These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Marsha Mallow
#841 - 2014-11-01 20:52:48 UTC
Run for CSM Feyd. I'll chuck you a few dozen votes P

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day
Sol Project
Shitt Outta Luck - GANKING4GOOD
#842 - 2014-11-01 20:55:08 UTC
They're not changing it.
They did so already.

It just looks like it's not there yet and maybe never will, because as long as people can hook onto a tiny freedom they are willingly ignoring all the limitations...

Ganking gives the illusion that people need to accept there is still non-consensual combat happening in highsec. The tiny freedom that blinds to all the limitations that will be forgotten eventually anyway.


The part about the freedom to engage has moved away from the player to the system.

Ladies of New Eden YC 117 by Indahmawar Fazmarai

Warning: NSFW! Barely legal girls in underwear!

Diana Kim > AND THIS IS WHY THE FEDERATION MUST BE DESTROYED!!
Sol Project
Shitt Outta Luck - GANKING4GOOD
#843 - 2014-11-01 20:58:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Sol Project
Christus Estnatus Hemanseh wrote:
Sol Project wrote:
The next generation of players will learn that in highsec, there is no non-consensual combat allowed anymore, unless you give consent by deliberately flagging yourself as a FreeForAll.

They will learn that every aggression needs CONCORD to have prior knowledge about it, else they will strike.

The green button being defaulted to green supports the idea of combat in highsec being a thing that is not liked to be seen. More people will come up with the stupidity of living in pvp zones, aka "If you wanna pvp go to low or null", showing ignorance of what pvp means and that there are no zones to being with. Yet, at least.

No new player will be able to just try and find out if it's fun or profitable to shoot the ass of his corpmate for money, unless he can lure him into a duel in something expensive, which adds a huge amount of complexity to it.

Now people will tell me that wardecs and suicide ganking are non-consensual combat and still there ... but I don't actually agree. If there is no consent with CONCORD, then the potential for aggression will always be crippled. It's crippled already even WITH consent.

Consent, not from the player... but from the system. It still looks like a game that has non-consensual combat everywhere... but if asking CONCORD for allowance isn't "asking for consent" then I hope I just have issues with the language barrier.......

I doubt that CCP doesn't realise the differences in perception.



Well played, CCP.........


CONCORD is a part of the risk. Please, do not take any risk not worthy of the reward.

No.

Risk is something you take, when you know that you might not get what you want. There is risk involved in ganking when it comes to loot drops. There is no risk involved in regards to the target. If the aggressors failed then they did it wrong. That's not "I risked my ships and failed", it's "I was too stupid to do it right. What did I miss?".

There is no "Damn I hope CONCORD won't show up". CONCORD definitely WILL show up.
Risks involve a gamble. It's there, but unrelated to CONCORD. CONCORD is an absolute.

Ladies of New Eden YC 117 by Indahmawar Fazmarai

Warning: NSFW! Barely legal girls in underwear!

Diana Kim > AND THIS IS WHY THE FEDERATION MUST BE DESTROYED!!
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#844 - 2014-11-01 21:12:17 UTC
Well...this thread has almost run its course.

You can always tell because the people backed into a corner start with the bizarro outlier examples of why the change is a bad thing. "This one in a million thing happened once to this one person this one time, so we need to keep the mechanic. You just never know when it might happen again and then you'll all be sorry!"

Until the next thread, I bid you all adieu.

Mr Epeen Cool
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#845 - 2014-11-01 21:18:11 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:

So why not remove War Dec's then?

I am sure War Dec's cause a lot more people to stay in NPC Corps and lose more new players then axowing does.

I have never heard of a Corp to fold because of an axower where as according to many people War dec's have and continue to do so.

You can not claim that removing the ability to shoot corp mates without concord intervention will help retain newer players and encourage more people to leave the safety of NPC Corps without admitting that removing war decs would have a much great impact on these two things.


Actually, I claim exactly that.

Wardecs are NOT on the same slope as corp awox. One you get warning, announcements and a ramp up time.

I am in favour of keeping wardecs and removing awox and I do not see any contradictions with that stand. I am NOT trying to make hisec 'safe'. I AM in favour of removing a stupid non-intuitive mechanic.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
Sol Project
Shitt Outta Luck - GANKING4GOOD
#846 - 2014-11-01 21:25:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Sol Project
Mr Epeen wrote:
Well...this thread has almost run its course.

