These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Tiamat] Corp Friendly Fire Option

First post
Author
Kaelynne Rose
WTB Somalians
#81 - 2015-02-02 17:51:06 UTC
Kaelynne Rose wrote:
Kaelynne Rose wrote:
Shailagh wrote:
CCP Lebowski wrote:
Existing corps will find that FF is enabled by default on patch day (Nothing will change in other words). New corps will have it set to disabled unless they specify otherwise (There's a check box in the Create Corporation window).



Why the different default settings please? Thank you.


Please address reasoning. Thanks



Several other people have pointed this out and asked for some clarification on the reasoning on this please. Thank you for explaining your motivation behind this.


Why is this being ignored? ?
Basil Pupkin
Republic Military School
#82 - 2015-02-03 02:05:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Basil Pupkin
Masao Kurata wrote:
Alruan Shadowborn wrote:
Where is the Risk v Reward for the Awoxer? they get all reward with no risk as it stands


Only because of the unflagged neutral logi situation. Apart from that, they're outnumbered and should absolutely be outgunned.


Name a ship outgunned by a retriever. Then we'll talk.

The awoxer carries no risk, because he knows exactly what he is dealing with, and free to choose an appropriate ship and appropriate moment to completely nullify risk.

Neutral logi is just a pathetic excuse in most awox scenarios I can imagine. The only scenario it is really needed in is when you get to fight a fleet, which in hisec is an incursion-only business, in which case there are actual designated fleet logi, and newb awoxer isn't going to achieve much against them. Awoxing a single mission boat is easily done solo. Awoxing a mining op is easily done solo. But the gankbears are probably the most risk-averse chickens we have in eve, so they will bring neutral logi just to have even less risk than none, and will chicken out of the manly solo attempt without neutral logi, hence the neutral logi excuse we keep hearing about - because without it, awox seems oh-so-risky-only-99%-chance-to-win and oh-so-scary-I-might-lose-my-10-hours-of-alt-training - this makes them actually convinced that removing neutral logi, which lowers 100% chance to 99% chance to win, would balance the issue. No, it won't. Glad CCP doesn't listen to them.

Now don't take me wrong. I completely agree that creative AWOX is content. Even corp theft can be done creatively. Most AWOXes, however, aren't creative. Most corp thefts... check the eve uni stories on that topic, you'll get the picture. Those are not content, just plain abuse of either new players, or 5% least bright ones, which is not worth 5 cents a dozen, since even my dog could probably do it.

So stop being sore and start being creative. Volunteer to be a watchman and convince a shiny mission boat owner he can take that lowsec L4 or stotyline. Create a Red Freight Frog corp and start "delivering". Go blap yourself in a wh and ask you victim to go in a sturdy ship (cuz sleepers still there) and pick up your loot. It's a golden opportunity for creative AWOX, because let's face it, corp entry process will get a lot easier with this.

AWOX even my dog can do is not worth keeping, and CCP is right in removing it, there is no need to even bring a topic of player retention or imaginary bad corps in it, here's your reason why.

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.

GetSirrus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#83 - 2015-02-03 02:25:59 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Obviously this is aimed at increasing the safety of career highsec players (or decreasing taxes for those currently in NPC corps)
Then perhaps asking why it proposed by CSM Sion from Null Sec. Obvious not initiated by highsec players themselves.

Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Blue-on-blue violence almost never hits new players as they have nothing worth burning an AWOX alt to hit.
New Players? From the same New Order that organised in August last year a contest to kill Ventures, a new player's ship?

Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
- by acting as an increased reward for highsec mission grinding
So... when FF is not allowed, NPC agents will increase their rewards. Where do you see this in the notes? Please explain.

Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
encourage people who currently perform ISK generating activities outside highsec to transfer those activities to highsec.
Even after Corbex said no, you still want to trot this out? Lets go with people that operate outside of high-sec generally as permanent home usually have a healthy dose of self preservation. Watch Local, D-scan, scout and mostly likely run paranoia as a modus operandi when it comes to corp admission. Whether they are low, null, WH or high - that paranoia persists. High-sec local is full of neutrals, and that is scary.

Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
- result in more 'tax scam' corps - those corps that mass recruit newbies, do nothing for them and then leech tax from them. Currently AWOXing results in most of those corps dying, and the game is better every time one of them does.
Someone has published some stats while I was not looking? Or did you just build up a nice strawman, then light match. How does an AWOXer know that the target corp is in need of "liberating the repressed"? Chaining Smoking just means applying to as many corps as possible in the hope that one will be stupid and say yes. Not a lot research in that now. Much like your comments.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#84 - 2015-02-03 23:36:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
concord protection service should cost something. Make it a 5% NPC bounties tax. There should be a reason why you would NOT enable it. Remember, good gameplay choices etc. Don't do something like clone upgrades again.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Noriko Mai
#85 - 2015-02-04 02:51:48 UTC
Bienator II wrote:
concord protection service should cost something. Make it a 5% NPC bounties tax. There should be a reason why you would NOT enable it. Remember, good gameplay choices etc. Don't do something like clone upgrades again.

Do you mean removing clone cost? It was the best change ever! There was exactly zero choice.

"Meh.." - Albert Einstein

Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#86 - 2015-02-04 04:40:23 UTC
Bienator II wrote:
concord protection service should cost something. Make it a 5% NPC bounties tax. There should be a reason why you would NOT enable it. Remember, good gameplay choices etc. Don't do something like clone upgrades again.

Nope, it should be the other way around. It costs money to shoot people in a different corp (war dec), it should cost to shoot people in your own corp.
You want targets? Pay for it.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#87 - 2015-02-04 16:25:44 UTC
Kaelynne Rose wrote:
Shailagh wrote:
CCP Lebowski wrote:
Existing corps will find that FF is enabled by default on patch day (Nothing will change in other words). New corps will have it set to disabled unless they specify otherwise (There's a check box in the Create Corporation window).



Why the different default settings please? Thank you.


Please address reasoning. Thanks


It's simple.

FF will default to legal for existing corps because we don't want to change the behavior of existing corps in a way that could surprise people who didn't read the patch notes. Existing corps will simply need to hit the switch to start the 24h process of making FF illegal if they wish.

The FF checkbox state will default to illegal in the new corp creation UI because that is expected to be the most popular option and we don't want to make people fight the UI for the most common use cases. If you want your new corp to have legal FF you just need to press one button during creation and you don't even need any waiting period.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#88 - 2015-02-04 16:40:33 UTC
Is any thought being given to giving Friendly Fire protection a little malus, or giving corps that do not use the protection a little bonus?

You know, risk versus reward, offering people the opportunity to do riskier things for more profit, that kind of stuff. Big smile

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#89 - 2015-02-04 16:45:54 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
To be blunt, it's a terrible idea to make it optimal to lock yourself into solo play. Everyone loses if we build mechanics like that.

Taxes are also a fairly ineffective method for influencing choices since they apply heavily to some activities while not applying at all to other activities.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#90 - 2015-02-04 16:53:18 UTC
Chat channels, mailing lists and fleets are all fine social tools. Corporations need to offer more than this, and for highsec pve players they really don't. That's why players choose to stay in npc corps or make one man corporations rather than expose themselves to war. This isn't the fix you're looking for.
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#91 - 2015-02-04 16:53:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Altrue
CCP Fozzie wrote:
To be blunt, it's a terrible idea to make it optimal to lock yourself into solo play. Everyone loses if we build mechanics like that.

Taxes are also a fairly ineffective method for influencing choices since they apply heavily to some activities while not applying at all to other activities.


Interesting, I never thought about it this way! Smile
So you think that, even though friendly fire has been enabled for 11 years, now that it can be disabled, even a slight bounty tax would push people out of corps? I completely understand the incentive for players to look for ways to optimize their profits, I never envisionned it would be such a deterrent.

Also I completely agree with you about taxes, it doesn't work for all activities.

