These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
chaosgrimm
Synth Tech
#141 - 2015-01-17 03:26:49 UTC
I doubt this will change null sec.

Highsec I've got mixed opinions of.

Overall I think its leaning toward the positive end of the spectrum:
* awoxing was providing a way to circumvent concord, the drop in sec status, etc. IMO if you want to make hisec kills, you should be able to, but also be subject to the penalties.
* might encourage new players / risk adverse players to join corps and lets be honest, social interaction is a major part of the reason players stay, play, and pay.

Call Me Betty
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#142 - 2015-01-17 04:11:33 UTC
I think there should be a option to disable friendly corp fire with a monthly concord protection fee. Something like 50 or 100m a month. But this option should not be enabled by default. Eve should not be a safe place.

I am a HS awoxer. I blindly apply to corps and 90% of the time I get rejected. Which is a good thing. But there are corps that will accept anyone. They will not even do the simplest of checks. Some don't realize their are people like me but most are just bears with the mindset that PvP is bad and think most people don't do it. But once I get in their normally quickly learn.

If you can spend a few seconds to check out someone before letting someone into your corp then you can weed out most of the awoxers. Unless it is a new awoxer then it is very simple to figure out if someone is one or not.

Eve should not be a safe place. If you want the benefits of having or being in a corp you should accept the risks. If you are careful you can avoid most of them. But the lazy should not be rewarded with safety for doing nothing.

Also saying just gank or war dec them is not a alternative. People can drop and switch corps when war deced and ganking solo limits your targets.

Quattras Peione
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#143 - 2015-01-17 04:51:39 UTC
Aiyshimin wrote:
suicide tanks


Typo or not, this is a potential feature that merits its own thread.

Dr. Quattras Alvar Peione

No, I'm not that kind of doctor.

Mario Putzo
#144 - 2015-01-17 04:58:46 UTC
All these folks complaining about losing easy ganks.

To bad you will now have to put effort into it.

Join a corp, become a director, switch option off, gank ceo, steal as much as you can.
Maqari Kinraysuwa
Oruze Cruise
White Stag Exit Bag
#145 - 2015-01-17 05:43:08 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
All these folks complaining about losing easy ganks.

To bad you will now have to put effort into it.

Join a corp, become a director, switch option off, gank ceo, steal as much as you can.


Your killboard looks like it could use some easy ganks, maybe you should consider highsec awoxing.
Aran Hotchkiss
Tactically Challenged
The Initiative.
#146 - 2015-01-17 05:48:41 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
All these folks complaining about losing easy ganks.




Daichi Yamato: This, for me, is about the pool of high sec corps being filled with tripe and the actual good corps out there being made even less visible to the new players looking for them.

Arya Regnar: Confirming I don't like this and making eve safe isn't going to make it any more fun or better in any way as it just babysits the idiots.

Sladislov: One of the things about eve that i like is that you have to choose who to trust carefully, but slowly this choice is being taken away as more and more measures are being taken to turn highsec into a cozy place that is perfectly safe. This is a slippery slope.

Iain Cariaba: Even though I do little in highsec anymore, I feel that removing intra-corp combat from highsec violates the Everyone vs. Everyone attitude that is the main reason I pay the monthly subscription fees and play this game.

Lugh Crow-Slave: Well at least i can just hit accept on every invite no need to actually give them even a modicum not like eve was about emergent player interactions anyway.

Black Pedro: This change only makes it safer for these established players with assets, and does nothing for new players that don't even know what awoxing is. Hopefully it makes these established corps more willing to take on new players, but it will also increase the number of failcorps and scam corps trying to attract new players for tax farming.

Kane Ceres: Corps already have more than enough tools to avoid being awoxed 99% of the time.
If you accept someone with a mile long corp history - you deserve to be awoxed.
If you accept someone with a blank app and no API check - you deserve to be awoxed.
If you accept someone with lots of blue on blue on their killboard - YOU DESERVE TO BE AWOXED.
With the kick at downtime feature the damage an awoxer can do is harshly limited.
All this does is protect lazy people who are not willing to vet their applicants.


