Test Server Feedback

+1 good change to allow highsec corps to recruit more easily.

You mean with the same risk awoxing had before this change.

"nuuuuuuuu less peeps for the BRAVE newbie farm, bad change"

I, and I think many other players, am of the opinion that Friendly Fire should be the default option, and that the CEO should be choosing to turn it off, rather than the other way around.


Also, there should be a heavy tax penalty on corps that have the option turned on, maybe set it at the value of NPC corps (since they currently have FF turned off (AFAIK). This tax should go to an NPC rather than the corp wallet obviously.

1. Now it is harsh on the awoxer as well, and Fozzie be my witness they really needed some difficulty instead of free safari rides. Good change.

2. All corps will be able to recruit more easily, so this is a good change. Recruitment scams won't get higher since there's no change whatsoever to their routine.

3. "I could threaten my CEO with destruction of corp freighter and now I can't, qq". I think unethical players in general lose more with this change than they win, so it's a good change.

4. Current state of hisec, with free suicide ganking, receiving buff after buff, is very unsafe - the only thing keeping anyone alive in there is the gankbears risk-averse behavior, laziness and badness. This change doesn't do anything to this - you can still suicide gank your mates, just now it FINALLY has consequences for the awoxer, which he had absolutely none before. How do you call it in your baseless superiority complex world, HTFU? Man up and suicide gank them, it's super easy, if you consider that too hard, well, maybe eve isn't for you.

5. Consequences are for actions, and the active side is an awoxer, so he should get them, which was finally fixed. You want targets? Pay for it.

Now I don't say there should be no non-consensual combat in hisec. But the special part of it is that non-consensual combat in hisec has consequences. Awoxing didn't have consequences until now, it was fixed. Taxing corps for it makes no sense, since the price of having targets should be paid by awoxer. As dev blog stated, the only reason it is optional is because RvB wanted free-for-alls and some me-and-my-alts corps wanted to keep their freighter webbing bots, otherwise it would've been removed completely, as it should've been, on the moment crimewatch hit Tranquility.

You clearly don't understand the concept of reverse safari.

Awoxers will adjust to this change. People who want to generate content always do.

Reverse safari will remain the best option to awox members of a Corp. So recruitment scams and reverse safaris remain tools available to awoxers in order to awox.

This change won't be a sudden 'Corps can recruit easier' solution. Risk averse carebears will remain risk averse carebears and just find other excuses not to recruit. Meanwhile awoxers will continue to use the mechanics available to awox. They'll just do it as CEOs instead of Corp members.

Look at the link directly two posts above.

It's direct evidence that your statement is wrong.

It doesn't fit the dialogue you want to push. That CEO deserves to be awoxed.


BS. You just hide your complete disdain for the playstyle behind a veil of 'yeah good for them'.


Same old dumb argument. Goes both ways and is never productive to a discussion.

Carebears cry. HTFUers cry. Forumers cry. On and on. Gets nowhere fast.

Opinions aren't tears.

It's the most ridiculous thing to include in a discussion because it totally closes off any possibility of further discussion by relegating other views to nothing more than a whine. It's a mentally weak approach and it becomes pointless to try to discuss any aspects further.

We'll just have to wait until the next request for a nerf. Then maybe discussion can continue, hopefully without the 'cry-cry-cry' idiocy.

I don't see anything wrong with the way CEO handled this. If this guy wanted a lowsec corp and joined a hisec one, well, wrong choice, the hisec corp lives by hisec rules. The CEO were completely right to be offended because if you venture too much into lowsec space some bears call their own and they see you are a newbie, there is a high risk of a grief dec, which takes 24 hours, all assets relocation, and POS unanchoring/anchoring PITA to mitigate. Thus I see CEO being offended as justified, as he worked at minimizing the needless risk. And don't call me risk-averse, I'll take the risk if there's suitable reward, but I will never even think of taking risk for nothing, which this guy did. If he needed to finish an escalation, me and a few mates would go with him. If he wanted to explore, I'd recommend against it, but still teach him how to stay safe... outside of my corp.

