Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I think there should be a option to disable friendly corp fire with a monthly concord protection fee. Something like 50 or 100m a month. But this option should not be enabled by default. Eve should not be a safe place.

I am a HS awoxer. I blindly apply to corps and 90% of the time I get rejected. Which is a good thing. But there are corps that will accept anyone. They will not even do the simplest of checks. Some don't realize their are people like me but most are just bears with the mindset that PvP is bad and think most people don't do it. But once I get in their normally quickly learn.

If you can spend a few seconds to check out someone before letting someone into your corp then you can weed out most of the awoxers. Unless it is a new awoxer then it is very simple to figure out if someone is one or not.

Eve should not be a safe place. If you want the benefits of having or being in a corp you should accept the risks. If you are careful you can avoid most of them. But the lazy should not be rewarded with safety for doing nothing.

Also saying just gank or war dec them is not a alternative. People can drop and switch corps when war deced and ganking solo limits your targets.

All these folks complaining about losing easy ganks.

To bad you will now have to put effort into it.

Join a corp, become a director, switch option off, gank ceo, steal as much as you can.

Daichi Yamato: This, for me, is about the pool of high sec corps being filled with tripe and the actual good corps out there being made even less visible to the new players looking for them.

Arya Regnar: Confirming I don't like this and making eve safe isn't going to make it any more fun or better in any way as it just babysits the idiots.

Sladislov: One of the things about eve that i like is that you have to choose who to trust carefully, but slowly this choice is being taken away as more and more measures are being taken to turn highsec into a cozy place that is perfectly safe. This is a slippery slope.

Iain Cariaba: Even though I do little in highsec anymore, I feel that removing intra-corp combat from highsec violates the Everyone vs. Everyone attitude that is the main reason I pay the monthly subscription fees and play this game.

Lugh Crow-Slave: Well at least i can just hit accept on every invite no need to actually give them even a modicum not like eve was about emergent player interactions anyway.

Black Pedro: This change only makes it safer for these established players with assets, and does nothing for new players that don't even know what awoxing is. Hopefully it makes these established corps more willing to take on new players, but it will also increase the number of failcorps and scam corps trying to attract new players for tax farming.

Kane Ceres: Corps already have more than enough tools to avoid being awoxed 99% of the time.
If you accept someone with a mile long corp history - you deserve to be awoxed.
If you accept someone with a blank app and no API check - you deserve to be awoxed.
If you accept someone with lots of blue on blue on their killboard - YOU DESERVE TO BE AWOXED.
With the kick at downtime feature the damage an awoxer can do is harshly limited.
All this does is protect lazy people who are not willing to vet their applicants.


The bulk of the complaints in this thread have been
A) EvE is characterised as a harsh/unforgiving/trial-by-fire game, and this errodes at those attributes
B) Awoxxing to an extent culls (for want of a better word) lazy/inept hi-sec corps that are detrimental to the NPE

Straw-manning people's valid opposition to the change as something's that's never actually been mentioned will only derail the thread or lead to more emotional/negative responses, which can lead into a downward spiral of ranting and trolling until this thread is locked just like the last one.


Personal reasons I'm against the idea -
1) Corp FFA's/events/tagging a mate with a target painter for ***** n' giggles (This is addressed by having a toggle-able option, but points have been made about the issues with that)
2) Point A mentioned above. (I'm generally meh about what I read on the forums.... This change though really sets my teeth on edge.

Bit like Iain I don't do much in hisec except for running HQ incursions when I've burnt through my isk in lowsec, and as a recruiter I'd personally stand to gain from this change as the consequence of being lax on the recruitment process are less, but I still think this would be detrimental overall.

Granted, if CCP believes this will help their bottom dollar....
Welp there's a cinder's chance in a snowstorm this change won't go through.

If ccp wanted to make big bux they wouldn't have made eve. Eve appeals to a niche group of people (usually older than the average MMO player). Even though there are less people playing eve the playerbase is really loyal (just look at the amount of people older than 5 years or so who are still playing). Barring WoW i dont think i've seen this much player retention in any other mmo.

Would you rather have an interesting game with ~500k active people

or a boring game with 10M active people?

(hint go play world of warcraft)




that it stops intra corp agression

Allah, and before you tell me to learn to spell, please learn some reading comprehension, ty

I would like to hear his take on this to be honest

EXACTLY this does not serve the NPE only corps who don't want to worry about who they let in

What I meant by my second point was you have hi-sec corps founded by people with supposedly good intentions or just average intentions, but are either unaware, ill-prepared or just overwhelmed by what can be required to keep a corp running.

Using a personal anecdote.

Had a potential recruit who was quite new to the game and was already a corp thief (I'll refer to him as Smith) - our diplomat had bumped into them in local and, intrigued by their story, dropped them into our public channel.

Was a fairly small hi-sec corp, bunch of missioners/industrialists etc. founded in a fairly informal manner with the CEO banding together with a bunch of semi-strangers and putting them in leadership positions - Smith was one of these people.

From what I heard things were starting to fray at the edges, and one event in particular which kicked things off was a vetern industrialist refusing to put his personal BPO's in the corp hangar, so the CEO in response tried to have Smith contact a few of his low-sec friends to gank the industrialists freighter on a staged route through lowsec. Smith refused, and by this point all hell's breaking loose so Smith grabbed a bunch of fuel / corp assets and legged it. From what I could tell he gave most of the isk he'd made away to newbies in help channels etc.

In a nutshell, threats to the NPE aren't always obvious like Awoxers or suicide gankers - sometimes it's just good intentions.

EVE's a game about adversity and risk. I recall the time's I've lost ships and I've come to relish them - that's an attitude that seems to be encouraged in EvE: Don't fly what you can't afford to lose, but likewise don't get hung up on losing ships - learn from your mistakes and move on.

I've personally never had the experience of being awoxed or ransomed, but I feel they're valued conflict drivers.

Also stealing a line from the afk cloaking thread attributed to a CSM/DEV
"Show me someone who has been genuinely harmed by AFK cloaking, and I'll show you someone who has no business playing EvE." I feel a similar sentiment here.

Since it's at least ur second time posting this, I'll bite.

Why? He's a community manager. Now maybe my outlook on community managers is skewed, but I've always kind of thought of them like glorified customer service reps. I'm sure if he had a say and if that say was that this change should not be implemented, that it would not be.

So he either doesn't have a say, doesn't mind the changes, or both. In any case, it's irrelevant to the discussion.

i didn't say he would have a say just that as a community manager i would like to know what he thinks on it.



Currently all we have to go on is

"Corps will be able to disable friendly fire"

a lot of people are assuming what this means but we don't know any of the details

Ah, I see. I assumed that when you used phases like "his take on it" and "what he thinks" that you were looking for his opinions, and not clarification.