These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Option to disable corp friendly fire.

First post First post
Author
Sir Substance
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#41 - 2015-01-16 05:55:29 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Can you please look at your own signature before writing things on this topic?


It's kind of a distressing point. PvP could happen at any time in eve, but we're transitioning from "PvP is a part of this game" to "technically, it's not impossible for it to happen under niche circumstances, people still PvP in null you know".

The beatings will continue until posting improves. -Magnus Cortex

Official Eve Online changelist: Togglable PvP. - Jordanna Bauer

Aiyshimin
Descendant Command
#42 - 2015-01-16 05:55:42 UTC
Better late than never. This should have happened years ago, along suicide tanks and wardeccing, awoxing is one of the main reasons for the negative growth is EVE.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#43 - 2015-01-16 06:02:53 UTC
Go back and read the most recent CSM minutes. The topic of intra-corp aggression is discussed pretty thoroughly, and CCP Seagull is involved in the conversations as well. If you read it and still don't understand why CCP wants to do this, then .. I don't know what to say to you.

Regardless of whether I support this measure or not, you must admit that all the vetting in the world is of limited use and is in fact absolutely useless against a clever awoxer who's willing to do the work (and use the alts) to not get caught.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#44 - 2015-01-16 06:04:18 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
can you tell me what good will come from taking AWOXing out? What does this do other than enable NPC alts to have corp tax and assets then obscure corps that are interested in actual group play?


Can you please look at your own signature before writing things on this topic?


If you cant even answer my question, what the **** are you doing posting in favor of its removal??

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#45 - 2015-01-16 06:06:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
clever awoxer who's willing to do the work(and use the alts) to not get caught.


The horror...

i guess the message in my sig is a pretty important one then.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#46 - 2015-01-16 06:09:57 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Diomedes
I get that Eve is supposed to be a harsh, cold universe and all, but one of the major downsides to Eve is that it has historically been very hard to join up with other players and work together. This denies many people the social aspect of Eve and that really hurts retention.

This comic is very appropriate.

I don't want to see Eve become truly less dangerous, but I also really don't give a **** about some highsec AWOXer having to adapt his gameplay if it results in a few more retentions.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#47 - 2015-01-16 06:20:12 UTC
Quote:
historically been very hard to join up with other players and work together.


Start a new char. Send out some apps. Have a chat. you'll find that it isnt. The problem with finding a corp is finding one that actually does what it says on the tin.

And players of multiple MMO's have always said their bonds with their EVE online corpies have always been the strongest.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Caleb Seremshur
Mortis Angelus
The morgue.
#48 - 2015-01-16 06:20:53 UTC
Aiyshimin wrote:
Better late than never. This should have happened years ago, along suicide tanks and wardeccing, awoxing is one of the main reasons for the negative growth is EVE.


Wardeccing has a time and a place, for highsec, whether you feel a corporation should be allowed to wardec as many as 120 others at any time is a different matter.

Whether people should even be allowed to exist in an NPC corporation after joining a player corporation is another question. Whether highsec is too big, too many missions, too high payout, too much ore, too many moons for POS, POS guns even being allowed, wardecs being a *thing*, bumping, Globby tactics, the lack of a diverse resource economy, gluttony of accounts, too many alts, not enough gate pirates, AFK cloaking, ISBOXing (it's still happening, reporting is a proactive process), Awoxing of the weak, needing the weak to awox, being weak enough to need to awox, weapon and ship imbalance, no caps in highsec (due to change apparently, under consideration etc) and all the spectrum of events that flow from these things.

There's dozens of failures in the game that cumulatively are pushing new players out. And CCP have said they're finnicky about touching them because highsec carebears constitute the greater portion of their playerbase. If movements like CODE were having serious implications for sub counts you think CCP wouldn't have outlawed them and IP banned them? Like they do to exploiters? Oh Jesus no don't be so naive, CODE and it's flunky pretenders would have been extinguished years ago. Don't **** with CCP's bottom line. IIRC even the guys who pulled a fast one on the original FW revamp LP award system got banned despite it all being clearly above the belt.

Quote:
If you cant even answer my question, what the **** are you doing posting in favor of its removal??


I don't think you really grasp the issue. The issue isn't really awoxing the issue is why we've been led to this scenario in the first place.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#49 - 2015-01-16 06:25:52 UTC
Page 74: Team Five-O

Ctrl-F for "Session: Team Five-O". The conversation about awoxing starts there.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#50 - 2015-01-16 06:28:40 UTC
If thats what its really about, catering to the masses of carebears, then EVE has pulled/is going to pull an 'ultima online'.

If i ever believe thats whats happening, i will be QQing.

But you still havent said why YOU are in favour of removing it. You still havent answered my question.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#51 - 2015-01-16 06:48:20 UTC
Neutral logi.

That is all.


None of the crying folks in here are thinking of the possibilities of giving people a little more security - they'll think they are immortal and so other ways to perform hilarious kills open up. Perhaps if you stop drowning yourself in tears and give it some thought.....
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#52 - 2015-01-16 06:50:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
afkalt wrote:
Neutral logi.

That is all.