The bulk of the complaints in this thread have been
A) EvE is characterised as a harsh/unforgiving/trial-by-fire game, and this errodes at those attributes
B) Awoxxing to an extent culls (for want of a better word) lazy/inept hi-sec corps that are detrimental to the NPE

Straw-manning people's valid opposition to the change as something's that's never actually been mentioned will only derail the thread or lead to more emotional/negative responses, which can lead into a downward spiral of ranting and trolling until this thread is locked just like the last one.


Personal reasons I'm against the idea -
1) Corp FFA's/events/tagging a mate with a target painter for ***** n' giggles (This is addressed by having a toggle-able option, but points have been made about the issues with that)
2) Point A mentioned above. (I'm generally meh about what I read on the forums.... This change though really sets my teeth on edge.

Bit like Iain I don't do much in hisec except for running HQ incursions when I've burnt through my isk in lowsec, and as a recruiter I'd personally stand to gain from this change as the consequence of being lax on the recruitment process are less, but I still think this would be detrimental overall.

Granted, if CCP believes this will help their bottom dollar....
Welp there's a cinder's chance in a snowstorm this change won't go through.

You should have enough control over your herd of cats to make them understand. If they constantly make misstakes, get better cats.

Lugh Crow-Slave
#147 - 2015-01-17 06:10:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Mario Putzo wrote:
All these folks complaining about losing easy ganks.

To bad you will now have to put effort into it.

Join a corp, become a director, switch option off, gank ceo, steal as much as you can.



Look at my KB look at the alliance i run

I spend all of my energy in eve helping new players, new corps and new CEOs

I don't think this is a bad idea because i enjoy easy kills

I think this is a bad idea because it is not eve.

A corporation isn't just about the chat room ore the lower tax rate its about playing the game with people you trust even knowing they have free rain to screw you over in so many ways. This is something that makes the community, your corp so much more valuable.


Awoxers provide content for themselves and those they awox at the same time remind players that this isn't the type of game where you are 100% safe even from those who fly under your flag. That's not something you can find in any other decent MMO and is unique to eve and echos the spirit of what makes it so great.
Sladislov
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#148 - 2015-01-17 09:21:20 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
Interesting to read since my last post here.
After reading the oft touted meeting minutes on thing is even more clear now than before and to be honest it trumps any thing and every argument we as players could post.

$$$$$

Did I mention cash money.

$$$$$

You know the cold hard real life cash that CCP uses to pay for devs, artists, computers for them, servers for us and the list goes on. Any company that cannot or will not adjust to keep the majority of their paying customers will soon find themselves on the bankrupt and out of business list.

If CCP thinks any in game activity be it high sec AWOXing, suicide ganking or running missions is threatening the real cash bottom line then it needs to be changed removed from the game.

A question and this is hypothetical
You control CCP do you keep high sec AWOXing in game and risk losing the majority of your paying customers?
Or do you remove high sec AWOXing and risk losing a very small minority of your paying players?

To a smart business manager the answer to this one is easy, you cater to the majority and keep them in the game.
Then you take the money you have and work to find ways to give the minority something that will keep them in the game.



If ccp wanted to make big bux they wouldn't have made eve. Eve appeals to a niche group of people (usually older than the average MMO player). Even though there are less people playing eve the playerbase is really loyal (just look at the amount of people older than 5 years or so who are still playing). Barring WoW i dont think i've seen this much player retention in any other mmo.

Would you rather have an interesting game with ~500k active people

or a boring game with 10M active people?

(hint go play world of warcraft)


Maria Dragoon wrote:


And which underlying principle is there to prove? Hmmm? What kind of thought provoking things does this thread provide, what kind of thinking is it pushing by providing no information at all?

God, and before you tell me to stop posting, at least learn to know the difference between "u" and you.


that it stops intra corp agression

Allah, and before you tell me to learn to spell, please learn some reading comprehension, ty

       Sladislov Director of Silly semantics       Broksi Kurth    xXxBlack LegionxXx

Aiyshimin
Descendant Command
#149 - 2015-01-17 10:04:38 UTC
Aran Hotchkiss wrote:

The bulk of the complaints in this thread have been
A) EvE is characterised as a harsh/unforgiving/trial-by-fire game, and this errodes at those attributes
B) Awoxxing to an extent culls (for want of a better word) lazy/inept hi-sec corps that are detrimental to the NPE


A) EVE will be harsh/unforgiving/trial-by-fire game, just a bit harsher and unforgiving for awoxers
B) Disabling awoxing to an extent culls lazy/inept hi-sec wannabe gankers who are detrimental to NPE and OPE
Lugh Crow-Slave
#150 - 2015-01-17 10:40:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
CCP Falcon wrote:
I'd rather not be working on the project regardless of how many subscribers we had, than sell out the core principles that New Eden was built on.



