These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Corp Kick Queue

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Adira Nictor
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#41 - 2014-10-20 19:24:24 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:

Thats because it's not a PvP game:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
We often hear "EVE is a PvP game, PvE is secondary". To this we would like to respond that EVE is a sandbox and shouldn’t necessarily favor one side over the other. What you do with it is up to you: all player activities should feel as appealing and rewarding no matter which choice you take.



I stand corrected, Instead I will say:

That has never happened to me before, it would be an interesting turn of events, but I suspect that is because my targets are of the, lets ignore this is a sandbox (where pvp can happen for no reason what so ever) game and recruit anyone blindly without and thought put into the consequences at all.

End of the day, it really makes no difference.

To me, eve is a pvp game, that is how I like my sand box, and because its a sandbox the only one that can stop me from smashing your castle is you, or your friends.

And because of people like me, with my mindset about this sandbox game, eve is a pvp game because we choose to make it that way.
Adira Nictor
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#42 - 2014-10-20 19:26:08 UTC
Zappity wrote:
I fully expect that we will see more changes which are friendly to new/inexperienced corps when the corporation changes come through. Encouraging players to leave NPC corps will surely be prioritised over awoxing type game play.


I expect this is true, which is why I say this change isn't a big deal, we will adapt, and move on, and if this game play style is removed over time, we will just find something else to do.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#43 - 2014-10-20 19:35:20 UTC
Good points all the way around, but it should be pretty clear by now to everyone that CCP isn't as open minded when they identify a play style as more "gaming the mechanics" rather than "gaming the players".

To be perfectly honest it's more than a bit immersion breaking to be completely unable to fire someone from your own corp.

Now it's completely realistic to have a disgruntled employee (or perhaps a corporate spy) that completely wrecks something the corp is attempting... or robs it blind... or causes immense physical damage to corp property before his activity is discovered and he is terminated (one way or another).

But to be unable to end their employment because of their docking state? It's pretty silly. It's only been necessary to prevent exploitable behavior concerning the Concord game mechanics. If there is a reasonable way to prevent the exploitable behavior, then it only makes sense for this restriction to be lifted.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Gospadin
Bastard Children of Poinen
#44 - 2014-10-20 19:43:54 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
CCP Masterplan wrote:
...

BTW linking it directly to logout wouldn't necessarily solve the requirement of getting rid of someone who doesn't want to leave, because a] they can just not log out, much as they don't do already, and b] even when they do, their ship is still in space for some time. If you've managed to catch a war-target and they can use this feature to logoffski with a kick-queue, you don't want their ship to suddenly leave the corp and become a non-legal target. This is the sort of thing I mean where we'll need to take a look at the overall gameplay around joining/leaving corps whilst in space.


If the safety is set to green then that will not be a problem. My weapons will just shut down as soon as he goes non-legal.

If my weapons will not be auto-shut-down, then you have a bug in crimewatch, and should fix it. One fix would be: CONCORD gets notified of the target's legal status change only after my client has seen the change, and turned off my weapons. That is:

Target drops corp.
Status change starts propagating through the server cluster and player clients.
Eventually the change is registered by my client, and my weapons turn off.
After that time, my shooting the target will be a crime, but not before.


I like it, that's how it should work, with 1 change:

The weapons-off check should consider a limited engagement timer too. Let two people continue their battle until the timer expires.
Ama Scelesta
#45 - 2014-10-20 19:48:50 UTC
Solecist Project wrote:
What about awoxxers who will lose a part of their playstyle because of this?

Why should CCP care in these type of situations? I'm asking seriously here. This change isn't about an intentional rebalance of corporation security versus awoxers. It's just a fix to a stupid mechnic, that makes no in-game sense and is the result of out-of-game technical limitations and lack of initial planning on the implementation of the mechanic. Some people managed to leverage that flaw to make personal gain and they'll lose, but why should CCP retain bad design and technical limitations just for the benefit of a certain type of awoxing?

