These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Warfare & Tactics

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Faction warfare "Friendly Fire problem"
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kyle Ward
Doomheim
#21 - 2012-07-09 01:26:32 UTC
Wow, lotta dumb posts in this thread. This is obviously exploiting. You kill a freindly in Hisec you get Concorded; you kill a friendly in FW you take a standings hit and get booted if you don't power-grind them back up. If he really is hopping corps to avoid punishment just report him and let CCP sort it out.

The Sandbox, you're playing it wrong!
Homo Jesus
The LGBT Last Supper
#22 - 2012-07-09 01:38:01 UTC
Carber wrote:
its supose to work like Red versus blue. just way more advance...


It does work like red versus blue. The way more advance part is where the friendlies kill you too.
Nevare Wong
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#23 - 2012-07-09 02:02:54 UTC
NoNah wrote:
Carber wrote:
i wasent set up to kill him i did not think he would attack me becourse we was allies. when he pointed me i was dead.


I'm not trying to provoke you. You joined factional warfare which is an optional feature to promote pvp. In this you sought out pvp in a plex(Mind you, there are lots of things you can do that are not necessarily primarily to find pvp, such as regular missions, mining etc, plexes are even more than factional warfare designed to promote pvp).

So, you are in this pvp arena, and get pointed by a hostile frigate, whom you supposed were friendly(I still have no idea why you would think he was friendly, had you even spoken to him before?).

This is not about provoking, it's about you having presumtions keeping you from engaging in moneyfarming in pvp arenas. If you had been going there with the intent of pvp, and still considered yourself "dead when pointed" it's not a matter of mechanics or anything else, it's about you being able to handle an opponent and being unprepared for the situation that arose.

The mechanics are flawed beyond belief, but not the way you mention it.



Try to read the op's post before you respond also looking up his loss might help you figure out what he is talking about.

He was in a pvp fit jag in a plex and had a fellow miltia member in an arty warp in and kill him.

Next time before you talk about how the op has no idea about fw I would suggest you get a clue yourself.
NoNah
Hyper-Nova
#24 - 2012-07-09 02:22:49 UTC  |  Edited by: NoNah
Kyle Ward wrote:
Wow, lotta dumb posts in this thread. This is obviously exploiting. You kill a freindly in Hisec you get Concorded; you kill a friendly in FW you take a standings hit and get booted if you don't power-grind them back up. If he really is hopping corps to avoid punishment just report him and let CCP sort it out.


Killing militia members is not an exploit no. If it was, there would be no standing penalties for it, now it's an intended feature and a weighted penalty for doing so. Hoping corps to void it, is an exploit(assuming CCP acts upon you reporting it atleast), then THAT is the problem, not that OP got killed by a friendly, which is entirely unrelated. It would still be an exploit if he hoped corps to stay in the militia, regardless of why he wants to stay in the militia or how he ended up with low standing(above criteria still applies).



Nevare Wong wrote:

Try to read the op's post before you respond also looking up his loss might help you figure out what he is talking about.

He was in a pvp fit jag in a plex and had a fellow miltia member in an arty warp in and kill him.

Next time before you talk about how the op has no idea about fw I would suggest you get a clue yourself.


Might want to take your own advice there champ.

What the killmail looks like is completely irrelevant, as he died. The imbalance the OP referred to was that killing a friendly had a to small impact on standings compared to the standings gain from capturing a plex solo. Not that killing militia members shouldn't be allowed, not that standings shouldn't be averaged among corp members to be able to apply to the militia or anything of the sort.

What happened was that a ship approached him. I'm assuming he didn't know who it was and therefor had no standing to him(if he knew who it was, he should have already had an assessment on wether to stay or go). At this point OP made the decision to assume the "neutral" approaching him was harmless and stayed around to welcome him, which turned out to be a bad idea.

