a noob proper pvp using the crappy duel mechanics. It takes longer than 15 minutes to give a pvp lesson. Also, say I want to have a 20 man free for all frigate battle with my corp, the winer taking a nice juicy prize. Each one of those players would need to issue a duel invitation to every other player, while accepting 19 other duel invitations at the same time. This is feasable, but annoying as ****. Now ramp that number up to 50, a not unreasonable number for some of the larger highsec corps. The mechanics of that many duel invitations alone would take longer than the 15 minute timers from the first ones. In either case, all it takes is one person clicking no on accident and the whole thing is ruined by Concord.

A fine example here is the recent RvB celebration in Jita. That massive free for all, which all involved stated was a blast, would not have been possible without the current ability to shoot corpies. You go tell the guys that had so much fun there that they will never be able to do that again, all because you're afraid that you might recruit an awoxer. Se what kind of response you get.

So, once again, no. You may not remove even more risk from an already risk averse region of the game.
Nalha Saldana
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2014-10-05 18:32:09 UTC
Thanks for some great input Iain, you ahve some very compelling reasons for a system like this to stay but I have one problem with this: Is a corp really the right mechanic for something like this? There should be a extended multi duel menu for this kind of stuff and not the default setting for every corp out there.

Hell even a basic ticker for the CEO to set if corp shooting should be allowed or not would be a good solution.
Iain Cariaba
#23 - 2014-10-05 19:08:36 UTC
Nalha Saldana wrote:
Thanks for some great input Iain, you ahve some very compelling reasons for a system like this to stay but I have one problem with this: Is a corp really the right mechanic for something like this? There should be a extended multi duel menu for this kind of stuff and not the default setting for every corp out there.

Hell even a basic ticker for the CEO to set if corp shooting should be allowed or not would be a good solution.

EvE is a game where villanry and general asshatery are not merely allowed, they are encouraged.

Let's look at this from a different viewpoint, and please try to give an honest answer to this. At what point do you draw the line in trying to remove non-consentual PvP from highsec?
GordonO
BURN EDEN
#24 - 2014-10-05 19:38:42 UTC  |  Edited by: GordonO
Christopher Mabata wrote:
1. Because AWOX'ing is part of the meta now, it teaches people proper recruitment screening and not to put too much at risk if they cant afford it.
2. It allows corps to do PVP tournaments in highsec without worry of someone interrupting it
3. its an avenue for war deccers ( for example they tackle your mining fleet with a skiff that is in corp or an arazu etc. and then warp into system to kill you
4. because content is good
5. Why would it need to be removed it encourages player interaction in good and bad ways, which MMO's are supposed to do


There is no way to properly screen someone, if I wanted I would get a toon in that I can use for whatever ill gotten ideas I have I will very easily get it in. I have seen people stick around for years before they do their dirty dead and to roll new clean accounts is very easy.
EVE is all about "the meta game" griefing, bullying etc..
EVE has been fun and successful, mostly cause it hasn't had any real competition, but that is all changing.. and to be honest.. some of us do enjoy the occasional carebear moments where you don't have to worry about being dumped on the whole time.
If you going to pay for the game.. you should be able to enjoy it youre way.... so its going to be very interesting in the near future..

... What next ??

Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#25 - 2014-10-05 19:54:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
I may be mistaken here, so if there's someone from those early days around they're free to correct me, but when CCP decided to have CONCORD ignore a person shooting his own corpmates, it was for reasons that did not include AWOXing. AWOXing is just a thing that has come up as a result of the opportunity being there.

Those reasons are now covered by the duel mechanic, as I understand, and so literally the only two reasons to retain being able to freely attack your own corpmates are AWOXing and webbing freighters into warp.

This post is neither in support of nor against keeping/removing the ability to AWOX, it's just pointing out something may as well be said.

On an equally neutral note, I do want to add that all this talk of "effective screening practices" is complete nonsense and anyone who's been here more than a year should know that anything more than marginally-effective screening is literally impossible. If someone wants to go on safari, there is nothing stopping them except their dedication to the cause - API keys and background checks aren't going to yield anything about other accounts.
Iain Cariaba
#26 - 2014-10-05 20:08:45 UTC
GordonO wrote:
If you going to pay for the game.. you should be able to enjoy it youre way.... so its going to be very interesting in the near future..

You are incorrect.