Such balancing considerations would be appropriate when considering the overhaul of the corp system. There you balance awoxing versus the desperate need to lower the barrier for corps to accept new unknown members, since being a part of a corporation has been proven to be better for the players and player retention. When removing bad gameplay caused by technical limitations, I don't think CCP should give any consideration to the people who have made their gameplay about the abuse of those mechanics. Their playstyle is within rules and even supported, but that doesn't mean their game style is somehow sacred and not subject to changes.
Hicksimus
Torgue
#46 - 2014-10-20 20:06:36 UTC
If you could only ever have 1 toon in your whole lifetime in EvE things would be fine the way they are. This will be a nice change and before anybody calls me out on being a carebear/renter.....

https://zkillboard.com/kill/33046032/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/33041626/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/33041571/


I tried it once(got to try everything once in life) and I think it's B.S.

Recruitment Officer: What type of a pilot are you? Me: I've been described as a Ray Charles with Parkinsons and a drinking problem.
Carmen Electra
AlcoDOTTE
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#47 - 2014-10-20 20:08:34 UTC
Hicksimus wrote:
If you could only ever have 1 toon in your whole lifetime in EvE things would be fine the way they are. This will be a nice change and before anybody calls me out on being a carebear/renter.....

https://zkillboard.com/kill/33046032/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/33041626/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/33041571/


I tried it once(got to try everything once in life) and I think it's B.S.

I'm confused.

Also, you must be new here. <3

Bacon makes us stronger
Solecist Project
#48 - 2014-10-20 20:18:15 UTC
lol so buttugly.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#49 - 2014-10-20 20:57:45 UTC
Caviar Liberta wrote:
Solecist Project wrote:
Adira Nictor wrote:
While this will make extorting a corp for isk to make me leave hard, Ill just have to switch up to joining corps with shiny ships and ransom the ships instead of the corp as a whole.

Its a shame when CCP helps remove consequences of CEO's and Recruiters choices in who they recruit, or their blind recruitment of obvious awoxers.
They're not.
You're just talking out of your ass.

There's a difference between removing consequences ...
... and removing your ability to annoy people infinitely long ...
... which actually means that they remove your ability to stay in corp infinitely ...
... without any consequences.


And some corps will keep an awoxer around to shoot at since corp members can do that.


Why would AWOXers target a corp which can PVP when there is a bajillion mission/mining/indy corps filled with people who are basically free kills in potential bling ships?
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#50 - 2014-10-20 21:04:48 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Yeah, I saw that one too.

The issue I have with this is that it makes awoxing harder in a lot of ephemeral ways.

It basically removes the long term threat an awoxer represents. With 100% surety. Now all you have available to you is the initial attack, and then they dock up til downtime. Which has a far more harsh effect on people in some timezones than in others, by the way.

So, since we're buffing highsec safety still further by nerfing the currently best way to actually get at people without the loathsome presence of CONCORD, how about we look at fixing the dec dodge exploit finally?


You are saying it made sense for the CEO of a corporation to not be able to fire someone unless said person slept over the beginning of his shift.

The current best way to get at people without the loathsome presence of concord is to get the **** out of high-sec. It works every single time.
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#51 - 2014-10-20 21:10:58 UTC

CCP Ytterbium wrote:
We often hear "EVE is a PvP game, PvE is secondary". To this we would like to respond that EVE is a sandbox and shouldn’t necessarily favor one side over the other. What you do with it is up to you: all player activities should feel as appealing and rewarding no matter which choice you take.



This above text needs to be stickified at the top of every forum area here, and made available in the NES as a free face tattoo.

☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Carmen Electra
AlcoDOTTE
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#52 - 2014-10-20 21:17:17 UTC
Doc Fury wrote:

CCP Ytterbium wrote:
We often hear "EVE is a PvP game, PvE is secondary". To this we would like to respond that EVE is a sandbox and shouldn’t necessarily favor one side over the other. What you do with it is up to you: all player activities should feel as appealing and rewarding no matter which choice you take.



This above text needs to be stickified at the top of every forum area here, and made available in the NES as a free face tattoo.


Would tattoo on face. Would also get an arm tattoo that says Doc Fury.

Bacon makes us stronger
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#53 - 2014-10-20 21:41:36 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:

The current best way to get at people without the loathsome presence of concord is to get the **** out of high-sec. It works every single time.


Ah, the "PvP doesn't belong in highsec" argument. Hadn't seen that in a few hours.

