These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Awoxing: an alternative

Author
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2014-11-09 14:36:10 UTC
TL;DR: instead of completely removing the ability to legally shoot corpmates, make it require you to be a member of the corp for one month.


Though I've never awoxed myself and I've lived in lowsec for 14 of my 15 months playing EVE, I've always enjoyed reading all the fun and interesting awox stories.

I've read the relevant part of the CSM minutes and understand CCP's concerns. Making corps triple-check every application is a bit of a PITA. And awoxing is certainly an un-intuitive mechanic for a new player ('in highsec nobody can legally shoot me except my own corpmates?! wtf?').

On the other hand, EVE is also an incredible social experiment, and the capability to backstab your own corpmates creates content that is unique to EVE.


So why not keep the awoxing mechanic, but make it so you have to actually earn your corpmates' trust before you use it against them?

Make it so you can legally shoot corpies only after spending one month in corp.


CEOs and recruiters wouldn't have to worry about casual awoxers just looking for easy fun. They'd have a whole month to actually get to know the guys they're recruiting. If they don't like them or if they're inactive (just waiting for their 'awox timer' to tick down) they can kick them any day.


And awoxing would become a somewhat less casual profession. Not only would you need to stick with your target corp for a month, presumably you'd also have to be active, doing stuff and - more importantly - socializing.

And who knows? Maybe after a month you'd grow fond of your victims, and decide not to kill them after all. Or maybe you'll hate them even more, and use that month to carefully plan something bigger than killing a random mining barge or two. Every awox would have a real story behind it, not just a dull 'bollocks, that new guy that nobody really knows nor cares about is shooting us'.


This proposal aims to eliminate 'casual' awoxing but keep real infiltration and treachery, in true EVE style.

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#2 - 2014-11-09 15:38:52 UTC
+1

Im a strong supporter of being able to AWOX and i actually like how recruiting is not straight forward. However i don't expect much detriment in making AWOXing less casual.

I'd maybe push for a two week period though.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2014-11-09 15:52:03 UTC
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
TL;DR: instead of completely removing the ability to legally shoot corpmates, make it require you to be a member of the corp for one month.


Should the change go though, Where does it say that you an no longer legally shoot corp mates? Ah, you missed that part since there is no PVP flag except when you undock (Psst! You could still shoot just with CONCORD responding to the situation).

Highsec.....CONCORD....Aggression mechanic change....nothing to see here folks, just consistent btching of people who cannot adapt, cannot even try to gain trust, cannot seek ways to lure their targets to low/null/wormhole to entrap them; for them the game is just a slower version of COD or Counterstrike where the KM matters and somewhere they believe that highsec is too safe that they must make it un-safe, while they hide in highsec Roll until they strike. Amirite ? Guess many should uninstall, since you can still shoot corp mates anywhere else, use the duel function and go through hull to get the pod accepting the CONCORDOKKEN since you lied, or just plain old gank....highsec in not safe even when you are pretending to be a viper, so why should you have protection from CONCORD when you bite ? Outside Highsec....the change wouldn't even matter.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#4 - 2014-11-09 16:00:02 UTC
If you took the strawmen out of your post Aqruie i think you'd be lucky to have five lines left...

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2014-11-09 16:04:41 UTC
Let's not immediately derail this into a good guys vs. bad guys shouting contest, ok?

Aqriue doesn't support the proposal, that's fine, let's move along.

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!

Rendiff
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2014-11-09 16:47:36 UTC
+1 Seems like a reasonable change
Herold Oldtimer
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#7 - 2014-11-09 17:14:19 UTC
I don't like any kind of system or mechanic that forces inactivity. Without going too mutch into it, it puts up walls where there should be none.

Sorry to say but you'll get a -1 from me
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2014-11-09 17:28:00 UTC
Herold Oldtimer wrote:
I don't like any kind of system or mechanic that forces inactivity. Without going too mutch into it, it puts up walls where there should be none.

Sorry to say but you'll get a -1 from me
That's ok, but what do you mean by 'forces inactivity'?

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!

Ama Scelesta
#9 - 2014-11-09 17:56:50 UTC
This compromise proposal is futile, because it doesn't really address the problem the awox removal intends to address. Your proposal keeps the mechanic fully intact with a delay. It undermines the primary goals of the proposed CCP change, but in a way it is even worse then the current situation. Not only does it try to maintain the current barriers to recruiting unknowns in to corps it also introduces another unwanted complication to the aggression rules. Aggression rule changes according to arbitrary timers. So your compromise fails to deliver on on the primary goals of what CCP wants to do, but it also makes things worse with the aggression rules. This isn't a compromise. It's dead on arrival bargaining attempt to keep a bad mechanic.

