EVE General Discussion

Yes this is an alt. Sorry.



This topic clearly has people on both sides of the argument all riled up. As far as I can tell, both are correct.

Awoxing is a valid form of game play in Eve, a game labeled as a sandbox style game.
Awoxing does adversely affect (effect?) new players who simply don't know the many complexities of eve. Especially new players attempting to run a corp.

Now as far as I can see, there is no way to really determine which is more detrimental to EVE unless CCP has some actual numbers to look over and truly see whats happening, and the likely hood of any of us getting those numbers is next to nil. So this debate can go on and on, filled with insults and the "your way of playing is wrong, clearly I play internet spaceships in the correct and intended fashion," or we can actually look at whats broken and trying to find plausible fixes to pitch to the next CSM group.

I don't have many suggestions to give, but something I've been kicking around regarding wardec dodging:

Corp A war dec's Corp B
Corp B member wants to avoid a prolonged war/interruption to his/her preferred game play style so they opt to drop corp.
Instead of instantly falling back into an NPC corp, Corp B member enters a drop queue, where they will be released from the Corp only after the initial 7 day war period has ended, or a mutual end to the war/surrender that actually works.
They will be able to drop from the corp even if Corp A decides to renew the war.

This seems to make dec dodging harder but not impossible while still making players experience valid game mechanics.
This seems to remove the issue of having players that drop to NPC have a war following them, which seems to be something that's not possible since NPC corps cannot have any type of war against them. Though we do see this idea suggested a lot.

Some might say that since its a sandbox game, nobody should be able to force you into something you do not want. True, but if that is the case, then your limiting the other players ability to play in their sandbox and shoot you. Both cannot be had. Hence the idea of trade offs.

Clearly this isn't all the way thought out and may possibly be the worst idea ever. Feel free to critique/flame/ignore as you see fit.

So Corp B members dock up for a week and don't play the game.
You are attempting to punish people for getting Wardec'ed. It will never work.
You need something in space worth fighting over.
And you need the ability to get a 'fair' fight. Sure this is EVE and fights aren't set up to be fair, but if it's a one sided shooting match, forcing the other guy into it is silly.

I've made a number of suggestions of things worth fighting over in the past. As have other people. But the carrot is the way to get people out in space fighting when Wardec'ed. The stick is big enough already since the aggressor gets to choose targets they are sure they can beat.

OMG we have someone here who recognizes that not everybody is equal! To the SJW Spergmobile!

Admittedly though, some players are really asking for it.

Given the long thread, who is for the change (some of them I have flown with) and who is against (the usual crowd) I say this is a good change. Since the game is all about HTFU then it's time to end easy ganks. Removing AWOXing is one way to do this without punishing new players.


And this is especially because I see a lot of coy excuse-making and talking out of both sides of the keyboard. Look, people will get someone to go sperging triggerlord in comms and then pass the audio around. That's the most extreme. But one reason why I always respected Herr Wilkus (who brought ganking into a level of science) was that he was bluntly honest about the entire thing. He didn't gank people out of the game and then lie about it. It's one thing to harvest noobs or victimize another player through mechanics/agro fu, but don't lie about it. If you want the game to become a niche game for "one type of person" they just say so. Then when the game is down to 10K subscriptions they can go to small fanfests and high five each other over their leetness and how well they gate camp while playing something else on another monitor.




Still maybe CCP should toss a bone. How about leaving AWOX capability up to the CEO of the corporation or something that corporation heads must agree on? I think this would be good for CEOs who have a corp member who is loot stealing or spying and would want to give said miscreant a little "send off" during their termination. Like a gold watch shoved straight up the ass.

If only NPC corps would dec each other every now and then.... It would be like a live event almost.

Look at the comments. Jenn, Jonah, Mara, Nightcrawler and others state quite clearly that they are highsec players and some or all of them engage mainly in PvE. The thing that stops them from being a "Carebear" or any of the derogatory terms (I prefer zombie personally) is that they understand the environment and accept that there are (and should be) risks everywhere. I could genuinely play as a pure industrialist and never undock via outsourcing, and if I'm honest the market side will always engage me more than pew-pew because it's something I'm pretty good at solo. Don't think for a second that means I'm not aware I'm competing with other players - that's the part that makes it fun.

There's not that many people who are grossly intolerant of missionrunners and miners, it's usually just name calling. I don't care if people spend all their time mining whilst licking mayo off themselves and writing erotic roleplay fanfic; if calling them a bear enrages them, you can't help but laugh. But there is real hostility towards the portion of the playerbase who utterly refuse to accept the game as it stands and want a lite version. Don't forget they aren't just pushing for nerfs that will make them safer - they want the complete removal of players they consider griefers from the game, by any means possible. I don't think they realise they're engaging in PvP at that point, or that their targets are more than ready to have a slapfight.

Those from that camp who post here also seem to overlap the group still ranting about Incarna being shelved and it's fairly easy to see why. They simply don't want to play EvE, they want WoW in space. That's why PCU stats, subs and retention rates have been weaponised in discussions, and it's why people persistently whinge that [whatever] game in development will kill eve. They're not doing it for altruistic reasons to improve the game for others though, because they fail to acknowledge how many people would be driven away by EvE Lite (both new and old). It's pretty obvious from the tone if the next best thing arrives, they'll jump ship like the rats they are. I'd also like to point out that most of the worst badposting in this thread is from those supporting the removal of awoxing, and that should tell you something, particularly in this context. It mirrors ingame behaviour where the majority of so-called 'griefers' are shockingly normal as people, and the 'victims' who have hysterics are already on the wrong side of deranged.