A similiar scenario would be seeing an orca land next to your hulk in highsec, launching a tornado from the ship maint bay, and a blinky pod landing next to it. The hulk assuming the orca/nado is friendly, as he's in the same noob corp as the hulk. And OP posting to complain that the nado loses some sec status to volleying the hulk, but makes some sec status back as he can also volley a rat in the belt, before concord arrives.
Xuixien
Solar Winds Security Solutions
#25 - 2012-07-09 02:31:40 UTC
I see purple-killing to be a problem; not so because I disagree with it, but more so because of the way people are able to avoid any real consequences from it. Yes, yes, EVE is a sandbox. That's why we love this game. However, a sandbox cannot function without proper borders, otherwise the sand spills out and we have a big mess.

EVE is all about choices and consequences. Obviously CCP intended for there to be consequences to shooting friendly militia - you lose Security Status, take a GCC, as well as an appreciable standings hit.

However, it seems some players have found a loophole around that by having "standings alts" in their corporations. Is this "edge gameplay", or is it a simple exploitation of the game mechanics? It's up to CCP to decide, ultimately, but players avoiding consequences is not something CCP intended. They set this precedent by fixing the Boomerang Exploit.

Now, this would be an easy thing to fix; make it so that characters with bad enough standings with militia get auto-kicked from both their militia and their corporation, or flag the entire corporation as a "viable war target" - after all, they are technically harboring criminals/traitors. Or, just make the individual pilot with bad standings become a viable target to other militia members.

Of course, this will not stop purple-killing; EVE is a sandbox, afterall. However, this will add real consequences to purple-killing, and make people think twice and weigh the pros and cons before doing it. Which is what EVE is meant to be. Not "Oh well I have a standings alt, time to go shoot everyone I want for free, and if I get WarDec'd yay for more targets."

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist
NoNah
Hyper-Nova
#26 - 2012-07-09 02:41:45 UTC
Xuixien wrote:
I see purple-killing to be a problem; not so because I disagree with it, but more so because of the way people are able to avoid any real consequences from it. Yes, yes, EVE is a sandbox. That's why we love this game. However, a sandbox cannot function without proper borders, otherwise the sand spills out and we have a big mess.

EVE is all about choices and consequences. Obviously CCP intended for there to be consequences to shooting friendly militia - you lose Security Status, take a GCC, as well as an appreciable standings hit.

However, it seems some players have found a loophole around that by having "standings alts" in their corporations. Is this "edge gameplay", or is it a simple exploitation of the game mechanics? It's up to CCP to decide, ultimately, but players avoiding consequences is not something CCP intended. They set this precedent by fixing the Boomerang Exploit.

Now, this would be an easy thing to fix; make it so that characters with bad enough standings with militia get auto-kicked from both their militia and their corporation, or flag the entire corporation as a "viable war target" - after all, they are technically harboring criminals/traitors. Or, just make the individual pilot with bad standings become a viable target to other militia members.

Of course, this will not stop purple-killing; EVE is a sandbox, afterall. However, this will add real consequences to purple-killing, and make people think twice and weigh the pros and cons before doing it. Which is what EVE is meant to be. Not "Oh well I have a standings alt, time to go shoot everyone I want for free, and if I get WarDec'd yay for more targets."


Pretty much agreed. Another simple fix would be to for example force all corps to have more kills on opposing factions than your own, which could also be coupled with forcing kills for LP payouts. If you at the end of a month or whatever have a higher isk killed value of friendly militias than hostile ones, you automagically get moved to the opposing faction, if standings prevent it, you get kicked. If your hostile isk killed in a week is less than say the LP you made(with whatever factor), same effect.
Xuixien
Solar Winds Security Solutions
#27 - 2012-07-09 03:38:17 UTC
NoNah wrote:
Xuixien wrote:
I see purple-killing to be a problem; not so because I disagree with it, but more so because of the way people are able to avoid any real consequences from it. Yes, yes, EVE is a sandbox. That's why we love this game. However, a sandbox cannot function without proper borders, otherwise the sand spills out and we have a big mess.

EVE is all about choices and consequences. Obviously CCP intended for there to be consequences to shooting friendly militia - you lose Security Status, take a GCC, as well as an appreciable standings hit.