Why cant crimewatch deal with this? If it can be made to start a Criminal timer, why cant shooting corpies start a LE?

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Caleb Seremshur
Mortis Angelus
The morgue.
#53 - 2015-01-16 07:27:30 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
If thats what its really about, catering to the masses of carebears, then EVE has pulled/is going to pull an 'ultima online'.

If i ever believe thats whats happening, i will be QQing.

But you still havent said why YOU are in favour of removing it. You still havent answered my question.


And I'm not going to, because I've answered this same question dozens of times and running over old ground makes me want to stick my **** in a blender.

Thread reported for redundancy.
Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#54 - 2015-01-16 07:36:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Ines Tegator
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Page 74: Team Five-O

Ctrl-F for "Session: Team Five-O". The conversation about awoxing starts there.


Quoting some relevant parts.

Quote:
CCP FoxFour
-
The idea that this is the only way to cause harm by joining a corporation does not exist.
You can join a corporation and still assassinate someone. You can convince them to give you assets. You
can convince them to go through a low sec gate. You can convince them to go mission in an expensive
ship and suicide gank them

Quote:

CCP Bettik
-
What sold me on this point was we are teaching people that it's safer in an NPC corporation than a player corporation. We know that it is better for them to join a player corp oration, but we want to make sure that people can get into a corporation. We know that there is a social barrier for some and some people have truly bad experiences. However, this is about the person that joins a corp and suddenly they are dead and they don’t know what happened.


Quote:
CCP Fozzie
-
In a game where it is important to get people to interact with other people we have a situation where if your ISK is not made from bounties and you do not need the extra features of a corporation that the optimum choice in all circumstances is not to play with other people. We don't want it to be this way.
Sladislov
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#55 - 2015-01-16 08:10:39 UTC
This is the start of a slippery slope.

I am not sure how the rest of ccp is fine with removing an integral part of what makes eve eve.

       Sladislov Director of Silly semantics       Broksi Kurth    xXxBlack LegionxXx

Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#56 - 2015-01-16 08:35:07 UTC
Sladislov wrote:
This is the start of a slippery slope.

I am not sure how the rest of ccp is fine with removing an integral part of what makes eve eve.


Probably because this "integral part" is having a significantly detrimental effect on people experiencing the other "integral parts" of EVE.
Sladislov
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#57 - 2015-01-16 08:38:21 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Sladislov wrote:
This is the start of a slippery slope.

I am not sure how the rest of ccp is fine with removing an integral part of what makes eve eve.


Probably because this "integral part" is having a significantly detrimental effect on people experiencing the other "integral parts" of EVE.


If people really want to dwell in highsec and invite whoever they want without even checking who they are, i think i have the better game for you

Only people who agree with this new change have been awoxed before and are too dumb to realize what mistakes they made,

"OH HE HAS KILLED HIS OWN CORP MEMBERS 30 TIMES BETTER ACCEPT HIM"

"WOW WHY ARE YOU SHOOTING ME"

       Sladislov Director of Silly semantics       Broksi Kurth    xXxBlack LegionxXx

Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#58 - 2015-01-16 08:47:32 UTC
Ya'll yelling slippery slopes and death of hisec, would you care to explain how you got into this argument now seeing how this discussion wasn't as vibrant when CONCORD was made invincible?

I think you're too attached to the status quo of things to imagine a system which will benefit every walk of life more in the long run. Yes, removing PvP options is not the ideal situation, but the targets are still there. If they undock, they consent to PvP and are as valid targets. It takes, what, a handful over a dozen catalysts to pop the most blinged out mission boat (theyr'e not ships, ships are for PvP)?

If CCP's projections of player retention come to fruition with this change and they can continue to work towards the total removal of safe NPC corps from hisec then this first step is an easy one to implement and revert at any point. Of course, you'd see this if you read this whole post and didn't take the bait on first 2 paragraphs, we'll see.
Sladislov
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#59 - 2015-01-16 09:03:06 UTC
Adrie Atticus wrote:
Ya'll yelling slippery slopes and death of hisec, would you care to explain how you got into this argument now seeing how this discussion wasn't as vibrant when CONCORD was made invincible?

I think you're too attached to the status quo of things to imagine a system which will benefit every walk of life more in the long run. Yes, removing PvP options is not the ideal situation, but the targets are still there. If they undock, they consent to PvP and are as valid targets. It takes, what, a handful over a dozen catalysts to pop the most blinged out mission boat (theyr'e not ships, ships are for PvP)?

If CCP's projections of player retention come to fruition with this change and they can continue to work towards the total removal of safe NPC corps from hisec then this first step is an easy one to implement and revert at any point. Of course, you'd see this if you read this whole post and didn't take the bait on first 2 paragraphs, we'll see.


Invincible concord is a lot different than outright removing the ability to do damage; the one makes the nigh-invincible police force really invincible, the other straight up removes gameplay elements. Also about the player retention, i'd rather not change the game fundamentally to appeal to newer people more. All of us started as new people and we are still here. More does not equal better.

       Sladislov Director of Silly semantics       Broksi Kurth    xXxBlack LegionxXx

Anthar Thebess
#60 - 2015-01-16 09:14:25 UTC
Another important feature removed Sad