I was just poking fun, don't take it personally, and yes there are gibberers. I don't envy any of the CSM their workload, but monitoring the forums has to be one of the worst tasks. Although being branded a fanatic with a playstyle bias purely for having a strong opinion is a bit unfair. Not all of us opposed to the removal of awoxing are doing it because we engage in it. I think it's an element that has a place, the reasons for removing it appear to be flimsy, it sets a precedent for demands for further nerfs but mainly that it fails to address more important underlying problems. I've also always imagined awoxing as a lore-quirk relating to corporate backstabbery, and if anything not being able to attack alliance members seemed the inconsistency. Why should Concord intervene to stop someone from attacking you after you recruited them?

Isn't 40 pages of debate in response to part of the CSM minutes a good thing anyway? At least we're interested and engaged enough to comment. It's far from pointless if we can send a clear message to CCP (and the CSM) that safety-risk changes are considered a fundamental feature that should be adjusted with caution. There is a really clear message being conveyed here; "Don't sell the integrity of parts of the game for subs please". It's not like we're all screaming we'll unsub if changes are implemented we don't like, and it's not an unreasonable sentiment to express concern. Whether they choose to listen or not is upto them, but at least we're not waiting until after a change is implemented to ***** about it.

I strongly agree with this. So telling newbies what they shouldn't do, instead of what they can do, is counterintunitive in my opinion. But its not what this is about.

Awoxing is (from what I gather in this post): I want to shoot a victim, and be able to leave with my ship intact. I can not do so in high sec, unless I am in the same corp as my victim. And in security states under high sec, there is an increased possibility that my victim is more adequately able to handle me. Since I, most likely, wont die from the action, I can fit a better ship aswell.

In regards to older corps, with older players, I have no problem with this. They should by that point be aware what the main gist of EVE is about, regardless of what kind of space they inhabit.

Not all new players do, so if this can help with player retention then I support it. I suspect that you will not change your behavior. CCP can not force you to change your behavior, so they have to change the mechanic.

Looking through this, I get the feeling that CCP want high sec to be an area where PvP is mostly consensual(I have, of course, no data to back this up, it is just a feeling). You will still be able to do PvV as mutch as you want, just be prepared to face the consequences of that particular action.

This is the crux of it. Awoxing is not being removed, because awoxing does not and never has relied on any concord related mechanics because awoxxing has never been tied to hisec, and the most famous cases of awoxing (e.g. revenant) have happened in low/null.

What's being removed is the possibility of killing another ship in hisec without losing your own ship and without direct warning for the target (as in wardecs and duels).

Nothing is being removed. If anything they are adding something...its this thing called consequence.

Is it hard to stick to what was said in the minutes and not argue about some statement that was never said. (removing awox)

Maybe there are those who do it because of risk aversion. There are many things to do in this game for the risk averse, too many in my opinion, but that's not the point - if this form of 'awoxing' you've listed above is being removed simply because of risk aversion, then so too should everything else be removed that caters to risk aversion. Cloaking, warp core stabs, etc. All of it.

Thing is, awoxing can be very risky as it is. A good example of awoxing is one we've done a few times ourselves - when a high sec merc corp has wardecced us in the past, and we've found they outmatched us if we go toe-to-toe, on a few occasions we've been able to infiltrate their corp and damage them from the inside not just with spies, but with fake logi that ends up repping us instead of them, amongst other things. On some occasions, they didn't even notice 'their' logi repping our stuff, which was hilarious. It would be what brought us victory against the odds on those occasions.

Now, a small corp in high sec might feel 'safer' but if they wish to remain a small, safe corp against the odds in highsec, what methods do they have, aside from rolling corp, to beat a bigger, stronger enemy in a war?

Awoxing is as much about risk 'aversion' as using ECM is - there is a difference between risk aversion, and risk mitigation. Risk aversion is about avoiding risk as much as possible; risk mitigation is about taking steps to reduce the risk of any given task, but still performing the risky task at hand. Leeroy Jenkins, for example, did none of the above, which is why the name is now synonymous with going 'balls deep'.

Hopefully this is not carried into the "doxxing someone is PvP" realm of thought.

But if you mean "is calling for the elimination of someone's playstyle PvP"? Then I would say no. That's the act of a spineless coward who can't back up what they want to do in game, so they'd rather run to Mommy instead.

As for mocking those people, I would say that is warranted. Anyone who would call for the outright elimination of the way someone else plays a videogame is not someone I would want to associate with. Social pressure is how you exert such an activity.

That's why I have no problem with someone who has a bad attitude quitting EVE. Because I try to cultivate the EVE that I would want to play, and that includes the people in it. If your behavior would get kicked out of Board Game Night at my house, then you get written off in this social setting too. And if someone tries to tell me "You can't play class X in Talisman, because I don't like them!" then not only do I kick them, I do so after telling them that I think they're a petty, fascist douchebag to boot.