Whenever you buy a game, you play it the way the game developers want you to play it. You don't buy CoD to build a city, you don't buy simulation games for the story, and you don't buy Civilization for the action. Likewise, you don't come into EvE and get to play in a manner counter to the very core tenet of the game. The core tenet is that New Eden is a cold, harsh, cruel place where you are in near constant danger. If you weren't aware of this fact when you first signed up, you likely learned it shortly thereafter.

Yes, it will be interesting in the future, if any of the current batch of vaporware ever hits the market. Sure, EvE may see a slump in subs if SC ever comes out, but unless it has the same sense of risk and danger involved that EvE has, I only see it attracting those too risk averse to play a pure PvP game.
GordonO
BURN EDEN
#27 - 2014-10-05 20:13:28 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
GordonO wrote:
If you going to pay for the game.. you should be able to enjoy it youre way.... so its going to be very interesting in the near future..

You are incorrect.

Whenever you buy a game, you play it the way the game developers want you to play it. You don't buy CoD to build a city, you don't buy simulation games for the story, and you don't buy Civilization for the action. Likewise, you don't come into EvE and get to play in a manner counter to the very core tenet of the game. The core tenet is that New Eden is a cold, harsh, cruel place where you are in near constant danger. If you weren't aware of this fact when you first signed up, you likely learned it shortly thereafter.

Yes, it will be interesting in the future, if any of the current batch of vaporware ever hits the market. Sure, EvE may see a slump in subs if SC ever comes out, but unless it has the same sense of risk and danger involved that EvE has, I only see it attracting those too risk averse to play a pure PvP game.



EVE has changed since I first started.. I enjoy both the pvp and pve... but I played more when I could do some risk adverse stuff, I had an option before.. I no longer have the option..

... What next ??

Nalha Saldana
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2014-10-05 20:25:06 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
GordonO wrote:
If you going to pay for the game.. you should be able to enjoy it youre way.... so its going to be very interesting in the near future..

You are incorrect.

Whenever you buy a game, you play it the way the game developers want you to play it. You don't buy CoD to build a city, you don't buy simulation games for the story, and you don't buy Civilization for the action. Likewise, you don't come into EvE and get to play in a manner counter to the very core tenet of the game. The core tenet is that New Eden is a cold, harsh, cruel place where you are in near constant danger. If you weren't aware of this fact when you first signed up, you likely learned it shortly thereafter.

Yes, it will be interesting in the future, if any of the current batch of vaporware ever hits the market. Sure, EvE may see a slump in subs if SC ever comes out, but unless it has the same sense of risk and danger involved that EvE has, I only see it attracting those too risk averse to play a pure PvP game.


What is it that you're saying, we should stop suggesting to CCP what we want in the game?
CCP is making and shaping this game for us, the things you say might be true for a lot of games but not EVE.

If you want constant danger why dont you make a thread about removing concord instead, as I said before we don't need this crap "protected from random pvp here. Kinda." system.
Iain Cariaba
#29 - 2014-10-05 20:25:44 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
I may be mistaken here, so if there's someone from those early days around they're free to correct me, but when CCP decided to have CONCORD ignore a person shooting his own corpmates, it was for reasons that did not include AWOXing. AWOXing is just a thing that has come up as a result of the opportunity being there.

Those reasons are now covered by the duel mechanic, as I understand, and so literally the only two reasons to retain being able to freely attack your own corpmates are AWOXing and webbing freighters into warp.

Go reread my post about inter-corp pvp tournaments, better yet, try and arrange one among your corpies... oh wait, you can't.

Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
This post is neither in support of nor against keeping/removing the ability to AWOX, it's just pointing out something may as well be said.

Then why did you waste the time to write about something that has already been said?

Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
On an equally neutral note, I do want to add that all this talk of "effective screening practices" is complete nonsense and anyone who's been here more than a year should know that anything more than marginally-effective screening is literally impossible. If someone wants to go on safari, there is nothing stopping them except their dedication to the cause - API keys and background checks aren't going to yield anything about other accounts.

Actually, you'd be surprised what you can learn from an API check. All you have to do is get bored with grinding isk for that alt once and slip it some cash or give it a ship and it's there in your API. Sure, it's possible to sneak an awoxer in, and some go for deep, deep cover, but your average highsec awoxer is pretty blatant about it and doesn't usually bother to try and cover their tracks too well.
Iain Cariaba
#30 - 2014-10-05 20:29:00 UTC
Nalha Saldana wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
GordonO wrote:
If you going to pay for the game.. you should be able to enjoy it youre way.... so its going to be very interesting in the near future..