The more realistic compromise is making the corp-on-corp aggression a choice for the corporation with clear visibility of that choice to outsiders, with no way to quickly or in secret switch between the options to prevent griefing. This way it can remain as a choice, but most of the goals CCP wants to achieve can still be achieved. The only one suffering slightly being the clarity of the rules, since you would maintain 2 different rules for corps. The corps that don't want to deal with the drama corp-on-corp. aggression causes don't have to and the ones who utilize it regularly, like RvB, can maintain things as normal.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#10 - 2014-11-09 18:11:21 UTC
i like the notion of probationary status, you cannot awox or be awoxed without concord responding until the status is flagged from both security officer/director/ceo and the recruit (the trust and fear goes both ways).
elegant solution +1 from me.
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2014-11-09 18:13:53 UTC
Ama Scelesta wrote:
It undermines the primary goals of the proposed CCP change.
What do you think CCP's primary goals are?

My understanding was that the main goal is to remove the 'omg he can freely shoot me in highsec!' barrier to recruiting new players.

This proposal achieves that goal perfectly: the 'new' or 'unknown' player cannot freely shoot you anymore.

After a month, he's neither 'new' nor 'unknown' anymore. He's either:

'that guy that barely logged in' --> you kick him. doesn't matter if he's an awoxer or not, he's useless to the corp anyways

or

'that nice dude that I ran dozens of missions with and that always has something funny to say' --> you keep him because you like him. If he backstabs you, drama ensues, but 'good' drama. Not the 'yeah I was bored so I joined just to awox' type, rather the 'how could you be so nice for a month and then backstab me' type, which makes for great stories.


On the aggression mechanics part I see your point, but I honestly don't know how many people actually use that except for webbing freighters (easy to do with the duel mechanic). I live in lowsec, we do our group PVP practice by going out in a group and PVPing somebody. Twisted

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!

Hopelesshobo
Hoboland
#12 - 2014-11-09 18:18:53 UTC
People complain about so many people being in NPC corps. Probably the 2nd most common reason why people are in an NPC corp (behind avoiding wardecs in general), is AWOXing. The not being able to AWOX each other should help encourage people to join player corps, which can make vulnerable to the wardec system.

Also, even if people were immune to xx days, I bet people would simply just leave the corp at xx -1 day, and rejoin it. So in most cases, it would be a waste of dev time to make it take xx days before the immunity drops.

-1

Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.

Omnathious Deninard
Ministry of Silly Walks.
#13 - 2014-11-09 18:26:36 UTC
Hopelesshobo wrote:
People complain about so many people being in NPC corps. Probably the 2nd most common reason why people are in an NPC corp (behind avoiding wardecs in general), is AWOXing. The not being able to AWOX each other should help encourage people to join player corps, which can make vulnerable to the wardec system.

Also, even if people were immune to xx days, I bet people would simply just leave the corp at xx -1 day, and rejoin it. So in most cases, it would be a waste of dev time to make it take xx days before the immunity drops.

-1

I believe you have this concept backwards, you must first be in a corp for xx days before you are allowed to shoot other corp members.
I don't think if implemented in this was it would work the other way around.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#14 - 2014-11-09 18:43:37 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Hopelesshobo wrote:
People complain about so many people being in NPC corps. Probably the 2nd most common reason why people are in an NPC corp (behind avoiding wardecs in general), is AWOXing. The not being able to AWOX each other should help encourage people to join player corps, which can make vulnerable to the wardec system.

Also, even if people were immune to xx days, I bet people would simply just leave the corp at xx -1 day, and rejoin it. So in most cases, it would be a waste of dev time to make it take xx days before the immunity drops.

-1

I believe you have this concept backwards, you must first be in a corp for xx days before you are allowed to shoot other corp members.
I don't think if implemented in this was it would work the other way around.


He's saying that everyone in the corp (except AWOXers) would leave on Day 29 and rejoin. Anyone who didn't would clearly be an AWOXer and be kicked.

Or at least that's what I think he's saying.
Herold Oldtimer
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#15 - 2014-11-09 18:44:48 UTC
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Herold Oldtimer wrote:
I don't like any kind of system or mechanic that forces inactivity. Without going too mutch into it, it puts up walls where there should be none.

Sorry to say but you'll get a -1 from me
That's ok, but what do you mean by 'forces inactivity'?
Its a bit dificult to go into spesifics here without also going into the whole argument about awoxing in high sec. I'll try to make it as simple as possible, but sorry if I derail the OP. If you want my stance on this whole thing, feel free to evemail me, or open a thread in the relevant channel, and direct me to it.

From what I understand, an awoxers main goal is to cause as much havoc as possible in a corp, within the shortest amount of time. In high sec it is also the only mechanic currently where you can agress another player in high sec, without Concord intervention(excluding duels). I'm not going to argue that it might act as a detterent against casual awoxers in high sec, since most casual players don't want to invest too mutch time into anything. But it is also true that, while most EVE players are prepared to lose the ship they fly in, they prefer to keep it a lot more if the chance presents itself.

Your proposal, in its current iteration, encourages inactivity(waiting for an arbitrary timer to go down). That is the reason I don't support it.

Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
Citizen's Star Republic
#16 - 2014-11-09 19:11:15 UTC
Herold Oldtimer wrote:
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Herold Oldtimer wrote:
I don't like any kind of system or mechanic that forces inactivity. Without going too mutch into it, it puts up walls where there should be none.

Sorry to say but you'll get a -1 from me
That's ok, but what do you mean by 'forces inactivity'?
Its a bit dificult to go into spesifics here without also going into the whole argument about awoxing in high sec. I'll try to make it as simple as possible, but sorry if I derail the OP. If you want my stance on this whole thing, feel free to evemail me, or open a thread in the relevant channel, and direct me to it.

From what I understand, an awoxers main goal is to cause as much havoc as possible in a corp, within the shortest amount of time. In high sec it is also the only mechanic currently where you can agress another player in high sec, without Concord intervention(excluding duels). I'm not going to argue that it might act as a detterent against casual awoxers in high sec, since most casual players don't want to invest too mutch time into anything. But it is also true that, while most EVE players are prepared to lose the ship they fly in, they prefer to keep it a lot more if the chance presents itself.

Your proposal, in its current iteration, encourages inactivity(waiting for an arbitrary timer to go down). That is the reason I don't support it.



and what he is saying is if someone is inactive.....then kick them anyway before the timer is up. nothing forced there. its just another way to make awoxers work for their food.

As to getting rid of the ability to awox....yeah i dont agree with it, experimentation without announcing to every one in a system with a duel invite is stupid as to what yuo are doing. And also when confirming a possible spai....you wont be able to just kill them and pod them either when current mechanics goes out the window. I do not feel its awoxing that keeps players in npc corps....none of my special alts are in npc corps because of awoxing.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#17 - 2014-11-09 19:20:02 UTC
I like it. +1

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Casivek Andrard
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#18 - 2014-11-09 19:25:34 UTC
Herold Oldtimer wrote:
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Herold Oldtimer wrote:
I don't like any kind of system or mechanic that forces inactivity. Without going too mutch into it, it puts up walls where there should be none.

Sorry to say but you'll get a -1 from me
That's ok, but what do you mean by 'forces inactivity'?
Its a bit dificult to go into spesifics here without also going into the whole argument about awoxing in high sec. I'll try to make it as simple as possible, but sorry if I derail the OP. If you want my stance on this whole thing, feel free to evemail me, or open a thread in the relevant channel, and direct me to it.

From what I understand, an awoxers main goal is to cause as much havoc as possible in a corp, within the shortest amount of time. In high sec it is also the only mechanic currently where you can agress another player in high sec, without Concord intervention(excluding duels). I'm not going to argue that it might act as a detterent against casual awoxers in high sec, since most casual players don't want to invest too mutch time into anything. But it is also true that, while most EVE players are prepared to lose the ship they fly in, they prefer to keep it a lot more if the chance presents itself.

Your proposal, in its current iteration, encourages inactivity(waiting for an arbitrary timer to go down). That is the reason I don't support it.



I'll put this simply, if someone joins a corporation and doesn't play for a month they are hiding something and will be kicked all this would do is make people who want to awox work for it instead of just being a casual affair to grief. Yes the devs would need to do work on the code for once when it comes to concord mechanic, oh no... something that should be done anyways.
Herold Oldtimer
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#19 - 2014-11-09 20:01:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Herold Oldtimer
Casivek Andrard wrote:
I'll put this simply, if someone joins a corporation and doesn't play for a month they are hiding something and will be kicked all this would do is make people who want to awox work for it instead of just being a casual affair to grief. Yes the devs would need to do work on the code for once when it comes to concord mechanic, oh no... something that should be done anyways.
But it should not be up to the game when it is most ideal to agress someone else, it should be you.

It would be similar to; do this mission now, and get 10% of the reward, or wait 30 days and get three times the reward. Or mine this ore and wait 30 days to get twice the processing yield. In my opinion, encouragin inactivity no matter what the end result may be, is bad.

And in regards to this:
Casivek Andrard wrote:
all this would do is make people who want to awox work for it instead of just being a casual affair to grief.
since it seems you missed it I'll say it again.

I'm not going to argue that it might act as a detterent against casual awoxers in high sec, since most casual players don't want to invest too mutch time into anything.

Max Deveron wrote:
and what he is saying is if someone is inactive.....then kick them anyway before the timer is up. nothing forced there. its just another way to make awoxers work for their food..

I get what he is saying. I just dont agree with his suggestion in its current iteration, for the reason I have stated previosly. It might have come off as too strong to say forced. For that I apologise.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#20 - 2014-11-09 22:47:36 UTC
Not sure how this helps....people can join corps with a bunch of alts, play a bit for 30 days, and then slaughter everyone. Fundamentally it still means that highsec corps are not safe, CONCORD won't respond to corpmate agression, and the rational response is to stay in NPC corp or 1 man tax evasion corp.

-1
12Next page