These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Corp Little Things & Friendly Fire Control

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ned Thomas
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#41 - 2015-02-09 18:05:03 UTC
CCP Lebowski wrote:
Ned Thomas wrote:
Two notices, if I read correctly: one when the 24 hour period begins and one when it ends.
Correct!


Since someone will ask this, I'll go ahead and be the one to do it: is there any thought to adding a similar second notification at the start and end of war decs?
Mag's
Azn Empire
#42 - 2015-02-09 18:08:50 UTC
Just as I asked at EvE_NT.

Can we have a tax associated with this switch being active?
If you want it to be illegal to shoot corp members, then you should be paying Concord at least 10% tax.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Lord Battlestar
CALIMA COLLABORATIVE
Atrox Urbanis Respublique Abundatia
#43 - 2015-02-09 18:19:47 UTC
Looks good, I think it is a great idea to make it optional. And the increased mailing list idea is great too.

I once podded myself by blowing a huge fart.
Desert Ice78
Gryphons of the Western Wind
#44 - 2015-02-09 18:24:08 UTC
Soko99 wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
So whats the cost of the CEO turning FF on, thereby giving himself a corp full of free, legal targets?



GREAT question.

I can already see it.. Create corp, Advertise as FF OFF, bring in a bunch of shiny incursion runners/missioners. Bring in your buddies. turn FF ON and watch the tears.


CONFIRM QUIT CORPORATION - YES/NO?

I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg

CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused.
Maenth
The Thirteen Provinces
#45 - 2015-02-09 18:33:12 UTC
I like this attention to detail! For the 'character' of my corp I would like to make FF Illegal (and seriously we should say it like that, because "ON" and "OFF" are too vague: does "ON" mean that FF is allowed, or does it mean the new feature is active?)

However, for the safety of my my corp members' ships I can't enable this with 100% comfort and therefore will not. To my knowledge, issuing the command for drones to attack overrides the 'safety' setting rules, and on some occasions we tap our repair targets with attack drones while the safety is green so if we apply this new FF-ILLEGAL rule, then occasionally someone may lose their ship during missions by accidentally drone-striking a friend.

Soooo is there any chance of that getting fixed here? Because for me, this is a deal breaker, and I can't use this new feature which I would love, while drones continue to disobey the safety setting

Drones. Drones are a means to an end. An end to the ruthless Caldari 'progress' machines. An end to the barbaric 'redemption' proposed by the Amarr. What they see as chaos shall be my perfect order, merely beyond their comprehension.
SeneschaI
Ordo Arcana
Salvation Security Group
#46 - 2015-02-09 18:34:11 UTC  |  Edited by: SeneschaI
Vincent Athena wrote:
Soko99 wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
So whats the cost of the CEO turning FF on, thereby giving himself a corp full of free, legal targets?

GREAT question.
I can already see it.. Create corp, Advertise as FF OFF, bring in a bunch of shiny incursion runners/missioners. Bring in your buddies. turn FF ON and watch the tears.

You got it. The mitigation is the 24 hour notice. Of course, people need to actually check their notices.

sure it is the new way to grief play. course, it'll take effort, and we all know griefers just love their low effort, low risk (to themselves) playstyle.
Of course, there's already scammer corps out there, so it'll just be another flavour to the mix.

FYI, there's a new thing out there called Zkillboard - great for spotting blue on blues in corp history. Blink
BTW, personally, i'd welcome this new griefer corp flavour: it would make older corps more attractive
SeneschaI
Ordo Arcana
Salvation Security Group
#47 - 2015-02-09 18:43:48 UTC  |  Edited by: SeneschaI
Maenth wrote:
Soooo is there any chance of that getting fixed here? Because for me, this is a deal breaker, and I can't use this new feature which I would love, while drones continue to disobey the safety setting

really? that would take me all of 5 minutes to confirm on the test server. yeah...no. That was an old old 'feature' long since removed, plus the new 'safety' mode makes it painfully obvious it won't allow you to if you didn't set it to 'red'
Ned Thomas
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#48 - 2015-02-09 18:45:56 UTC
Maenth wrote:
I like this attention to detail! For the 'character' of my corp I would like to make FF Illegal (and seriously we should say it like that, because "ON" and "OFF" are too vague: does "ON" mean that FF is allowed, or does it mean the new feature is active?)

However, for the safety of my my corp members' ships I can't enable this with 100% comfort and therefore will not. To my knowledge, issuing the command for drones to attack overrides the 'safety' setting rules, and on some occasions we tap our repair targets with attack drones while the safety is green so if we apply this new FF-ILLEGAL rule, then occasionally someone may lose their ship during missions by accidentally drone-striking a friend.