However, it seems some players have found a loophole around that by having "standings alts" in their corporations. Is this "edge gameplay", or is it a simple exploitation of the game mechanics? It's up to CCP to decide, ultimately, but players avoiding consequences is not something CCP intended. They set this precedent by fixing the Boomerang Exploit.

Now, this would be an easy thing to fix; make it so that characters with bad enough standings with militia get auto-kicked from both their militia and their corporation, or flag the entire corporation as a "viable war target" - after all, they are technically harboring criminals/traitors. Or, just make the individual pilot with bad standings become a viable target to other militia members.

Of course, this will not stop purple-killing; EVE is a sandbox, afterall. However, this will add real consequences to purple-killing, and make people think twice and weigh the pros and cons before doing it. Which is what EVE is meant to be. Not "Oh well I have a standings alt, time to go shoot everyone I want for free, and if I get WarDec'd yay for more targets."


Pretty much agreed. Another simple fix would be to for example force all corps to have more kills on opposing factions than your own, which could also be coupled with forcing kills for LP payouts. If you at the end of a month or whatever have a higher isk killed value of friendly militias than hostile ones, you automagically get moved to the opposing faction, if standings prevent it, you get kicked. If your hostile isk killed in a week is less than say the LP you made(with whatever factor), same effect.


Or better yet, making personal standings affect LP payouts for plexes. That would sure be poetic justice!

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist
NoNah
Hyper-Nova
#28 - 2012-07-09 04:06:55 UTC
Xuixien wrote:

Or better yet, making personal standings affect LP payouts for plexes. That would sure be poetic justice!


Not that I disagree, but it'd in no way solve or help the topic at hand. =)

What I was trying to achieve with abovementioned suggestions is ways to encourage making the destruction of opposing faction your main passtime in eve. Plexing should be a way to encourage pvp, in general, LP a way of encouraging specific targets(and in the case of missions/plexes to encourage pvp in such arenas and of course fund the prior).
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#29 - 2012-07-09 05:19:59 UTC
Adolf is a pretty famous awoxer. He typically flies an arty thrasher that moves between 3km/s and 4km/s. It has a T2 Warp Disruptor that will catch you at 33km. So he:

1) Has Snake Implants
2) Uses a Loki booster

I suspect that Loki booster to be a Trojan horse in the just about anyone's militia. So he could, for example, be in the Minmatar militia with a Loki booster in the Amarr militia. If you see him on short scan and you're brawler fit you should warp out. If you have a long range fit then he'll leave and go get a different thrasher with a tracking disruptor. Don't chase after him if you're in a group as that is playing into his hands. Now you're informed.
Squatdog
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#30 - 2012-07-09 06:22:41 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
Adolf is a pretty famous awoxer. He typically flies an arty thrasher that moves between 3km/s and 4km/s. It has a T2 Warp Disruptor that will catch you at 33km. So he:

1) Has Snake Implants
2) Uses a Loki booster
3) and a Legion/Tengu booster

I suspect that Loki booster to be a Trojan horse in the just about anyone's militia. So he could, for example, be in the Minmatar militia with a Loki booster in the Amarr militia. If you see him on short scan and you're brawler fit you should warp out. If you have a long range fit then he'll leave and go get a different thrasher with a tracking disruptor. Don't chase after him if you're in a group as that is playing into his hands. Now you're informed.


Just set him to red.

Now you know, and knowing is half the battle!
Yuri Intaki
Nasranite Watch
#31 - 2012-07-09 06:35:56 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
Adolf is a pretty famous awoxer. He typically flies an arty thrasher that moves between 3km/s and 4km/s. It has a T2 Warp Disruptor that will catch you at 33km. So he:

1) Has Snake Implants
2) Uses a Loki booster

I suspect that Loki booster to be a Trojan horse in the just about anyone's militia. So he could, for example, be in the Minmatar militia with a Loki booster in the Amarr militia. If you see him on short scan and you're brawler fit you should warp out. If you have a long range fit then he'll leave and go get a different thrasher with a tracking disruptor. Don't chase after him if you're in a group as that is playing into his hands. Now you're informed.