In your example, however, there is a clean violation of corp rules, and a remorseless one as well - this is an offense, which is why CEO was offended, and expulsion for it is justified, since no remorse has been shown. If you don't like corp rules, either plea to change them, or get another corp, it's not rocket science.

What you want to say is "bawww how dare this CEO play the game differently, my way is the only right way and gods must punish anyone doing it wrong". Which is not even original, since pretty much every grief-centric playstyle followers bash each other out with this argument.


Stop putting words in my mouth. I said what I said, and not what you think I said.
Yes, I despise the "playstyle" of 10 hour heroes (of any actual age) spamming apps then killing whatever they can until they are kicked. It's not content, just risk-averse pew, and I'm glad to see it gone.
I haven't asked for any other change, I do enjoy a good read of a successful and creative infiltration, I treat it courteously, as comedy is a tragedy plus time.
My first and only loss were in the second week of eve and was a lesson on jetcan theft mechanics which I didn't know at the time. It was an awful thing to do to a newbie, as I were left practically penniless, and deprived from the mining income, since the griefer followed me for days ready to flip again (as if I were going to, what a douchebag), and it was before I learned to mine into GSC (which is obsolete now after barges rebalance). This led to me trying to learn other forms of PvE and promptly losing a few ships to tackling rogue drones in the drone anoms(they ain't there anymore), which made me drop eve for a few months, which wasn't really good for the game since my sub wasn't there for it anymore. But this is all a comedy now, when people desperately dig killboards in order to peck me, find this loss, and ask me if I'm still mad at losing cheap ass T1 hauler ~5 years ago, I can laugh in their faces pretty sincerely.
So, stop putting words in my mouth. Disdain you mentioned exists purely in your imagination.



Opinions aren't tears.
Tears are tears.
Tears of people who self-entitle their playstyle to be the only true one are delicious. Thank you.



"You" in this post weren't addressing you personally, please treat it as a generic "He who wants targets in hisec must pay for it".

The corp approaches players with their rules, players either join and accept, or refuse them. I agree that if the rules weren't stated clearly during recruiting, it's the recruiter's fault, but they were stated clearly in the corp bulletin, which should have given the guy a clue. Newbie is not supposed to be familiar with the corp etiquette of eve, but he's got the right to ask.

That said, CEO is still innocent and right in my opinion. Thus, resorting to awoxing is wrong, it's not a solution, because there is no problem, other than a bad recruiter, which can be sorted out rather quickly, without the need to condemn anyone.

FCs are leaders.
CEOs are the users of what is basically an economy and convenience tools in hisec - corporation mechanics. They are not leaders. They are not always experienced players. They just use the goddamn tool, because apparently, nobody else in the said group, which needed a user of this tool, wanted to do it. It is always like that. Fleet needs a logi - somebody is chosen to do it. Corp needs a CEO - somebody is chosen to do it. Honestly, I don't think you can expect them to act as leaders when they aren't.

This is where I think the quality of life changes for recruiting should lay. You want a corp with an active FC, who leads 15 roams a week, you should be able to find them. You want a corp with an active Foreman running gathering ops and paying out ISK for working bees, you should be able to find those too. Right now you can pretty much only differentiate between high/low/null corps, and not perfectly.

The general idea is, you want to fix bad corps, don't ban them. Eve player has a right to be a villain. But tell me, if you show people in the recruitment UI that this CEO is a villain, would he recruit much? Good, now you just need to prove he's a villain. Make recruiting corps compete in activity, so that all those inactive ghost corps, corps with poor coordination, and even reverse safari corps, would have to work to make their recruits come to them.

What's common among all those ideas? They are completely unrelated to FF.

Back on the original track. FCs are combat leaders. Alliance commanders are strategic leaders. Mining foremans are industry leaders. CEOs are just tools. They are what logi to the fleet are. No logi = no fleet, bad logi = bad fleet, but they aren't FCs in the shiny command ships, they are just logi. A corp is a tool, like a fleet UI panel, nothing more. At least in hisec.

So don't blame CEO. They guy did right. Recruiter is wrong, but this can be fixed, if addressed properly from a purely human standpoint. If the corp doesn't have a leader, and you need one, you have joined the wrong corp. Maybe you should consider alliances - unlike corps, those are actually supposed to have proper leadership.