EVE General Discussion

There is that (and why even if CCP does this and I build a pve corp I will still keep my safeguard policies in place).

I just think making a change in hopes that somehting else will cover the loss is bad game development. CCP has done so many things for risk averse and weak willed players. Safeties, the noob system restrictions, buffing mining ships, crimewatch which killed some of the more interesting ways people like to screw with mission runners (as a mission runner I take pride in the fact that I never fail for the bait) etc etc.

CCP needs to decide what kind of game is wants t make and who it wants to market it too, because if the answer to that is "market it to people so weak that they won't fight back or learn cleaver ways to evade when you screw with them", then EVE isn't dying, it's already dead lol.



At this point i don't think any of that will happen. I don't think the current CCP has the will of the true original company, the one that said "we're making this unique game about freedom in the coldness of space, a sci-fi ultima online, screw it if you don't like it".

A) They're not being AWOXed by a Hardcore player. It's Carebear PVP. The risk/reward ratio is absolutely at the Carebear end of the scale.

B) It's not a "tenuous logic", it's how CCP have decided Highsec combat works outside of Wardecs. They are, and they've stated this in the minutes, just normalising the areas that currently fall outside the intended, and stated, mechanics.



Sure you can, you just loose a ship in the process. You still get to pop up in some guys mission without being an obvious hostile, neut his active tank flat and alpha his pathetic buffer off while he's under NPC fire, then get your alt in to scoop his deadspace toys. There's just a cost in the form of the ship you aggressed with.

It's a Carebear vs Carebear debate. Awoxing carries next to no risk/cost and a higher reward than ganking if done right. In essence, it's not bad because of the effect on Missionbears, it's bad because it's a Carebear alternative to ganking that is superior to the latter.




I have no issue with adjustments to Concord, or to changes to the Wardec mechanic to make dodging abuse harder - particularly the latter. They seem like sensible considerations that should be taken into account when making changes like this. CCP want to close an exception to a supposedly (and otherwise) global mechanic, that makes sense. Saying they need to look at the consequences of that and possibly make compensatory changes also makes sense. A lot more sense than raging that they shouldn't touch it because it's central to the game to have null-risk PVP available.

"Buffing highsec is unacceptable" seems a bit odd though, firstly - if highsec at some point was in need of a buff, it should get one. Same as lowsec, nullsec and wormhole space. They all need to function. Secondly, you are a Highsec player. This isn't a global "Highsec buff" because it's nerfing you, and you are a part of Highsec.

Why do you people keep spouting this lie?

Yes, awoxing would be removed, full stop.

Because if you're talking about tricking someone into duelling you, I can do that without joining their corp.

You are not adding any player interaction, you are taking it away. At least be honest about it.

Being something of a rogue myself, I am all about maintaining avenues for content creation, and AWOXxing is certainly one of them. But, on the other hand, if said avenue ends up driving away new players or keeping them in NPC corps, then it could well drive a net decrease in content creation opportunities because there are fewer players available to interact with. Also, as the CEO of a corporation, I made a conscious decision to not invite other players and AWOXxing was specifically one of the reasons why.

So long as there remain other avenues of aggression (wardecs, kill rights, dueling, ganking, etc.), I think I'd actually be okay with a change to corporate aggression rules. CCP changed them for fleets, so changing them for corps seems somewhat in line with that.

Here's how I see it:

PROS:

1. Easier player corp management (less time working, more time playing).
2. Player corps would still be vulnerable to corp thieves (so some work is still necessary).
3. Potentially more players in player corps (i.e. more wardec targets).
4. Potentially more players in the game overall (i.e. more targets, period).

CONS:

1. No more Safaris.


I can't possibly imagine how some lulzmails generated in a Safari could outweigh the pros of removing AWOXxing. And I say this as a general non-carebear who enjoys creating content.

Out of curiosity, what makes you think that the above are the real reasons new players quit? Have you stats? Exit polls? You know, the things CCP does to see why people leave?

But bullet by bullet

'do not provide gameplay' yeah, I agree some folks who came looking for a themepark experience leave when they find this is not it. I do not propose we ever try to become one, either. Sometimes you are just not the right game for the player.

Force players to mine or run missions. um, how? Oh they may suggest it for standings or to get some isk while the skill queue ripens but are you talking slave labour? What are they, Amarr?

People lie in Eve . . . yup

Some corps are bad and don't teach. Yup, others are better at it. I'd like to see an encouragement to the latter class of corps.

m

Manually turning duel requests on doesn't seem so much of a hardship, certainly it's easy enough that "tank testing and pvp practice" aren't a legitimate argument against the in-corp Concordokken change, at least once the "multi-duel" deployable they were talking about in the minutes arrives.

And the Wardec thing is something that needs fixing irrespective of this. Not making Change A if CCP believe it's the right change purely because it's impacted by a failing already present in Mechanic B is daft. Make Change A and fix Mechanic B. The idea of a "follow" duration for Wardec targets makes most sense to me, since locking people into decced corps is so abusable it's not funny.



Yep, the industry changes were good, and I completely agree with you on the missions/incursions front but that's a big job - the problem with lowsec missions is entierly that they are highsec missions in lowsec. It needs to be different content, which will take time because a) it takes time to make b) CCP keep forgetting lowsec exists.

Too safe is arguable. I think it's too safe from the pursuit of Wardecs. I think ganking is probably in a fairly good place. I'm a big advocate of the separation of the Empires with Lowsec space because it will provide an advantage for Hisec players willing to take risks over those not willing to. I also think having unstated exceptions to otherwise clear and global mechanics is poor game design, and completely understand why CCP want to change that.

"This change needs other changes to work" isn't a reason not to make the change, it's a reason to make the other changes.

It's defined as individual, active betrayal of one's ostensible corporation.

Active, as in not spying.

It can encompass corp theft, but was originally used to describe the activity of providing warp ins for hostile players(which can be easily done with cloaked ships instead), and is presently used primarily to describe the act of infiltrating a corporation with the intent to attack them from within.

Removing this particular interaction reduces the concept of awoxing to have the functional effect of only permitting corp theft.

Thereby functionally removing the concept instead.

Brother, this is a fantasy role-playing game, the rules don't need to have logic - they just need to allow opportunities for fun content, which AWOXing mechanics certainly always have.

But if you must have an RP justification for every single goddamn game mechanic, it's easy enough to cook one up.

How about this? In YC235754, CONCORD issued a notification to the empires that due to inflation in the price of PLEX, their budget could no longer support responses to intra-corporate capsuleer aggression. All capsuleer corporations were advised to provide for their own internal security."

Mechanic logically justified. Happy now?

It's not just yours that's under threat. It's the same for those of us who take pride in being able to accomplish something in game against clever (and ruthless) resistence.

Personally, I don't need CCP's help to not get awoxed (the only time I was awoxxed was in null and it was my own damn fault, I was ratting with a vindicator and a tengu but wanted my second monitor for something and logged off the tengu...that could have more easily killed the stealth bombers that awoxxed me lol). Or ganked, or scammed. I can do these things for myself and I resent CCP basically treating folks like me like children that need protecting just because a small vocal minority whines all the time.

I spit on your "flags that you can turn on and off".

That is purely consensual PvP. And removing a real avenue to inflict damage to replace it with such a thing is distasteful at best.



No, it's not. It's one sentence.

"Your own corporation is allowed to shoot you."

That's not that hard, to be frank. If that's too hard for somebody, they're going to have a brain meltdown when they see how the market works.