You are incorrect.

Whenever you buy a game, you play it the way the game developers want you to play it. You don't buy CoD to build a city, you don't buy simulation games for the story, and you don't buy Civilization for the action. Likewise, you don't come into EvE and get to play in a manner counter to the very core tenet of the game. The core tenet is that New Eden is a cold, harsh, cruel place where you are in near constant danger. If you weren't aware of this fact when you first signed up, you likely learned it shortly thereafter.

Yes, it will be interesting in the future, if any of the current batch of vaporware ever hits the market. Sure, EvE may see a slump in subs if SC ever comes out, but unless it has the same sense of risk and danger involved that EvE has, I only see it attracting those too risk averse to play a pure PvP game.


What is it that you're saying, we should stop suggesting to CCP what we want in the game?
CCP is making and shaping this game for us, the things you say might be true for a lot of games but not EVE.

If you want constant danger why dont you make a thread about removing concord instead, as I said before we don't need this crap "protected from random pvp here. Kinda." system.

CCP is going to do what CCP is going to do, regardless. One word, Incarna.

As for the random pvp bit, you still haven't answered my question. Where do you draw the line when removing non-consentual PvP from highsec? When will your desire to nerf highsec PvP be satisfied?
Nalha Saldana
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2014-10-05 20:33:45 UTC
Btw instead of AWOXers using the brain dead "lol you invited me, nao you die" wouldn't it be more fun to lure them into lowsec or a wormhole where you can kill them as much as you want within the set rules?

There are a bunch of other ways to hurt a corp from the inside too through theft and lies, way more creative and interesting things than this random pvp.

And before someone mentions tightening security more I don't want to touch suicide ganking, its a system that works under the rules and everyone is aware of the risk.
Iain Cariaba
#32 - 2014-10-05 20:45:08 UTC
Nalha Saldana wrote:
Btw instead of AWOXers using the brain dead "lol you invited me, nao you die" wouldn't it be more fun to lure them into lowsec or a wormhole where you can kill them as much as you want within the set rules?

There are a bunch of other ways to hurt a corp from the inside too through theft and lies, way more creative and interesting things than this random pvp.

And before someone mentions tightening security more I don't want to touch suicide ganking, its a system that works under the rules and everyone is aware of the risk.

The issue with that is most of the targets of highsec awoxers are too risk averse to ever set foot in lowsec or wormhole space. They're scared to be out from unter the retaliation of Concord, and if wardeced they usually drop corp to reform.

While yes, there are other ways to hurt a corp, some people just don'tmhave the disposition to pull off the long con to get to the good stuff. They just want to cause as much havoc as possible and move on to the next target.
GordonO
BURN EDEN
#33 - 2014-10-05 20:49:59 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Nalha Saldana wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
GordonO wrote:
If you going to pay for the game.. you should be able to enjoy it youre way.... so its going to be very interesting in the near future..

You are incorrect.

Whenever you buy a game, you play it the way the game developers want you to play it. You don't buy CoD to build a city, you don't buy simulation games for the story, and you don't buy Civilization for the action. Likewise, you don't come into EvE and get to play in a manner counter to the very core tenet of the game. The core tenet is that New Eden is a cold, harsh, cruel place where you are in near constant danger. If you weren't aware of this fact when you first signed up, you likely learned it shortly thereafter.

Yes, it will be interesting in the future, if any of the current batch of vaporware ever hits the market. Sure, EvE may see a slump in subs if SC ever comes out, but unless it has the same sense of risk and danger involved that EvE has, I only see it attracting those too risk averse to play a pure PvP game.


What is it that you're saying, we should stop suggesting to CCP what we want in the game?
CCP is making and shaping this game for us, the things you say might be true for a lot of games but not EVE.

If you want constant danger why dont you make a thread about removing concord instead, as I said before we don't need this crap "protected from random pvp here. Kinda." system.

CCP is going to do what CCP is going to do, regardless. One word, Incarna.

As for the random pvp bit, you still haven't answered my question. Where do you draw the line when removing non-consentual PvP from highsec? When will your desire to nerf highsec PvP be satisfied?