Soooo is there any chance of that getting fixed here? Because for me, this is a deal breaker, and I can't use this new feature which I would love, while drones continue to disobey the safety setting


I know drones do weird things sometimes, but I've never heard of them overriding a green safety.
SeneschaI
Ordo Arcana
Salvation Security Group
#49 - 2015-02-09 18:53:46 UTC
Ned Thomas wrote:
I know drones do weird things sometimes, but I've never heard of them overriding a green safety.
only thing i remember a long time ago was accidentally repairing NPC ships in a mission, using repair drones instead of attack. boom! haha...i shoulda read that warning popup closely.
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2015-02-09 19:03:16 UTC
I'm not against the whole stopping Friendly Fire in Player corps.. But I think there needs to be a consequence.

I suggest a Tax. Call it a "Concord Protection Fee". NPC Corps are what? 11% Tax? So they aren't NPC and are now player, so call it 7%. 7% tax on everything in exchange for Concord Protection.

NOW you have a choice to make. Do you want to live tax free, do you want protection, make your choice.

This seems like a fair way to enable the system.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#51 - 2015-02-09 19:12:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Athena
Sniper Smith wrote:
I'm not against the whole stopping Friendly Fire in Player corps.. But I think there needs to be a consequence.

I suggest a Tax. Call it a "Concord Protection Fee". NPC Corps are what? 11% Tax? So they aren't NPC and are now player, so call it 7%. 7% tax on everything in exchange for Concord Protection.

NOW you have a choice to make. Do you want to live tax free, do you want protection, make your choice.

This seems like a fair way to enable the system.

But I can get both by making a one man corp; just me and my alts. No issues with FF, no tax. But now the consequence is solo play.

Do we really want the best min-max playstyle to be solo play?

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Soko99
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#52 - 2015-02-09 19:18:08 UTC
SeneschaI wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
Soko99 wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
So whats the cost of the CEO turning FF on, thereby giving himself a corp full of free, legal targets?

GREAT question.
I can already see it.. Create corp, Advertise as FF OFF, bring in a bunch of shiny incursion runners/missioners. Bring in your buddies. turn FF ON and watch the tears.

You got it. The mitigation is the 24 hour notice. Of course, people need to actually check their notices.

sure it is the new way to grief play. course, it'll take effort, and we all know griefers just love their low effort, low risk (to themselves) playstyle.
Of course, there's already scammer corps out there, so it'll just be another flavour to the mix.

FYI, there's a new thing out there called Zkillboard - great for spotting blue on blues in corp history. Blink
BTW, personally, i'd welcome this new griefer corp flavour: it would make older corps more attractive



I don't know if I'd say it's the love of low risk playstyle.. it's more the effort and the outsmarting your enemy that makes people do it. As you said.. there's plenty of ways to identify blue on blue. And unless someone makes a new alt that's completely clean and does it with that, you can find out AWOXERs and corp thieves pretty quickly.. Just takes the effort to research. Now if it's a bran spanking clean toon, then the guy obviously put a lot of effort into making that character so he's just as entitled to be able to AWOX as the guy that is trying do defend himself from it.

but that's just my .02 cents.
Soko99
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#53 - 2015-02-09 19:19:55 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
Sniper Smith wrote:
I'm not against the whole stopping Friendly Fire in Player corps.. But I think there needs to be a consequence.

I suggest a Tax. Call it a "Concord Protection Fee". NPC Corps are what? 11% Tax? So they aren't NPC and are now player, so call it 7%. 7% tax on everything in exchange for Concord Protection.

NOW you have a choice to make. Do you want to live tax free, do you want protection, make your choice.

This seems like a fair way to enable the system.

But I can get both by making a one man corp; just me and my alts. No issues with FF, no tax. But now the consequence is solo play.

Do we really want the best min-max playstyle to be solo play?



the drawback of that is that you're playing solo and have no friends to play with.

that option is there already.. so nothing changes, which makes it that this change is absolutely useless.. However, if there's absolutely no cost to turning FF OFF, then why even have the option. Just turn it off and be done with it. Since nobody in their right mind would turn it on anyways.
CCP Lebowski
C C P
C C P Alliance
#54 - 2015-02-09 19:27:43 UTC
Soko99 wrote:
the drawback of that is that you're playing solo and have no friends to play with.
As mentioned in the quoted post from CCP Fozzie, this is really not the kind of drawback we want as part of the games mechanics.