No, I will stay in highsec, because PvP belongs everywhere, not just some corner for you to shove it into.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
KnowUsByTheDead
Sunlight...Through The Blight.
#54 - 2014-10-20 21:55:51 UTC
While I have zero personal problems with my own adaptability in regards to this *possible* change...

Trust me, I have an idea or two up my sleeve...Blink

I am more worried about some of the other safari-like activities, and worried that the playstyle that evolved from a simple metaphorical "hit-and-run," to a more nuanced activity that can net serious profit.

Theft/Ransom is not really viable under this change, which is a large part of a safari-artist's income.

What about full corp theft? Will share votes cancel a kick-queue?

What about a "group" safari? Sometimes it takes as long as 16-20 hours to get a crew in corp to take everything not bolted down.

The sole problem here...is a game that takes time in everything that you do. Vast amounts of time. And the problem here stems from the fact that you are exacting a time limit on a playstyle that can consist of simply corp killing.........all the way to clearing out every single asset in a corp, and then ransoming the corp itself, or stealing it.

In a game of endless time, literally years worth of skills to train, so on and so forth............it is quite counter-intuitive to impose time limits on certain playstyles, and sets a pretty horrible precedent.

Why is this the answer to awoxing, when even safari-dudes will tell you (in fact, half of the game will tell you), the biggest problem with the "unbalance" behind a safari is the existence of neutral logi. But that whistle has been blown so many times it has been ridiculous.

I have been waiting patiently for the corp revamp, and I have high hopes that this mainstay playstyle will not be affected too deeply, while also crossing fingers that CCP puts more tools into the hands of those who enjoy a good safari.





Now while I do not oppose this change in any way, (in fact, it will become quite handy in other endeavors), I am starting to see a trend with these changes.





CCP always struggles with sub retention.

CCP releases changes that totally change the landscape as to how a mechanic/playstyle is used/played.

And much like the fatigue change...

This change is solved/bypassed by....

You guessed it!!!

Alts.

More and more and more...

Alts.

Shocked

Well played, CCP, well played indeed.

Other than that, thank you for injecting some difficulty into one of my favorite pastimes. When you crash and burn corp after corp...it can become as mundane as mining.

I look forward to exploiting this change to the fullest and adding just a few more husks to DUDE. alliance.

Big smileCoolPirate

Once you realize what a joke everything is, being the comedian is the only thing that makes sense.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#55 - 2014-10-21 00:38:49 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

The current best way to get at people without the loathsome presence of concord is to get the **** out of high-sec. It works every single time.


Ah, the "PvP doesn't belong in highsec" argument. Hadn't seen that in a few hours.

No, I will stay in highsec, because PvP belongs everywhere, not just some corner for you to shove it into.


I didn't say PvP does not belong in high sec. Putting words in my mouth gets you nowhere. I told you the best way to get PvP without any intervention from CONCORD is to get out of High-sec. There is a huge difference between the two statement.
Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#56 - 2014-10-23 02:28:58 UTC
KnowUsByTheDead wrote:
the biggest problem with the "unbalance" behind a safari is the existence of neutral logi.


Specifically the fact that you don't get suspect for assisting someone engaged in a safari. The situation is so ridiculous that neutral logi do not even normally fit tank.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#57 - 2014-10-23 02:34:25 UTC
Masao Kurata wrote:
KnowUsByTheDead wrote:
the biggest problem with the "unbalance" behind a safari is the existence of neutral logi.


Specifically the fact that you don't get suspect for assisting someone engaged in a safari. The situation is so ridiculous that neutral logi do not even normally fit tank.


For some time now it has been my suggestion that any pilot activating an "assist" style module should inherit any limited engagement flags from whomever they are assisting.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#58 - 2014-10-23 02:54:44 UTC
I think the kick queue should only work after a certain minimum number of downtimes... say, when you add someone to the queue, they're automatically kicked three downtimes later. If you want them kicked sooner, you have to do it manually.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#59 - 2014-10-23 03:07:34 UTC
Solecist Project wrote:
What about awoxxers who will lose a part of their playstyle because of this?

Who cares?

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#60 - 2014-10-23 03:20:54 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Solecist Project wrote:
What about awoxxers who will lose a part of their playstyle because of this?

Who cares?

Everyone who's not invested in the idea of turning highsec into a carebear playground.