Having a choice to pvp or not should be that.. a choice.

... What next ??

Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#34 - 2014-10-05 21:01:27 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Then why did you waste the time to write about something that has already been said?


When did it become a forum requirement to take a side when posting in a topic?
Nalha Saldana
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2014-10-05 21:02:51 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Nalha Saldana wrote:
Btw instead of AWOXers using the brain dead "lol you invited me, nao you die" wouldn't it be more fun to lure them into lowsec or a wormhole where you can kill them as much as you want within the set rules?

There are a bunch of other ways to hurt a corp from the inside too through theft and lies, way more creative and interesting things than this random pvp.

And before someone mentions tightening security more I don't want to touch suicide ganking, its a system that works under the rules and everyone is aware of the risk.

The issue with that is most of the targets of highsec awoxers are too risk averse to ever set foot in lowsec or wormhole space. They're scared to be out from unter the retaliation of Concord, and if wardeced they usually drop corp to reform.

While yes, there are other ways to hurt a corp, some people just don'tmhave the disposition to pull off the long con to get to the good stuff. They just want to cause as much havoc as possible and move on to the next target.


Thats another change I would like, I dont think it should be so easy to duck a wardec. Give the people who leaves a wardecced corp something like a week while they cant join any other corp.

All I want is PvP to be through organized mechanics and not some hole in the rules, I still want it to be there tho.
Iain Cariaba
#36 - 2014-10-05 21:07:43 UTC
Nalha Saldana wrote:
Thats another change I would like, I dont think it should be so easy to duck a wardec. Give the people who leaves a wardecced corp something like a week while they cant join any other corp.

All I want is PvP to be through organized mechanics and not some hole in the rules, I still want it to be there tho.

It is organized through mechanics. Do you really think that your's is the first thread to cover this particular topic? I think we average about one a week on nerfing inter-corp awoxing. Don't you think that if it was really a loop hole in the rules that it would've already been nerfed?
Nalha Saldana
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2014-10-05 21:20:30 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Nalha Saldana wrote:
Thats another change I would like, I dont think it should be so easy to duck a wardec. Give the people who leaves a wardecced corp something like a week while they cant join any other corp.

All I want is PvP to be through organized mechanics and not some hole in the rules, I still want it to be there tho.

It is organized through mechanics. Do you really think that your's is the first thread to cover this particular topic? I think we average about one a week on nerfing inter-corp awoxing. Don't you think that if it was really a loop hole in the rules that it would've already been nerfed?


Oh I'm very sure that I'm not the first to suggest any of these ideas but i have yet to see a thread where the problem is well written out, discussed and not instantly shot down by people like you who cant take a constructive discussion about the issue.
Iain Cariaba
#38 - 2014-10-05 22:13:53 UTC
Nalha Saldana wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Nalha Saldana wrote:
Thats another change I would like, I dont think it should be so easy to duck a wardec. Give the people who leaves a wardecced corp something like a week while they cant join any other corp.

All I want is PvP to be through organized mechanics and not some hole in the rules, I still want it to be there tho.

It is organized through mechanics. Do you really think that your's is the first thread to cover this particular topic? I think we average about one a week on nerfing inter-corp awoxing. Don't you think that if it was really a loop hole in the rules that it would've already been nerfed?


Oh I'm very sure that I'm not the first to suggest any of these ideas but i have yet to see a thread where the problem is well written out, discussed and not instantly shot down by people like you who cant take a constructive discussion about the issue.

You're the one who wants a change, I'm the one who rebuts. This is how debate works. If you've no further arguments in favor of your proposed change, you should ask for your topic to be locked rather than defame that I cannot take constructive discussion.

You seem to forget, as the one who wants a change, the onus is placed upon your head to justify and defend your position. The simple fact that I disagree with you does not automatically mean I cannot take constructive discussion, The fact that I attempt to correct your mistaken assumptions and ask questions meant to make you think on your own topic should be welcomed, not decried.

When taken together, this is still one of the better 'nerf highsec awoxing' threads, for at no time did you whine to "think of the noobs," as most who post this topic do. The simple matter is that intra-corp PvP has a place and a purpose in all aspects of EvE. The fact that some people choose to use it with bad intentions is no fault of the system, anymore than it is the fault of the biography page in your 'show info' panel that some people put the "rules" to their isk doubling scams there.
Previous page12