These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Basil Pupkin
Republic Military School
#101 - 2015-02-11 15:25:58 UTC
I will try to put it even simpler: the "FF legal" mode we have before was a BUG.

It was broken on purpose, as a dirty hack to allow people in the same corp to web freighters, test tanks, and do other homosexual things, which corps with "FF legal" will keep doing after Tiamat goes live.

However, as crimewatch rolled out, the hack were no longer needed. The plan, as stated in the OP post, were to remove that hack completely and equalize this behavior with NPC corps for consistency.

But you cried. And you were listened to. You were allowed to keep this bug if you wanted it, you got an option for it.

And now you cry that others owe you something for using one option differently. For playing the game differently, due to removal of the hack you, and only you, liked. You're allowed to keep it, others get it fixed, nobody owes you anything, and no extra protection has been granted - the things were FIXED.

It is not optional because it was worthy to keep it - it was supposed to be non-optional "FF illegal". It was because some people asked for an exception to the general rule, they got it, nobody owes anything to you, CCP, NPC, CONCORD, or anyone else, for not using that exception.

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.
Lucas Quaan
DEMONS OF THE HIDDEN MIST
TRUTH. HONOUR. LIGHT.
#102 - 2015-02-11 15:36:40 UTC
Iam Widdershins wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
CCP hard data own your points.

Nice anecdote, I'm totally convinced.

"I was abused by unintuitive game mechanics as a new player, this awesome challenge totally made me want to go play with sov structures!"

pot, meet kettle
Celly S
Neutin Local LLC
#103 - 2015-02-11 19:17:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Celly S
BadAssMcKill wrote:
Make ganking and scamming illegal too thx


There are already ways to address those things, no need to change anything.

* most Gankers get concorded and a person has the ability to defend themselves from scammers by merely paying attention.

Don't get me wrong, I can't stand either lot and have personal opinions of them that are not fit conversation for mixed company, but, they have the right to play those roles in the game if they want to, just like folks who counter those type people in various ways have a right to do that as well.

o/
Celly

Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal. Perception is unique in that it can be shared or singular. Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself. A sandwich can be a great motivator.
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#104 - 2015-02-11 19:19:12 UTC
I said it before (in this thread noless) and I'll say it again.
I'm mostly a Highsec Carebear. I live in an NPC Corp (though I've had an alt that did the whole Player corp stuff).

While I love the idea of a no-friendly fire option. There NEEDS to be a drawback. There needs to be a reason to take the Risk of AWOXing.

My suggestion eariler I still believe is the best one. Tax. A 'Concord Protection Fee' that would act like the tax in an NPC Corp. NPC Corps have an 11% Tax, so I say 7% for the Player Corps, + whatever corp tax they set themselves.

This saves them money vs just staying NPC, and still allowes for an AWOX free corp. At the same time, it still offers a reason for hardcore who want every little isk to chose the option that allows Friendly Fire.


Another thing. One Man Corps. Used to get out of NPC Tax's, but still not really social. I'd seriously consider adding the TAX on those. Say until you get 4 members? (So you can't just put your 2 other toons in it and call it good..).
A little Tax isn't the end of the world, and at the same time would give an incentive to join actual corps.
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#105 - 2015-02-11 19:51:51 UTC
Ned Thomas wrote:
The fact that you can do horrible no good very bad things to people in this game makes choosing not to do those horrible no good very bad things to someone a significant choice.


Absolutely.

Ned Thomas wrote:
On the other hand, knowing that people can do horrible no good very bad things to me makes finding people I trust to fly with a meaningful effort.


And this is the problem in a nutshell: how to make people more willing to open their doors to abject newbies without removing the meaning and consequence. It's not an easy problem, and I don't begrudge CCP fumbling a few times as they figure out how to thread that particular needle.

"Just recruit people you know!" is not the solution, it's the problem.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Keras Authion
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#106 - 2015-02-11 20:07:30 UTC
That last picture... Is it a teaser of a drifter carrier?

The friendly fire change seems like it could make a change but then again corporations in high sec are functionally just glorified chat rooms as long as you don't want a pos. We'll have to see what kind of effect it has.

