These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The end of Corpmate Awoxxing?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#641 - 2014-10-31 19:58:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Mike Azariah wrote:
... I support the game as a whole and closing an odd loophole seems like a no brainer to me, not the cause for 35 pages of debate.

What you call 'closing a loophole' we call nerfing a valuable content-creation mechanic.

Ultimately, if closing said 'loophole' vs. status quo ultimately results in less player conflict or content creation, said change should be summarily dismissed. Period.

Protect the sandbox Mike, no more nerfs.

F

Would you like to know more?
Anslo
Scope Works
#642 - 2014-10-31 20:00:51 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:
... I support the game as a whole and closing an odd loophole seems like a no brainer to me, not the cause for 35 pages of debate.

What you call 'closing a loophole' we call nerfing a valuable content-creation mechanic.

Ultimately, if closing said 'loophole' vs. status quo ultimately results in less player conflict or content creation, said change should be summarily dismissed. Period.

Protect the sandbox Mike, no more nerfs.

F

If you don't like what Eve is becoming, why not find a game more suitable to your play style?

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#643 - 2014-10-31 20:01:09 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
You are spewing dinsdale-esque crap.
Wrong. dinsdale-esque would be screaming "the cartels!" and claiming the devs were helping. That was just pointing out that if you aren't completely incompetent and somehow managing to do the complete opposite of your stated goals by accident, then the explanation can only be that you are purposely targeting non-botters. So which are you, pro-botters or completely incompetent?
Conspiracies are his thing, parsimony is a thing and you still haven't stopped being wrong about anything I've already noted.

Perhaps you should ask CODE.
I've not seen you note me as being wrong about anything.

And yes perhaps I should P

To be fair CODE members would just post up an entire wall of repetitive jargon explaining how great they are and such. Would hardly be an objective viewpoint.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#644 - 2014-10-31 20:01:49 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Mara Pahrdi wrote:
But since I've been a dedicated highsec resident for most of my EvE time, I can say that Highsec feels unbalanced safe now and has constantly been getting safer since I started playing EvE 4 years ago. And this despite all the efforts a lot of people have put into making highsec more lively and dangerous.
Agreed, highsec is far safer than it was in 2009 when I started playing.

Quote:
I liked the way highsec worked when I joined EvE. I like the fact, that you can never be completely sure, what's going to happen behind the next gate. I'd actually like it if there were more and substantially different ways to non consensual aggression in highsec. Since I joined EvE, CCP have removed or devalued quite some of those and added exactly none. And yes, HS EvE feels less lively because of that.
Like you I'm primarily a highsec resident, and a PvE player to boot.

Eve, especially highsec, is rapidly becoming very different from the game I fell in love with.

Quote:
But I guess I'm in a minority there.
There's a few of us left, unfortunately CCP seems to be going down the path of catering for the lowest common denominator, carebears.



Says the risk averse player not willing to lose his ship for said pvp........how can anyone take an awoxxer seriously now.

I would say the response is right up there with Code not showing up for the tourney and basically logging off with their fingers in their ears.

The caliber of pvp player atm in this thread is the lowest and Eve is worse off for it.
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#645 - 2014-10-31 20:02:11 UTC
Syn Shi wrote:
I think the bigger issue is the statement by one of the CSMs calling the person being shot dumb.


How can you represent the player base when you view some of them as dumb?



Population of the game pretty well guarantees dumb people. And smart people and everyday folks.

http://funnyfilez.funnypart.com/pictures/FunnyPart-com-i_see_dumb_people.jpg

I am a teacher, this doesn't mean I don't think some kids are dumb, I just don't call them that and I try to remedy the situation as best I can. Here, I call some folks as I see them and there are NO requirements for CSM to be 'nice'.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#646 - 2014-10-31 20:04:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Bronson Hughes
If ever anyone needs proof that some people take EvE way too seriously, point them to this thread and laugh. Seriously, the amount of butthurt and longwinded rhetoric over such a minor change to game mechanics is comical.

Gankers gonna gank, AWOX or no. They'll adapt and keep right on ganking while player corps may have an easier time recruiting people. That should pretty much be the end of this topic, yet it's gone on for over 30 pages now. Wow.

EDIT: Post 666. Nice.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#647 - 2014-10-31 20:08:00 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:
... I support the game as a whole and closing an odd loophole seems like a no brainer to me, not the cause for 35 pages of debate.

What you call 'closing a loophole' we call nerfing a valuable content-creation mechanic.

Ultimately, if closing said 'loophole' vs. status quo ultimately results in less player conflict or content creation, said change should be summarily dismissed. Period.

Protect the sandbox Mike, no more nerfs.