I would like to hear his take on this to be honest
Aiyshimin
Descendant Command
#151 - 2015-01-17 11:05:39 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Aiyshimin wrote:

B) Disabling awoxing to an extent culls lazy/inept hi-sec wannabe gankers who are detrimental to NPE and OPE



No this will just be detrimental to the new players that join the wrong corp and get AWOXED by it


It doesn't change anything in that regard.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#152 - 2015-01-17 11:07:19 UTC
Aiyshimin wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Aiyshimin wrote:

B) Disabling awoxing to an extent culls lazy/inept hi-sec wannabe gankers who are detrimental to NPE and OPE



No this will just be detrimental to the new players that join the wrong corp and get AWOXED by it


It doesn't change anything in that regard.


EXACTLY this does not serve the NPE only corps who don't want to worry about who they let in
Aiyshimin
Descendant Command
#153 - 2015-01-17 11:45:45 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Aiyshimin wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Aiyshimin wrote:

B) Disabling awoxing to an extent culls lazy/inept hi-sec wannabe gankers who are detrimental to NPE and OPE



No this will just be detrimental to the new players that join the wrong corp and get AWOXED by it


It doesn't change anything in that regard.


EXACTLY this does not serve the NPE only corps who don't want to worry about who they let in


OK, so it's better to make it non-optional. Doesnt make this a bad change anyway.
Aran Hotchkiss
Tactically Challenged
The Initiative.
#154 - 2015-01-17 12:03:37 UTC
What I meant by my second point was you have hi-sec corps founded by people with supposedly good intentions or just average intentions, but are either unaware, ill-prepared or just overwhelmed by what can be required to keep a corp running.

Using a personal anecdote.

Had a potential recruit who was quite new to the game and was already a corp thief (I'll refer to him as Smith) - our diplomat had bumped into them in local and, intrigued by their story, dropped them into our public channel.

Was a fairly small hi-sec corp, bunch of missioners/industrialists etc. founded in a fairly informal manner with the CEO banding together with a bunch of semi-strangers and putting them in leadership positions - Smith was one of these people.

From what I heard things were starting to fray at the edges, and one event in particular which kicked things off was a vetern industrialist refusing to put his personal BPO's in the corp hangar, so the CEO in response tried to have Smith contact a few of his low-sec friends to gank the industrialists freighter on a staged route through lowsec. Smith refused, and by this point all hell's breaking loose so Smith grabbed a bunch of fuel / corp assets and legged it. From what I could tell he gave most of the isk he'd made away to newbies in help channels etc.

In a nutshell, threats to the NPE aren't always obvious like Awoxers or suicide gankers - sometimes it's just good intentions.

EVE's a game about adversity and risk. I recall the time's I've lost ships and I've come to relish them - that's an attitude that seems to be encouraged in EvE: Don't fly what you can't afford to lose, but likewise don't get hung up on losing ships - learn from your mistakes and move on.

I've personally never had the experience of being awoxed or ransomed, but I feel they're valued conflict drivers.

Also stealing a line from the afk cloaking thread attributed to a CSM/DEV
"Show me someone who has been genuinely harmed by AFK cloaking, and I'll show you someone who has no business playing EvE." I feel a similar sentiment here.

You should have enough control over your herd of cats to make them understand. If they constantly make misstakes, get better cats.

Lugh Crow-Slave
#155 - 2015-01-17 12:09:48 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:
I'd rather not be working on the project regardless of how many subscribers we had, than sell out the core principles that New Eden was built on.



I would like to hear his take on this to be honest
chaosgrimm
Synth Tech
#156 - 2015-01-17 13:19:48 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
CCP Falcon wrote:
I'd rather not be working on the project regardless of how many subscribers we had, than sell out the core principles that New Eden was built on.



I would like to hear his take on this to be honest

Since it's at least ur second time posting this, I'll bite.