This post was rated "C" for capsuleer.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#107 - 2015-02-11 21:07:00 UTC
Sniper Smith wrote:
I said it before (in this thread noless) and I'll say it again.
I'm mostly a Highsec Carebear. I live in an NPC Corp (though I've had an alt that did the whole Player corp stuff).

While I love the idea of a no-friendly fire option. There NEEDS to be a drawback. There needs to be a reason to take the Risk of AWOXing.

My suggestion eariler I still believe is the best one. Tax. A 'Concord Protection Fee' that would act like the tax in an NPC Corp. NPC Corps have an 11% Tax, so I say 7% for the Player Corps, + whatever corp tax they set themselves.

This saves them money vs just staying NPC, and still allowes for an AWOX free corp. At the same time, it still offers a reason for hardcore who want every little isk to chose the option that allows Friendly Fire.


Another thing. One Man Corps. Used to get out of NPC Tax's, but still not really social. I'd seriously consider adding the TAX on those. Say until you get 4 members? (So you can't just put your 2 other toons in it and call it good..).
A little Tax isn't the end of the world, and at the same time would give an incentive to join actual corps.


The first step to pretend being what you're not, is to learn the basics of what you want to pretend.

Free tip: Hisec carebears stay in one-man corps and they will not bother to turn FF off.
Intar Medris
KarmaFleet University
#108 - 2015-02-12 00:24:59 UTC
Give it till this time next year, and PVP inside high sec space will be all but dead because CCP will have nerfed it out of existence . Every little cry the poor wittle carebears make CCP is more than happy to oblige. Yet outside of FW lowsec remains a ghost town, and null sec is more stagnant than a bucket filled with mosquito larva filled water. Risk VS Reward no longer exist.

I try to be nice and mind my business just shooting lasers at rocks. There is just way too many asshats in New Eden for that to happen.
Basil Pupkin
Republic Military School
#109 - 2015-02-12 01:27:58 UTC
Intar Medris wrote:
Give it till this time next year, and PVP inside high sec space will be all but dead because CCP will have nerfed it out of existence . Every little cry the poor wittle carebears make CCP is more than happy to oblige. Yet outside of FW lowsec remains a ghost town, and null sec is more stagnant than a bucket filled with mosquito larva filled water. Risk VS Reward no longer exist.


"Oh no, they fixed a bug, hisec pvp is dead! qqqqqqqqq"

Remind me, why Uedama is beating B-R5RB and Asakai with HED-GP combined in amount of ISK destroyed annually? Probably because hisec pvp is soooooo dead... I don't even mention Jita or other hubs, RvB's favorite systems, and Osmon.

Suicide wanking is receiving buff after buff, now with the otherwise-useless Bowhead (it just doesn't have sufficient tank to be useful as a machariel hauler and costs too much to haul barges) used for hyperdunking. They even call this obvious use "emergent", bleh...

The best change would be taking those "leet PvF (player vs freighter)" players and putting them to use in those ghost towns and stagnant space, if you need to change "hisec PvF" for it, so be it.

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#110 - 2015-02-12 02:15:26 UTC
Sniper Smith wrote:
I said it before (in this thread noless) and I'll say it again.
I'm mostly a Highsec Carebear. I live in an NPC Corp (though I've had an alt that did the whole Player corp stuff).

While I love the idea of a no-friendly fire option. There NEEDS to be a drawback. There needs to be a reason to take the Risk of AWOXing.

My suggestion eariler I still believe is the best one. Tax. A 'Concord Protection Fee' that would act like the tax in an NPC Corp. NPC Corps have an 11% Tax, so I say 7% for the Player Corps, + whatever corp tax they set themselves.

This saves them money vs just staying NPC, and still allowes for an AWOX free corp. At the same time, it still offers a reason for hardcore who want every little isk to chose the option that allows Friendly Fire.


Another thing. One Man Corps. Used to get out of NPC Tax's, but still not really social. I'd seriously consider adding the TAX on those. Say until you get 4 members? (So you can't just put your 2 other toons in it and call it good..).