1) Correct

2) Correct - Kuolematon Peelo (Translation from Finnish means "Immortal douchebag") is the pilot and he is generally "blue" to one side of the warfront. So if Adolf is in Matar, then Peelo will be Amarr for example.

3) On some occasions if you have a long range boat, he will triple box and bring another alt (often a newbie militia alt he recycles when standings go to shitters) with damping boat to make sure he can kite without trouble.

I dont remember all his alts but at least Prophet Jammu and Miesten Mies are his. Also, based on comments on various militias it just might be that Adolf is even more hated than Damar when it comes to personalities in FW.
Wenron
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#32 - 2012-07-09 13:33:01 UTC
This guy seems to have killed most everyone once. I know he's got a few of the Rifterlings including myself. As others have said, set to red and be informed.

I like the idea of personal standings affecting someone's ability to be in militia to combat standings alts. Alternately, a 3 strike rule wouldn't be a bad thing. Have a history of awoxing militia members - ban from militia for set period of time. That is probably a bit more involved to code though.
BolsterBomb
Perkone
Caldari State
#33 - 2012-07-09 14:06:57 UTC
All in all Low Sec gets the poo stick out of everywhere else. Purple killing is just one of the problems:

In any other setting you can have an easy way of dealing with this. In High Sec you kick him from corp, if he tries to kill you, he either has to have a WD in place or suicide ganks you. Either way there is an easy way/ harsh penalty of knowing he is not firendly.

In nullsec you can boot him from corp and kill repetitively without any standing loss.

In low sec, if you see him and defend yourself prior to him engaging you and kill him YOU losse standings which effects YOUR play style. If you wait till he agresses then you will most likely die because is he friendly, is he hostile, is he...pop!

A standing hit is not enough in low sec.

I do not know what the solution is but the current mechanics are not enough. You essentially could go pie and get friendly kills all day long without ever being booted from militia.

On a side note, one of my biggest pet peves is neutrals that come into plexes and move in a hostile manner which makes you have to agress them first. Really screws up your sec status....solution CCP MAKE MORE RATS IN LOW SEC

Happened 5 times last night...........

Brig General of The Caldari State

"Don" Bolsterbomb

Traitor and Ex Luminaire General of The Gallente Federation
Yatama Kautsuo
Tencus
#34 - 2012-07-09 16:36:14 UTC
life is a sandbox as well.

guess what happens if you shoot friendlys in a war on purpose? that will be dealt with more harshly then when you shoot some random guy at the street... treason...

sandbox does not mean that the borders are solely created by the players. as stated by some other player that would not work. there need to be rules and borders which we already have in eve en masse (e.g. flaging system, concord etc.)

a working mechanic would be if you kill off a friendly militiatarget, after a big fair warning first of course, that your standing with the faction INSTANTLY go to -5 so that the navy hunts you in their sector. that would be real consequences just like when you suicide gank someone in highsec concord takes notice form you (sec status hit)

i mean how dumb must the enlisters be to let the same person in their militia again which is known for deserteuring and sabotaging...
NoNah
Hyper-Nova
#35 - 2012-07-09 18:32:20 UTC
Yatama Kautsuo wrote:
life is a sandbox as well.

guess what happens if you shoot friendlys in a war on purpose? that will be dealt with more harshly then when you shoot some random guy at the street... treason...

sandbox does not mean that the borders are solely created by the players. as stated by some other player that would not work. there need to be rules and borders which we already have in eve en masse (e.g. flaging system, concord etc.)

a working mechanic would be if you kill off a friendly militiatarget, after a big fair warning first of course, that your standing with the faction INSTANTLY go to -5 so that the navy hunts you in their sector. that would be real consequences just like when you suicide gank someone in highsec concord takes notice form you (sec status hit)

i mean how dumb must the enlisters be to let the same person in their militia again which is known for deserteuring and sabotaging...