Soko99 wrote:
However, if there's absolutely no cost to turning FF OFF, then why even have the option. Just turn it off and be done with it. Since nobody in their right mind would turn it on anyways.
There are definitely some reasonable reasons to keep it available. One example would be an any organization like RvB who have free-for-all fights with members of the same corporation.

CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0

@CCP_Lebowski

Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#55 - 2015-02-09 19:28:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Athena
Soko99 wrote:


the drawback of that is that you're playing solo and have no friends to play with.

that option is there already.. so nothing changes, which makes it that this change is absolutely useless.. However, if there's absolutely no cost to turning FF OFF, then why even have the option. Just turn it off and be done with it. Since nobody in their right mind would turn it on anyways.

We agree the drawback of a one man corp is solo play. But if there was a ff tax, and you are a min-maxer, then you would say "The best way to min-max is be in a one man corp". For the health of eve, that is undesirable. Thus we should not have a game mechanic that encourages it in any way.

And there is a cost to turning FF off. You cannot have corp free for alls, tank testing is more annoying, and web slinging freighters is more annoying, and many players will shun you corp.

By the way, CCP, we will still have one game mechanic that promotes solo, one man corps: The war dec system. If 20 people want to be in a corp to avoid tax, they have two choices. Be in one corp, or be in 20 corps. If they are in one corp, 20 million decs them all. If they are in 20 corps, it takes 400 million to dec them all. Thus, the best way to both avoid tax and avoid war is solo play.
CCP Fozzie wrote:
To be blunt, it's a terrible idea to make it optimal to lock yourself into solo play. Everyone loses if we build mechanics like that.

Taxes are also a fairly ineffective method for influencing choices since they apply heavily to some activities while not applying at all to other activities.


Heed you own words, change the war dec system.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Soko99
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#56 - 2015-02-09 19:34:58 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:

We agree the drawback of a one man corp is solo play. But if there was a ff tax, and you are a min-maxer, then you would say "The best way to min-max is be in a one man corp". For the health of eve, that is undesirable. Thus we should not have a game mechanic that encourages it in any way.



I agreee.. but I also find that making the game safer is also not good for the health of eve as well.. I got can flipped my first 2 days.. got blown up trying to 1 steal my stuff back, and then when I went back to try and fight the guy.. I'm still playing. and paying. It's what makes EvE so different from other games.

Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#57 - 2015-02-09 19:44:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Athena
Soko99 wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:

We agree the drawback of a one man corp is solo play. But if there was a ff tax, and you are a min-maxer, then you would say "The best way to min-max is be in a one man corp". For the health of eve, that is undesirable. Thus we should not have a game mechanic that encourages it in any way.



I agreee.. but I also find that making the game safer is also not good for the health of eve as well.. I got can flipped my first 2 days.. got blown up trying to 1 steal my stuff back, and then when I went back to try and fight the guy.. I'm still playing. and paying. It's what makes EvE so different from other games.


You are, many others are not. The result is CCP cannot hire the devs needed to fix all the issues in this game.

Also, this change does not make the game safer. It is equally safe to be in a one man corp right now.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Soko99
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#58 - 2015-02-09 19:49:13 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
Soko99 wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:

We agree the drawback of a one man corp is solo play. But if there was a ff tax, and you are a min-maxer, then you would say "The best way to min-max is be in a one man corp". For the health of eve, that is undesirable. Thus we should not have a game mechanic that encourages it in any way.



I agreee.. but I also find that making the game safer is also not good for the health of eve as well.. I got can flipped my first 2 days.. got blown up trying to 1 steal my stuff back, and then when I went back to try and fight the guy.. I'm still playing. and paying. It's what makes EvE so different from other games.


You are, many others are not. The result is CCP cannot hire the devs needed to fix all the issues in this game.

Also, this change does not make the game safer. It is equally safe to be in a one man corp right now.



but you had a risk in any other corp.. now you don't. thus safer
Gorongo Frostfyr
#59 - 2015-02-09 20:00:13 UTC
Anyone else went to check out http://katrin.is/ ?
Mynxee
Signal Cartel
EvE-Scout Enclave
#60 - 2015-02-09 20:22:37 UTC
Those are some really helpful changes...and *sigh* that last image...such a promise of more good stuff to come! After so many years of thinking these kinds of changes would never be addressed, it's great to see them getting some love.

Lost in space, looking for sigs...

Blog: Cloaky Wanderer