Why should being asocial be taxable? And what prevents dual account holders from breaking this restriction?
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#111 - 2015-02-12 04:51:59 UTC
Sniper Smith wrote:
I said it before (in this thread noless) and I'll say it again.
I'm mostly a Highsec Carebear. I live in an NPC Corp (though I've had an alt that did the whole Player corp stuff).

While I love the idea of a no-friendly fire option. There NEEDS to be a drawback. There needs to be a reason to take the Risk of AWOXing.

My suggestion eariler I still believe is the best one. Tax. A 'Concord Protection Fee' that would act like the tax in an NPC Corp. NPC Corps have an 11% Tax, so I say 7% for the Player Corps, + whatever corp tax they set themselves.

This saves them money vs just staying NPC, and still allowes for an AWOX free corp. At the same time, it still offers a reason for hardcore who want every little isk to chose the option that allows Friendly Fire.


Another thing. One Man Corps. Used to get out of NPC Tax's, but still not really social. I'd seriously consider adding the TAX on those. Say until you get 4 members? (So you can't just put your 2 other toons in it and call it good..).
A little Tax isn't the end of the world, and at the same time would give an incentive to join actual corps.



Trial accounts.
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#112 - 2015-02-12 07:12:51 UTC
Basil Pupkin wrote:
It is not optional because it was worthy to keep it - it was supposed to be non-optional "FF illegal". It was because some people asked for an exception to the general rule, they got it, nobody owes anything to you, CCP, NPC, CONCORD, or anyone else, for not using that exception.

I'm mostly just impressed that anyone even thinks of it this way. So totally closed-minded and convinced that there could not possibly be any advantages to the clearly intentional design the way it's been for the last 12 years, and unwilling to consider any arguments to that end.

Your point that FFO is clearly the new default isn't something that I am 'not getting,' it's my whole problem with the change. I think the system as it has been is just fine and I'm already pretty satisfied with my prior explanation of why that is.

Luas Quaan wrote:
"I was abused by unintuitive game mechanics as a new player, this awesome challenge totally made me want to go play with sov structures!"

I have no idea how you got this impression. I always liked the fact that corp members can freely kill each other and don't see how that could be called 'unintuitive.'

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#113 - 2015-02-12 18:16:43 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Why should being asocial be taxable? And what prevents dual account holders from breaking this restriction?

There's never gonna be a solution that solves everything and makes everyone happy.
But this is a MMO.. Saying no social is like the people demanding that ganks be banned cause they don't want to ever engage in combat.. too bad.

As for Trial and such, make it active toons or something.. Or not.. if they put in any effort, congrats, you deserve to be a loner. So much better than finding half a dozen that also like to run SOE Missions and getting together in a corp to help eachother with sites and how best to avoid the outside world :)
Dalilus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#114 - 2015-02-13 04:25:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Dalilus
Why is null so boring, a song for nullbears courtesy of Eiffel 65:

"Blue (Da Ba De)"

Yo listen up here's a story
About a little guy that lives in a blue world
And all day and all night and everything he sees
Is just blue like him inside and outside
Blue his house with a blue little window
And a blue corvette
And everything is blue for him and himself
And everybody around
'Cause he ain't got nobody to listen to

I'm blue da ba dee da ba die...

I have a blue house with a blue window.
Blue is the colour of all that I wear.
Blue are the streets and all the trees are too.
I have a girlfriend and she is so blue.
Blue are the people here that walk around,
Blue like my corvette, it's in and outside.
Blue are the words I say and what I think.
Blue are the feelings that live inside me.

I'm blue da ba dee da ba die...

I have a blue house with a blue window.
Blue is the colour of all that I wear.
Blue are the streets and all the trees are too.
I have a girlfriend and she is so blue.
Blue are the people here that walk around,
Blue like my corvette, it's in and outside.
Blue are the words I say and what I think.
Blue are the feelings that live inside me.

I'm blue da ba dee da ba die...

Inside and outside blue his house
With the blue little window
And a blue corvette
And everything is blue for him and himself
And everybody around
'Cause he ain't got nobody to listen to

I'm blue da ba dee da ba die...