You can always tell because the people backed into a corner start with the bizarro outlier examples of why the change is a bad thing. "This one in a million thing happened once to this one person this one time, so we need to keep the mechanic. You just never know when it might happen again and then you'll all be sorry!"

Until the next thread, I bid you all adieu.

Mr Epeen Cool
That logic doesn't work.
Let's remove everything a minority does, because a bigger minority thinks it's bad?

It's not CCP who came up with this. It's their "data" and "exit polls", but do they really look at the issue from the individual level? Dou tfull. They see data, but can not possibly see the reasons for the actions. Saying that all the awoxxes happened because assholes want to grief noobs is outright ridiculous.

Crappy new player corps are legion. Whoever says that such a bad first influence doesn't drive people out of the game too, is as much ridiculous. Who says that most awoxxes didn't happen for a good reason?

This change is nuts and disconnected from reality. At least they should present why it is deemed as helpfull. Removing the symptom od the illness will not make the illness go away. Instead they more likely will remove wardecs, because of the increase in wardecs against new player corps.

THIS will be their last mistake, though. These corps have potential, but it's those in charge who refuse to use it and rather tell their members to hide or use an alt. That's not EVE at all and catering to these people will cause bigger issues in the meta than CCP can imagine.

The issue is a social engineering one and not related to game mechanics.

I agree on one thing, though... this thread has run it's course.

Ladies of New Eden YC 117 by Indahmawar Fazmarai

Warning: NSFW! Barely legal girls in underwear!

Diana Kim > AND THIS IS WHY THE FEDERATION MUST BE DESTROYED!!
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#847 - 2014-11-01 21:28:45 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:


Give them time though, just like Ripard Teg before him, this next generation of CSM in the form of Mike will do their paper-cut damage to the sandbox, and then one day hand the baton to the next goddamned carebear to trained-seal handclap when CCP decides to make wardecs consensual only, or perhaps years from now when no more hisec vet content creators remain, trot out yet again the 'we need to make ganking harder/more expensive/impossible' because it is costing us subs...

Sounds reasonable right? We all want MOAR SUBS right?

All of this has happened before, it will happen again.

The CSM is an abomination, rendered so by people like Mike, who do not serve there role as protectors of the sandbox, but who instead give CCP the cover they seek to slit their own throats, and destroy what content creators hold dear.

I am sick of it.

F


I knew Ripard Teg. Ripard Teg was an acquaintance of mine. Mike, is no Ripard Teg.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
Marsha Mallow
#848 - 2014-11-01 21:38:49 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
I am in favour of keeping wardecs and removing awox and I do not see any contradictions with that stand. I am NOT trying to make hisec 'safe'. I AM in favour of removing a stupid non-intuitive mechanic.

Well, if that's your stance it does take into account the concerns people who object to the change have expressed. We can agree to disagree over this particular change, but it's good to establish that the underlying concerns are not being ignored. So not a wasted exercise, and many thanks for the replies.

Just be aware that removing this mechanic will break things elsewhere (webbing freighters/JFs, accidentally auto aggroing friendly logis, corp tourneys & RvB). Saying "those can be fixed later" isn't ideal with such a massive backlog of fixes in the works.

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day
Sol Project
Shitt Outta Luck - GANKING4GOOD
#849 - 2014-11-01 21:46:09 UTC
How is it non intuitive to be able to shoot someone in a game about shooting someone?
It is non intuitive to have a game about nonconsensual pvp to have all these limitations and beaurocrazy around!

Ladies of New Eden YC 117 by Indahmawar Fazmarai

Warning: NSFW! Barely legal girls in underwear!

Diana Kim > AND THIS IS WHY THE FEDERATION MUST BE DESTROYED!!
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
Citizen's Star Republic
#850 - 2014-11-01 22:03:02 UTC
Marsha Mallow wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:
I am in favour of keeping wardecs and removing awox and I do not see any contradictions with that stand. I am NOT trying to make hisec 'safe'. I AM in favour of removing a stupid non-intuitive mechanic.

Well, if that's your stance it does take into account the concerns people who object to the change have expressed. We can agree to disagree over this particular change, but it's good to establish that the underlying concerns are not being ignored. So not a wasted exercise, and many thanks for the replies.