F


I am honestly trying. But sometimes a surgeon has to make cuts and injure the patient to keep it alive in the long run. Nerfs are the cuts that CCP applies in hopes of keeping the game alive . . . now some of you might carry this medical analogy out and call the devs 'quacks' and 'bloodletters' who practice medicine with no clue of what is really going on.

You have the right to think that.

I am allowed to disagree.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#648 - 2014-10-31 20:09:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Masao Kurata
Syn Shi wrote:
You can still awox.

Now you lose a ship.

Why are you risk averse?


We went over this earlier. You do not understand how CONCORD works.

CONCORD do not respond to the destruction of a ship, their response timer starts at the first aggressive action. The timer is very short, in a prepared system it is 10-25 seconds (1.0-0.5 systems), in an unprepared one it is 4-19 seconds. That is the time in which you have to kill a ship and this is why suicide gankers have to fly in packs of high dps destroyers.

EDIT: To clarify, the first response CONCORD uses is infinite strength ecm, reducing drone bandwidth to zero and infinite strength neuting.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#649 - 2014-10-31 20:10:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Ok, it seams this is a bit hard to understand, so I try again.
LOL, how can you still be missing the point! You are still attacking the people who compete against botters, thus raising the profit margins of botters. By ganking normal miners, you are helping botters and isboxer miners.

Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Bot-aspirants get blown up, nothing new here. And it does not matter if he is 10 years old or a month. They usually fly untanked stuff because they think highsec is safe. And maybe in a not so far future they will actually be right if people like you get their way. The AFK mining paradise is coming.
No, easy to kill solo players get ganked. A "bot aspirant" would be mining with a bunch of procurers. One guy mining in a retriever while reading the paper isn't bot aspirant, and the fact that your group goes so far to publicise peoples tearful responses to you (something a bot aspirant would not do) Is further proof of this.

Long and short - the action you take HELPS botters and isboxer miners.

Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Now there are also a lot of big Procurer and Skiff fleets around and they may use Isboxer or just multibox by hand. They are not bots, and just because you like to call them bots this does not change their nature. I actually consider them more active than a AFK retriever, as they push the mining gameplay to a level where constant interaction is actually needed. If you don't like them, go ahead and do something about it. I usually use a 100MN Stabber, they are quite effective if they don't pay for a permit.
LOL so a CODE member supports isboxer mining fleets? Further proof that all of this complaining abut "bot aspirants" is bull. Maybe that's your goal, raise the profit margins for isboxer fleets.

One thing is for sure, you aren't accomplishing your groups started goals by killing average Joe miners. So answer the question form earlier: So which are you, pro-botters or completely incompetent?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#650 - 2014-10-31 20:12:43 UTC
Syn Shi wrote:
Talon SilverHawk wrote:
Pretty sh*t move tbh if they do, it's a nice way to test setups and have inter corp competitions and had no detrimental affect on the rest of the game.


Tal
You can still do this in low, null, or WH space.

But that would involve leaving the safety of hi-sec.


Hang on, why is it ok for awoxxers to practice pvp in the safe folds of hi-sec????


But there marks should face the cold hard truth of Eve.
This is still possible in high sec. Dueling mechanics make this possible.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#651 - 2014-10-31 20:13:03 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
You are spewing dinsdale-esque crap.
Wrong. dinsdale-esque would be screaming "the cartels!" and claiming the devs were helping. That was just pointing out that if you aren't completely incompetent and somehow managing to do the complete opposite of your stated goals by accident, then the explanation can only be that you are purposely targeting non-botters. So which are you, pro-botters or completely incompetent?
Conspiracies are his thing, parsimony is a thing and you still haven't stopped being wrong about anything I've already noted.

Perhaps you should ask CODE.
I've not seen you note me as being wrong about anything.

And yes perhaps I should P

To be fair CODE members would just post up an entire wall of repetitive jargon explaining how great they are and such. Would hardly be an objective viewpoint.


It's all content just make it a good thread.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
The Conference
#652 - 2014-10-31 20:26:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Ima Wreckyou
Mike Azariah wrote:
Increase content? I hope so. If a few more people join corps, if a few more corps recruit without worrying about bad things happening then we have more people, more content. If not, then I seriously doubt that there will be a decrease.

This is suicide ganking and something completely else. It has nothing to do with corp aggression mechanics.

Yes you can assemble some friends and gank the guy out of his bling ship for loot or giggles. That is completely fine, it's what I do all the time and it is fun. But it is no substitute for Safari/Awoxing.

If you infiltrate a corp there are other things you have to consider.

- You have to play the role of a completely innocent new player who looks up to his new CEO or whatever and plays along with the stuff the corp is doing.