I'm blue (da ba dee da ba die)

If CCP wanted to fix null all they have to do is be creative and stop listening to the nullbear BWAAAAAAAAAmbulance when it makes the rounds because, you now, nullbears do not want their income from ISK botfarms interrupted. Here's a couple of ideas on what could be done:
-cosmic strings pass through nullsec creating havoc. Pack and go away and come back to reclaim what you had or be seriously damaged or even destroyed by gravitational waves as you keep a watch over your stuff so it might weather the waves. Oh the horror, having to reconquer or guard what nature can and will destroy.
-computers are not infallible. there is a minuscule 1 in XXX chance that your ship/fleet will jump somewhere, not where you wanted to but SOMEWHERE in null inside a xxxx sized sphere. remember to get rid of the jump penalties imposed a few months back because they are so much fun. this is not a new idea.
-nullbears claim to be the fly's knees of pvp so make warp inhibitors 'pulse'. if the enemy times it right they have a small window, figure out how long, when they can jump into a system to pillage and ****. But if they time the 'pulse' wrong they are stuck in enemy space without being able to warp out or get hot dropped reinforcements. tidi is an unforgiving mistress.
-bring back the titan disco. BWAAAA, BWAAAAA I hear nullbears whine, they would be overpowered and the blob and all our blobbing doctrines would no longer work! the problem with nullsec are nullbears who have no interest in fighting each other unless they have the winning hand. if too many supercaps show up and fire up their disco a rift in space could open up and transport your ships and those nearby somewhere in wormhole space. or even worse, lowsec.
-like i've said many times no one wants to be a nullbear bish and that's what pets are, nullbear bishes. imagine telling your friends...i play eve, it's awesome! i mine, i pvp, i rat, i explore, i can get a cta at 3:00am!! i have a great time in the most dangerous areas of the game with my corpies and alliance buddies....but i have to pay rent/protection money to do so. ha, ha, ha you finish. your friends look at you with pity and have you buy their drinks. at home you make the sandwiches. once a bish always a bish.

i see the blue pvp crowd is in love with ganking high sec carebears, of which i'm one, but casual players now have multiple venues where to spend our money and many have been grazing new pastures or returned to old ones. there was a survey a while back that said, if i'm not mistaken, that eve players had lots and lots of disposable income. if CCP does not figure out how to make the game enjoyable where one can have a sense of accomplishment, of skin in the game and 'ownership' without paying extortion ISK or losing in a gank in the blink of an eye the rewards of hundreds of hours of in game time, eve will continue to spiral and have the numbers it does right now. unless of course if that is the endgame.

one last thought - why pay for a subscription or even recommend a game that's akin to getting mugged in an inner city ghetto hourly/daily/monthly/yearly/whenever you undock when you don't have to? Big smile
Celly S
Neutin Local LLC
#115 - 2015-02-13 06:03:11 UTC
Dalilus wrote:
Why is null so boring



cute song..

you know, I read that post, and re-read that post, and I live in null and its nothing like that where I live, in fact that post seems like a regurgitation of a multitude of posts I've seen where people complain about null, but never describe the null sec I live in.
Does that null exist?, maybe, does that null make game-play less fun for someone?, maybe, is it CCP's fault that some people stagnate?... nope!

if you want to change your game-play, then undock and change it, CCP can't fix it for you, in fact, they can't fix it for anyone.
Can they address some of the underlying causes?, maybe, but only you can change your gameplay, CCP can't. (unless you're going for the theme-park thingy and if so, i hear WoW is that way ----> )

sorry you don't have fun and sorry that you have such a dismal view of things...

o/
Celly

Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal. Perception is unique in that it can be shared or singular. Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself. A sandwich can be a great motivator.
Basil Pupkin
Republic Military School
#116 - 2015-02-13 15:22:16 UTC
Iam Widdershins wrote:
Basil Pupkin wrote:
It is not optional because it was worthy to keep it - it was supposed to be non-optional "FF illegal". It was because some people asked for an exception to the general rule, they got it, nobody owes anything to you, CCP, NPC, CONCORD, or anyone else, for not using that exception.