Just be aware that removing this mechanic will break things elsewhere (webbing freighters/JFs, accidentally auto aggroing friendly logis, corp tourneys & RvB). Saying "those can be fixed later" isn't ideal with such a massive backlog of fixes in the works.


^^this^^

the "fix" breaks alot of other things, too.
But I already stated my case, and will leave it at that.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5169215#post5169215
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#851 - 2014-11-01 22:09:11 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:

So why not remove War Dec's then?

I am sure War Dec's cause a lot more people to stay in NPC Corps and lose more new players then axowing does.

I have never heard of a Corp to fold because of an axower where as according to many people War dec's have and continue to do so.

You can not claim that removing the ability to shoot corp mates without concord intervention will help retain newer players and encourage more people to leave the safety of NPC Corps without admitting that removing war decs would have a much great impact on these two things.


Actually, I claim exactly that.

Wardecs are NOT on the same slope as corp awox. One you get warning, announcements and a ramp up time.

I am in favour of keeping wardecs and removing awox and I do not see any contradictions with that stand. I am NOT trying to make hisec 'safe'. I AM in favour of removing a stupid non-intuitive mechanic.

m


Yet your justification is "it makes sense" instead of anything well reasoned.

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
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Sedition.
#852 - 2014-11-01 22:11:04 UTC
La Nariz wrote:

Yet your justification is "it makes sense" instead of anything well reasoned.

Making sense is horribly overrated.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#853 - 2014-11-01 22:16:44 UTC
"It makes sense" that highsec reward would be lower than areas with less safety but I don't see you championing that mike.

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
Marsha Mallow
#854 - 2014-11-01 22:16:47 UTC
Two step wrote:
I knew Ripard Teg. Ripard Teg was an acquaintance of mine. Mike, is no Ripard Teg.

meow

Two step wins thread P

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day
Balshem Rozenzweig
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#855 - 2014-11-01 22:21:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Balshem Rozenzweig
The topic started as discussion about newbie retention. I cannot imagine how a newbie could be repelled by awox. If he knows about it he already has enough tools (google?) to avoid/minimalise damage.

I was a newbie just a year ago (haven't played for 3 months of that year - links in frigate pvp touched me \o/) and I can exactly remember what my feelings were back then.

As a beginner in eve you cannot do anything well. People will tell you you can tackle in fleets - you can't really. You spend 3 days playing and you still have not nearly enough SP to fly a frig fast and with agility. Other players will outdo you. In anything.

They won't only out-shoot you - they will also out-trade, out-mine and out-farm you. With ease. You can be an Einstein but the +50% (or more - depending on activity) will always be there.

Because of that you specialize to close the gap fast. Because of specializing you are stuck in a sandbox, with only 1 thing you can do (and even that - worse than everyone else) and forced to pay IRL money to try something else (and sub the other account until you can earn enough for plex - any idea how long would that be?).

This is what was infuriating for me. People would blap my silly kestrel with t2 frigs. In low sec. The honest, staying away from high sec pvp crowd tried to hurt me only because I tried and went away from high sec (lol).

Then I had these missile ships and kestrels and condors I started to be bored with, and not much else, cause of support skills.

How does awox come into that? It doesn't. Reading about all the fun stuff in eve actually kept me in the game. You cannot expect newbie to stay here if he's not properly instructed about the skill system, provided content while being hand held by corp mates (who, if not capable, will not be able to do that anyway).

I agree with people saying than taking awox away will not change anything, just end the fun stories. I can live with that, since I'd never do such a thing (honestly).

Real problem is education in an up to date and clean form. Imho newbies should be directed to wikis that as a plus give anecdotal stories about pros and cons of various activities. FW plexing? watch timer for hours and run away from full snakes, full links, booster addicted people in dare devils. Then you will become rich and get those implants, those links and that dare devil and chase those lame farmers of your plexes \o/ Mining? Get skill points into it just to put more skill points into it. You can afk though - people love reading \o/ Exploration? Kinda fun if you're ok with poor vOv

People coming to eve need better presentation of content, and how to get to it. In the form of plain text. If you count on those famous PC corps good luck. I still remember a guy I met telling me to skill retriever for cash, and logi, so we could "hunt together".

TL;DR imho awox is not the problem. It's part of the solution. At least the topic is grinded so much that people reading about it learn to insta undock and maybe even d scan.