- You have to analyze how the people in the corp play the game. How many of theme are active at which hours? Do they play isolated or can they react in time and protect each other if I strike now?

- Many CEOs are aware of this game mechanic, so they will be suspicious and you have to social engineer your was trough the questions and suspicions to remain in the corp.

- You have to wait for the right opportunity to strike, you will probably be alone, maybe you have a neutral logy (which btw is a pretty broken thing and most awoxers acknowledge this). But if you don't kill your target fast before other corp members can react it will be over and you will not get a second chance, maybe you have just wasted a week of preparation.

After that you will be kicked out of the corp and the safari is over.

--

This is an example of what you will remove from the game. You will remove this kind of gameplay forever, just based on a hunch that maybe this will retain more new players. Instead you will strengthen the security of the corps in Highsec and Highsec only who are most of the time a dead end for the players who join them, as they will bore them to death and tell them tales about how dangerous the low/null/worm parts of EVE are.

I am actually not an awoxer, I am a suicide ganker. But I seriously enjoy the stories about this infiltrations and I consider it one of the more interesting things you can do in EVE. To remove such a great source of player content in favor of safer PvE crap is just insane in my eyes and something I will fight against with all my heart (verbal, on the Forums, no I will not RL or ingame torture people over this).

Evil RatKid
Anslo
Scope Works
#653 - 2014-10-31 20:32:46 UTC
uw0tm8

...Did you read ANYTHING I posted at all?

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
The Conference
#654 - 2014-10-31 20:33:36 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
No, easy to kill solo players get ganked.

You sound more and more like a butthurt miner, was there a resent antimatter accident? Maybe you should just buy a permit next time.

Evil RatKid
Mag's
Azn Empire
#655 - 2014-10-31 20:38:46 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:


I am allowed to disagree.

m
Indeed.

Now then, can you provide me an answer yet?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#656 - 2014-10-31 20:45:40 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:
... I support the game as a whole and closing an odd loophole seems like a no brainer to me, not the cause for 35 pages of debate.

What you call 'closing a loophole' we call nerfing a valuable content-creation mechanic.

Ultimately, if closing said 'loophole' vs. status quo ultimately results in less player conflict or content creation, said change should be summarily dismissed. Period.

Protect the sandbox Mike, no more nerfs.

F


I am honestly trying. But sometimes a surgeon has to make cuts and injure the patient to keep it alive in the long run. Nerfs are the cuts that CCP applies in hopes of keeping the game alive . . . now some of you might carry this medical analogy out and call the devs 'quacks' and 'bloodletters' who practice medicine with no clue of what is really going on.

You have the right to think that.

I am allowed to disagree.

m

And will you say "I never intended that to happen...", when down the road CCP finally boils the frog and hisec is effectively a consensual only shard, and no one still around can remember how they got there?

Its not the one thing Mike, its the dismal tide.

F

Would you like to know more?
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#657 - 2014-10-31 20:47:25 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:


I am allowed to disagree.

m
Indeed.

Now then, can you provide me an answer yet?


I did

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#658 - 2014-10-31 20:47:53 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
No, easy to kill solo players get ganked.

You sound more and more like a butthurt miner, was there a resent antimatter accident? Maybe you should just buy a permit next time.
And you would be wrong. Trying your luck with standard CODE response number 17, the "you must be a victim" response. Thanks for playing, now off you go, back to helping botters and multiboxers by ganking all those pesky solo miners - or you know, incompetence, whichever it is you've decided you are doing.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
The Conference
#659 - 2014-10-31 20:57:43 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
No, easy to kill solo players get ganked.

You sound more and more like a butthurt miner, was there a resent antimatter accident? Maybe you should just buy a permit next time.
And you would be wrong. Trying your luck with standard CODE response number 17, the "you must be a victim" response. Thanks for playing, now off you go, back to helping botters and multiboxers by ganking all those pesky solo miners - or you know, incompetence, whichever it is you've decided you are doing.

Or you can just tell us the real reason why you insist in discussing CODE. business with "Veers Belvar"-level "arguments" rather than the actual topic at hand?

Evil RatKid
Anslo
Scope Works
#660 - 2014-10-31 21:01:18 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
No, easy to kill solo players get ganked.

You sound more and more like a butthurt miner, was there a resent antimatter accident? Maybe you should just buy a permit next time.
And you would be wrong. Trying your luck with standard CODE response number 17, the "you must be a victim" response. Thanks for playing, now off you go, back to helping botters and multiboxers by ganking all those pesky solo miners - or you know, incompetence, whichever it is you've decided you are doing.

Or you can just tell us the real reason why you insist in discussing CODE. business with "Veers Belvar"-level "arguments" rather than the actual topic at hand?

Why can't it be brought up?

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]