According to op he's capturing plexes, some friendly casualties for territorial advancement is perfectly acceptable according to many of the "great nations" of the real life world.

The missconception here is that being in the same militia means you're allied. This is a construct YOU have designed within the sandbox, it's far from a given. If he is in your corp and shooting other members(also known as awoxing), you may boot him(well, provided he docks or logs). Now he is not. He may shoot whomever he wants, and there are noticable consequences if he shoots neutrals of any kind, even more consequences if he shoots those of his own militia.

If you do not enjoy his company in the militia you can of course just join the opposing faction and shoot him freely, or shoot him freely, man up and take the standings hit. Or just... you know... do what everyone else does, shoot those you don't like and eat th consequences. If getting shot by enemies is to big of a problem, you can always hang around in concord systems or dock up and you will be fairly safe to do whatever non-pvp you seem to desire.
BolsterBomb
Perkone
Caldari State
#36 - 2012-07-09 18:46:12 UTC
NoNah wrote:
Yatama Kautsuo wrote:
life is a sandbox as well.

guess what happens if you shoot friendlys in a war on purpose? that will be dealt with more harshly then when you shoot some random guy at the street... treason...

sandbox does not mean that the borders are solely created by the players. as stated by some other player that would not work. there need to be rules and borders which we already have in eve en masse (e.g. flaging system, concord etc.)

a working mechanic would be if you kill off a friendly militiatarget, after a big fair warning first of course, that your standing with the faction INSTANTLY go to -5 so that the navy hunts you in their sector. that would be real consequences just like when you suicide gank someone in highsec concord takes notice form you (sec status hit)

i mean how dumb must the enlisters be to let the same person in their militia again which is known for deserteuring and sabotaging...



According to op he's capturing plexes, some friendly casualties for territorial advancement is perfectly acceptable according to many of the "great nations" of the real life world.

The missconception here is that being in the same militia means you're allied. This is a construct YOU have designed within the sandbox, it's far from a given. If he is in your corp and shooting other members(also known as awoxing), you may boot him(well, provided he docks or logs). Now he is not. He may shoot whomever he wants, and there are noticable consequences if he shoots neutrals of any kind, even more consequences if he shoots those of his own militia.

If you do not enjoy his company in the militia you can of course just join the opposing faction and shoot him freely, or shoot him freely, man up and take the standings hit. Or just... you know... do what everyone else does, shoot those you don't like and eat th consequences. If getting shot by enemies is to big of a problem, you can always hang around in concord systems or dock up and you will be fairly safe to do whatever non-pvp you seem to desire.


I disagree your comment would mean that its ok for the US Marines to shoort the US Army and the US Navy to shoot the US Airforce


Brig General of The Caldari State

"Don" Bolsterbomb

Traitor and Ex Luminaire General of The Gallente Federation
NoNah
Hyper-Nova
#37 - 2012-07-09 19:23:06 UTC
BolsterBomb wrote:


I disagree your comment would mean that its ok for the US Marines to shoort the US Army and the US Navy to shoot the US Airforce




I'm not suggesting it's ok, I'm suggesting it's accepted. Penalized, but accepted. Collateral damage and friendly fire are not only known concepts but coined by superpowers. But please, let us not divulge in discussing real life politics and mechanics which have nothing what so ever to do with the problem at hand. Real life analogies are always bad and irrelevant, this is just another example of it. If you want to discuss it further, by all means, make a thread on another (sub)forum.

Point is, there are mechanics to discourage what's being asked for. OP mistakenly assumed militia members for being given friendlies, and now knows better.
Xuixien
Solar Winds Security Solutions
#38 - 2012-07-09 19:49:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Xuixien
NoNah wrote:
According to op he's capturing plexes, some friendly casualties for territorial advancement is perfectly acceptable according to many of the "great nations" of the real life world.