Why? He's a community manager. Now maybe my outlook on community managers is skewed, but I've always kind of thought of them like glorified customer service reps. I'm sure if he had a say and if that say was that this change should not be implemented, that it would not be.

So he either doesn't have a say, doesn't mind the changes, or both. In any case, it's irrelevant to the discussion.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#157 - 2015-01-17 13:52:02 UTC
I tried to catch up on the thread before posting, really I did. I just lost my patience halfway through and had to reply to this immediately.

Aran Hotchkiss wrote:

Daichi Yamato: This, for me, is about the pool of high sec corps being filled with tripe and the actual good corps out there being made even less visible to the new players looking for them.


You must admit - or even if you don't want to admit it you must realize - that all this so-called tripe you're worried about is already playing EVE even right now. Where are they? They're in the starter NPC corps where the rookies end up, which is the last place they should be. If a change like this gets even 1% of that tripe out of the rookie corps (regardless if they end up in not-rookie NPC corps) then IMO that's a massive victory for new players everywhere. Yes it does mean there will be more nonsense corps and it means that corps might be "cheapened" somewhat (I disagree, but that's not the point) but we've got so many terrible "mining, missioning and manufacturing" corps already that I doubt the difference will really be that noticeable. At the very least, tripe will attract tripe and the wardec corps will find themselves staring at a monumentally larger field of potential prey. In a slightly more ideal scenario those prey corps will be large enough to feel like they can fight rather than dec-evading and continuing to be tripe.

It also means that there will potentially be somewhat fewer voices of risk-aversion in the chat channels where those newbies spend their first impressionable moments meeting people and asking how to fly their ship. Moments that could be better used for guiding them toward the path of pew and/or scooping them up into a corporation that does something other than the ubiquitous "3 Ms".

There will still be vetting and pilot evaluation in highsec's post-awoxing future. Not all "good" corps will turn awoxing off, and the ones that do will still have to evaluate if the pilot they've taken in is worthwhile or tripe.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#158 - 2015-01-17 14:25:39 UTC
chaosgrimm wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
CCP Falcon wrote:
I'd rather not be working on the project regardless of how many subscribers we had, than sell out the core principles that New Eden was built on.



I would like to hear his take on this to be honest

Since it's at least ur second time posting this, I'll bite.

Why? He's a community manager. Now maybe my outlook on community managers is skewed, but I've always kind of thought of them like glorified customer service reps. I'm sure if he had a say and if that say was that this change should not be implemented, that it would not be.

So he either doesn't have a say, doesn't mind the changes, or both. In any case, it's irrelevant to the discussion.



i didn't say he would have a say just that as a community manager i would like to know what he thinks on it.



Currently all we have to go on is

"Corps will be able to disable friendly fire"

a lot of people are assuming what this means but we don't know any of the details
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#159 - 2015-01-17 14:34:18 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Currently all we have to go on is

"Corps will be able to disable friendly fire"

a lot of people are assuming what this means but we don't know any of the details


I'd be willing to bet ISK that a corporation with its AWOX settings turned to "Disable" will still be vulnerable to suicide ganks by corp members rather than the ships becoming untargetable and/or unshootable/invincible to corp members, especially since that would almost certainly make it equally impossible to use logi on them.
chaosgrimm
Synth Tech
#160 - 2015-01-17 15:09:52 UTC  |  Edited by: chaosgrimm
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
chaosgrimm wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
CCP Falcon wrote:
I'd rather not be working on the project regardless of how many subscribers we had, than sell out the core principles that New Eden was built on.



I would like to hear his take on this to be honest

Since it's at least ur second time posting this, I'll bite.

Why? He's a community manager. Now maybe my outlook on community managers is skewed, but I've always kind of thought of them like glorified customer service reps. I'm sure if he had a say and if that say was that this change should not be implemented, that it would not be.

So he either doesn't have a say, doesn't mind the changes, or both. In any case, it's irrelevant to the discussion.



i didn't say he would have a say just that as a community manager i would like to know what he thinks on it.



Currently all we have to go on is

"Corps will be able to disable friendly fire"

a lot of people are assuming what this means but we don't know any of the details


Ah, I see. I assumed that when you used phases like "his take on it" and "what he thinks" that you were looking for his opinions, and not clarification.