I'm mostly just impressed that anyone even thinks of it this way. So totally closed-minded and convinced that there could not possibly be any advantages to the clearly intentional design the way it's been for the last 12 years, and unwilling to consider any arguments to that end.

Your point that FFO is clearly the new default isn't something that I am 'not getting,' it's my whole problem with the change. I think the system as it has been is just fine and I'm already pretty satisfied with my prior explanation of why that is.

Luas Quaan wrote:
"I was abused by unintuitive game mechanics as a new player, this awesome challenge totally made me want to go play with sov structures!"

I have no idea how you got this impression. I always liked the fact that corp members can freely kill each other and don't see how that could be called 'unintuitive.'


It was a hack, placed to let people test tanks, web freighters, do free-for-alls, nos each other for cap, etc.
With crimewatch and dueling, there was no more reason for this hack to be kept - you can duel to test tank and web freighters, you couldn't do free for alls in hisec because there was nullsec for that, and you could duel to nos each other.
However, your "arguments" were considered. Each of them were weighted. The switch you got resulted in more than a year delay for removing this hack. It covered all, however crazy, use-cases mentioned.
The system were not fine due to obviously being a hack. NPC corps were free of that hack, and it were unintuitive 100% to go from NPC corp to player corp and get shot there.
The switch was the gift for you, instead of just doing things right and removing the hack without any kind of special treatment. It's not a change - it's a FIX, and a GIFT to you, who liked that hack, so you can optionally apply it back at yourself.

Speaking about "extra safety" and "tradeoffs" for not using the hack is stupid, period. Nothing of value were lost with this change, every valid use case is covered with a switch. That's why I am unwilling to listen, because your logic about this change is extremely flawed and is on the "because I said so" level.

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#117 - 2015-02-13 18:36:41 UTC
Basil Pupkin wrote:
It was a hack, placed to let people test tanks, web freighters, do free-for-alls, nos each other for cap, etc.

I almost feel bad for you.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
Esmanpir
Raccoon's with LightSabers
#118 - 2015-02-13 19:36:06 UTC
Intar Medris wrote:
Give it till this time next year, and PVP inside high sec space will be all but dead because CCP will have nerfed it out of existence . Every little cry the poor wittle carebears make CCP is more than happy to oblige. Yet outside of FW lowsec remains a ghost town, and null sec is more stagnant than a bucket filled with mosquito larva filled water. Risk VS Reward no longer exist.


Even if this was true, how is that an issue for you? I keep reading in the post people whining about how bad changes are when they don't even effect them. Are you upset that this will effect your game play or that someone else gets a better experience? I personally don't care if High Sec Care Bears get loving from CCP. I'm losing ships in LowSec and having fun.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#119 - 2015-02-13 23:57:39 UTC
Sniper Smith wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Why should being asocial be taxable? And what prevents dual account holders from breaking this restriction?

There's never gonna be a solution that solves everything and makes everyone happy.
But this is a MMO.. Saying no social is like the people demanding that ganks be banned cause they don't want to ever engage in combat.. too bad.

As for Trial and such, make it active toons or something.. Or not.. if they put in any effort, congrats, you deserve to be a loner. So much better than finding half a dozen that also like to run SOE Missions and getting together in a corp to help eachother with sites and how best to avoid the outside world :)

How does having a asocial corp structure translate into an inability to be ganked or unwillingness to accept ganking? Aren't those measure taken in response to awoxing meaning those who do so are aware of it and are taking measure to mitigate the risk? Also how does taking a corp in any way resolve that? And finally, if I can avoid combat within the rules of the game and do so because I don't want to engage in it, how am I in any way wrong?
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#120 - 2015-02-14 00:03:27 UTC
Iam Widdershins wrote:
Luas Quaan wrote:
"I was abused by unintuitive game mechanics as a new player, this awesome challenge totally made me want to go play with sov structures!"

I have no idea how you got this impression. I always liked the fact that corp members can freely kill each other and don't see how that could be called 'unintuitive.'
It was called unintuitive because without exception, players go from a state of not being able to engage corp members legally in the NPC corp they started in to being able to do so in a player corp.