I just wish there was a way to create a difference between enabled and disabled FF though. Because the way I see it, everyone will just turn the protection on. Except maybe people who web their freighters, if they are too lazy to duel.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#92 - 2015-02-04 17:42:41 UTC
Altrue wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
To be blunt, it's a terrible idea to make it optimal to lock yourself into solo play. Everyone loses if we build mechanics like that.

Taxes are also a fairly ineffective method for influencing choices since they apply heavily to some activities while not applying at all to other activities.


Interesting, I never thought about it this way! Smile
So you think that, even though friendly fire has been enabled for 11 years, now that it can be disabled, even a slight bounty tax would push people out of corps? I completely understand the incentive for players to look for ways to optimize their profits, I never envisionned it would be such a deterrent.

Also I completely agree with you about taxes, it doesn't work for all activities.

I just wish there was a way to create a difference between enabled and disabled FF though. Because the way I see it, everyone will just turn the protection on. Except maybe people who web their freighters, if they are too lazy to duel.

They already get some: It becomes hard to have a spontaneous corp free-for-all, you need to do duels for tank testing, you need to do duels for web-slinging. as you already noted.

There are enough min-maxers in the game that yes, any tax will have an effect.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#93 - 2015-02-04 18:13:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
Vincent Athena wrote:
Bienator II wrote:
concord protection service should cost something. Make it a 5% NPC bounties tax. There should be a reason why you would NOT enable it. Remember, good gameplay choices etc. Don't do something like clone upgrades again.

Nope, it should be the other way around. It costs money to shoot people in a different corp (war dec), it should cost to shoot people in your own corp.
You want targets? Pay for it.

thats off topic since its already in game and called wardec. This feature is about concord protection within a corp and doesn't even discuss relationships between corps.
Currently there is no gameplay choice associated with it. Unless you are RvB you have no reason to not request concord protection which is very boring from gameplay perspective and reminds me on clone upgrades, which had no meaningful gameplay choices too, they where just there.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Shailagh
6Six6Six6Six
#94 - 2015-02-04 19:24:45 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Kaelynne Rose wrote:
Shailagh wrote:
CCP Lebowski wrote:
Existing corps will find that FF is enabled by default on patch day (Nothing will change in other words). New corps will have it set to disabled unless they specify otherwise (There's a check box in the Create Corporation window).



Why the different default settings please? Thank you.


Please address reasoning. Thanks


It's simple.

FF will default to legal for existing corps because we don't want to change the behavior of existing corps in a way that could surprise people who didn't read the patch notes. Existing corps will simply need to hit the switch to start the 24h process of making FF illegal if they wish.

The FF checkbox state will default to illegal in the new corp creation UI because that is expected to be the most popular option and we don't want to make people fight the UI for the most common use cases. If you want your new corp to have legal FF you just need to press one button during creation and you don't even need any waiting period.


I thought mechanics where there is only one clear choice were bad? Like how medical clones/skill point loss, etc were removed? If the only sane option is to set FF to illegal, wheres the choice? Where the balance? Wheres the risk vs reward?
Greygal
Redemption Road
Affirmative.
#95 - 2015-02-04 19:25:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Greygal
Altrue wrote:

I just wish there was a way to create a difference between enabled and disabled FF though. Because the way I see it, everyone will just turn the protection on. Except maybe people who web their freighters, if they are too lazy to duel.


I think that FF being turned off is going to be used less than a lot of people expect.

Within my own little circle of friends, none of the CEOs I know are planning on turning FF off. Granted, most of them are PVP and/or new player corps, and it's a small sampling (about 40 corps), but overwhelmingly they see FF being turned off as a hindrance to their normal operations and something that will eventually lead to "oops!" moments.

Almost universally, the people I know find the benefits of FF on far outweigh the potential "safety" of FF turned off. IMHO, leaving FF on is actually safer than leaving it off. All it takes is one forgetting to pay attention to the duel timer when webbing a freighter, or not having their safety set to green in highsec when they jokingly tackle a corp mate, for internal tears to flow.

FF turned off saves nobody from awoxing. It just means that Concord will get involved in awoxing. Awoxing will still happen... and likely will generate even more tears than it already does.