The missconception here is that being in the same militia means you're allied. This is a construct YOU have designed within the sandbox, it's far from a given. If he is in your corp and shooting other members(also known as awoxing), you may boot him(well, provided he docks or logs). Now he is not. He may shoot whomever he wants, and there are noticable consequences if he shoots neutrals of any kind, even more consequences if he shoots those of his own militia.

If you do not enjoy his company in the militia you can of course just join the opposing faction and shoot him freely, or shoot him freely, man up and take the standings hit. Or just... you know... do what everyone else does, shoot those you don't like and eat th consequences. If getting shot by enemies is to big of a problem, you can always hang around in concord systems or dock up and you will be fairly safe to do whatever non-pvp you seem to desire.


Except it's not a "friendly casualty for territorial advancement" - it's a friendly casualty for personal interest.

As much as I think shooting purples is stupid, players should have the freedom to do it. However, a sandbox does not function without a system that applies consequences to actions. In some cases, the community applies the consequences. In other cases, game mechanics are in place to apply consequences. Telling someone to "leave militia" or "dock up" is not a solution; it's a myopic, ill-conceived response borne of intellectual laziness that fails to take the full scope of the issue into consideration.

There must be consequences for shooting purples. Inserting "standings alts" into your corp so that you can freely shoot purples without suffering from the consequences doesn't cut it. Obviously the consequences need to be modified so that individual players cannot run and hide from them like they are now. As it stands, there are in-theory consequences, but nothing practical.

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist
Kuehnelt
Devoid Privateering
#39 - 2012-07-09 19:58:20 UTC
BolsterBomb wrote:
On a side note, one of my biggest pet peves is neutrals that come into plexes and move in a hostile manner which makes you have to agress them first. Really screws up your sec status....solution CCP MAKE MORE RATS IN LOW SEC

Happened 5 times last night...........


Nah. Solution: "there are no neutrals in military complexes", so there are no sec status hits (for anyone) in FW deadspace pockets. Maybe this will be easier to implement when Crimewatch hits - just flag anyone as a suspect who activates a FW acceleration gate.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#40 - 2012-07-09 20:00:14 UTC
BolsterBomb wrote:
NoNah wrote:
Yatama Kautsuo wrote:
life is a sandbox as well.

guess what happens if you shoot friendlys in a war on purpose? that will be dealt with more harshly then when you shoot some random guy at the street... treason...
...(snip)...

According to op he's capturing plexes, some friendly casualties for territorial advancement is perfectly acceptable according to many of the "great nations" of the real life world.

The missconception here is that being in the same militia means you're allied. This is a construct YOU have designed within the sandbox, it's far from a given. If he is in your corp and shooting other members(also known as awoxing), you may boot him(well, provided he docks or logs). Now he is not. He may shoot whomever he wants, and there are noticable consequences if he shoots neutrals of any kind, even more consequences if he shoots those of his own militia.

If you do not enjoy his company in the militia you can of course just join the opposing faction and shoot him freely, or shoot him freely, man up and take the standings hit. Or just... you know... do what everyone else does, shoot those you don't like and eat th consequences. If getting shot by enemies is to big of a problem, you can always hang around in concord systems or dock up and you will be fairly safe to do whatever non-pvp you seem to desire.


I disagree your comment would mean that its ok for the US Marines to shoort the US Army and the US Navy to shoot the US Airforce

As NoNah pointed out in his post... you're assuming that there is actual camaraderie that extends beyond each individual corp/alliance to the rest of each respective militia. Here's a hint: there is not such camaraderie.

As a result... internal conflicts and "friendly fire" are common occurances within the warzone... either due to genuine mistake (many pilots new to militia don't understand that there are many friendly militia pilots who are "outlaw" status) or "bad blood" between different corp/alliances/individuals.

I should also add that based on what I've seen (in the 2 years I've been in FW)... the only real way to mobilize multiple corps/alliances together under the same banner towards the same goal is when money and/or logistics and/or survival and/or "juicy kill" requires it. Beyond that, each corp/alliance usually wishes to operate without interference from the others.

How did you Veterans start?