"NUTS!!!" - general McAuliffe
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#856 - 2014-11-01 22:34:22 UTC
Balshem Rozenzweig wrote:
The topic started as discussion about newbie retention. I cannot imagine how a newbie could be repelled by awox. If he knows about it he already has enough tools (google?) to avoid/minimalise damage.


That'd be the newbie /being/ awoxed, repelling them.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Josef Djugashvilis
#857 - 2014-11-01 22:46:18 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
"It makes sense" that highsec reward would be lower than areas with less safety but I don't see you championing that mike.


Do you have any actual evidence to support your contention?

Sorry, La - I'm a scientist - Nariz, I could could not resist the temptation to laugh at you Smile

This is not a signature.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#858 - 2014-11-01 22:49:05 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
"It makes sense" that highsec reward would be lower than areas with less safety but I don't see you championing that mike.

Possibly because it actually already is, and you (And I do mean you personally here) are just trying to drive it so far down that the residents of high sec will be desperate for any scraps you give them. You just use bad statistics from biased experiments to try and claim otherwise.

RvB can still brawl, it will just actually be Red vs Blue now in highsec. Want a free for all brawl, take it to low or null.
Corp brawls, go to low sec. Or null sec. Plenty of low sec pockets where you only ever see 2 or 3 people and they aren't going to warp into a ball of a dozen.
Webbing freighters. Duel mechanic exists. Hey look, opportunity for betrayal & ransoms if you put a little effort into getting them to trust you to web them. So awoxing is still possible in high without needing to be able to automatically shoot your corp mates.

It does make sense to remove an exception from the rules of highsec that dates to pre crimewatch 2.0 and is no longer required.
And it breaks nothing of significance. And gets some of those things into low sec as well.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#859 - 2014-11-01 23:04:04 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Removed a whole lot of off topic posts. Please keep it on topic and civil. Thanks all.

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Senior Lead

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department
Ama Scelesta
#860 - 2014-11-01 23:28:13 UTC
Balshem Rozenzweig wrote:
The topic started as discussion about newbie retention. I cannot imagine how a newbie could be repelled by awox. If he knows about it he already has enough tools (google?) to avoid/minimalise damage.

*cut the rest*

The problem isn't new players per se and informing can only go so far, especially when rational calculation easily works against joining a corp. There is a reason why public education campaigns struggle to alter how people behave and this is just a game. They want to play and not listed to you preach to them and they're not staying around long enough for you to get retries. It also won't be effective, if the rational calculus isn't altered at all.

The real problem with free aggression within a corp is the damage done to the ease of forming social connections, that is vital to all MMOs. Any game is more fun when you can play it with people you like and you're likely to stay subscribed longer, if you find a group you feel comfortable with. Not everyone cares about intra corp aggression, but others do. Some people form social connections easily, but some struggle even when they want to do it. Some people come from large outside social networks, some might not even have a single friend here or be socially skilled. The symptoms are too many people not interacting with others in meaningful ways, staying forever in NPC corps or player corps composed of their alts or only people they know in real life. It is bad for the players, since they won't have as much fun. It's bad for CCP, since they tend to lose those players very quickly.CCP needs to keep thinking up better ways to facilitate forming those connections as their future as a company is tied to them.

Creating player corps where awoxing isn't possible will open up those all important social connections to more people previously struggling to make them. Hopefully such changes would be accompanied by security updates to corp management and corp roles too. That will allow CEOs to ensure people coming to their corp can't ruin their day just by being in their corp. In order for them to do damage, they'd have to do proper infiltration, gain trust to make the corp members and have them put themselves in a vulnerable position by their own actions. For the corp that would mean they can lower recruiting standards to include more people outside their current trusted core group.

From a grunt perspective it means more opportunities to join groups, with less hassle in the joining most corps and lowering the barrier to send the application in the first place, since just joining doesn't mean giving every person in the corp the permission to fire on you without CONCORD interference. Currently it just makes the most sense in too many situations to not be in player corps you can't control. No benefits, more risks. No amount of informing will alter that fact. That calculation needs to be changed closer to the point where it makes no sense to not be in a proper player corp. There will still be people who don't think it makes sense after the changes, but effort needs to be put forth to reduce the number of people making that choice.