I am glad that CCP is making the choice available to CEOs to turn FF on or off, but I also believe that it creates - much like Concord and high sec itself - a false sense of security. Any CEO who believes that they are creating a "safer" corp by turning FF off is ultimately fooling themselves.

Needless to say, I'll be leaving FF on in Redemption Road. Easy choice :) And I admit, I'm glad it's my choice.

Just my two bytes.

What you do for yourself dies with you, what you do for others is immortal.

Free weekly public roams & monthly NewBro new player roams!

Visit Redemption Road or join mailing list REDEMPTION ROAMS for information

Basil Pupkin
Republic Military School
#96 - 2015-02-04 22:46:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Basil Pupkin
Greygal wrote:
Altrue wrote:

I just wish there was a way to create a difference between enabled and disabled FF though. Because the way I see it, everyone will just turn the protection on. Except maybe people who web their freighters, if they are too lazy to duel.


I think that FF being turned off is going to be used less than a lot of people expect.

Within my own little circle of friends, none of the CEOs I know are planning on turning FF off. Granted, most of them are PVP and/or new player corps, and it's a small sampling (about 40 corps), but overwhelmingly they see FF being turned off as a hindrance to their normal operations and something that will eventually lead to "oops!" moments.

Almost universally, the people I know find the benefits of FF on far outweigh the potential "safety" of FF turned off. IMHO, leaving FF on is actually safer than leaving it off. All it takes is one forgetting to pay attention to the duel timer when webbing a freighter, or not having their safety set to green in highsec when they jokingly tackle a corp mate, for internal tears to flow.

FF turned off saves nobody from awoxing. It just means that Concord will get involved in awoxing. Awoxing will still happen... and likely will generate even more tears than it already does.

I am glad that CCP is making the choice available to CEOs to turn FF on or off, but I also believe that it creates - much like Concord and high sec itself - a false sense of security. Any CEO who believes that they are creating a "safer" corp by turning FF off is ultimately fooling themselves.

Needless to say, I'll be leaving FF on in Redemption Road. Easy choice :) And I admit, I'm glad it's my choice.

Just my two bytes.


Thank you for this stealth tear post contribution to my bucket.
Use your safety setting properly, there will be no OOPS. There is nothing wrong with setting it to green/yellow while in hisec, it doesn't disturb any of the normal leet peeveepee activities, while helping you to avoid getting concordokken by mistake.
FF turned off saves from dumbmode awoxing, because it won't be awoxing, it'll be just your average suicide ****, done by a person you have invited in your corp. The only potential benefit compared to average suicide **** is possibility of being in a fleet with target, giving you a way to warp directly to target, which isn't hard to achieve in average suicide wanking either.
Turning FF off does create a safer corp. While I am not among CEOs who think too highly of hisec safety (I consider having to pass Uedama a certain death scenario, knowing for a fact that the only thing saving me is gankbears being lazy risk-averse bad at eve players who do it only because it's super easy), I know for sure it removes the self-wardec every newcomer in your corp has on you, which does increase safety pretty considerably to never turn FF on again.
Awoxing would still happen of course, however I am extremely satisfied that the creepiest variety of it, known as "spam apps till accepts, kill peeps till kick", is going into "good riddance" case of eve history locker.

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.

Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
#97 - 2015-02-05 10:19:26 UTC
FF in fleets will still be a thing, right? (For the mentioned freighter webbing purpose..)
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#98 - 2015-02-05 10:37:04 UTC
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:
FF in fleets will still be a thing, right? (For the mentioned freighter webbing purpose..)


That hasn't been a thing since 2008.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Darkblad
Doomheim
#99 - 2015-02-05 11:20:11 UTC
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:
FF in fleets will still be a thing, right? (For the mentioned freighter webbing purpose..)
Or to put it short: Fleet doesn't change anything in regards of aggression rules. (Though "approved" might be a less misleading term in that notification)

NPEISDRIP

Slepers
Caldari S corp
#100 - 2015-02-06 08:02:59 UTC
disgusting innovation