Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 16 post(s) |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3132
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 17:19:19 -
[31] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote:John McCreedy wrote:How would you like me to take a job in CCP, bring a Cricket bat with me and start tearing up the place, smashing the computers and knocking seven bells out of the staff and laugh as it takes you twenty four hours to get rid of me assuming Hilmar is at work that day? That's what it is to be a CEO in low sec/null sec in Eve. I'm no expert on the subject but I'm fairly sure our hiring process would mitigate this concern, maybe yours should too?
Comparing hiring in the real world with Eve is a poor idea. In the real world I cannot instantly create a new "me" that totally hides any and all previous bad behavior or criminal activity.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
|
CCP Lebowski
C C P C C P Alliance
454
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 17:22:41 -
[32] - Quote
X posting from the forum feedback thread as its relevant:
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.
CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0
@CCP_Lebowski
|
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3132
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 17:23:56 -
[33] - Quote
So whats the cost of the CEO turning FF on, thereby giving himself a corp full of free, legal targets?
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Soko99
Repercussus Goonswarm Federation
74
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 17:35:33 -
[34] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote:X posting from the forum feedback thread as its relevant: 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.
I still don't see how the fear of being AWOXED locks people into solo play? If you're so risk averse that you don't dare join a corp for fear of being blown up, then why on earth would you even undock? I know a lot of people that have 1 man corps, but none of it is because they're afraid of being blown up, it's just that they want their own corps for whatever reason.
Maybe I'm just old school and am not in touch with the newbies coming into the game, but is making the game less risk averse the solution?
|
Soko99
Repercussus Goonswarm Federation
74
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 17:36:30 -
[35] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:So whats the cost of the CEO turning FF on, thereby giving himself a corp full of free, legal targets?
GREAT question.
I can already see it.. Create corp, Advertise as FF OFF, bring in a bunch of shiny incursion runners/missioners. Bring in your buddies. turn FF ON and watch the tears.
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3133
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 17:41:20 -
[36] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:So whats the cost of the CEO turning FF on, thereby giving himself a corp full of free, legal targets? GREAT question. I can already see it.. Create corp, Advertise as FF OFF, bring in a bunch of shiny incursion runners/missioners. Bring in your buddies. turn FF ON and watch the tears. You got it. The mitigation is the 24 hour notice. Of course, people need to actually check their notices.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
5861
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 17:42:29 -
[37] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote:Shailagh wrote:You left out that for new corps that "choose", the defaulted option is FF Off... Saying that the option is default off is not quite fair as it's simply a check-box in the 'Create Corporation' window and can be changed before the Corp is created. Here's the window for reference.
Um, yeah it is entirely fair. A checkbox that is presented unchecked is defaulted to off. If the checkbox defaulted to being checked when first presented, it would be fair to say the default is on.
In the spirit of Eve, you really ought to leave it checked by default and let them choose to turn it off. It's right there in their face at corp creation. The default status of any setting says a lot about the developers' intentions - and Eve was originally developed with that setting on.
.02
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
|
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
811
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 17:49:11 -
[38] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Soko99 wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:So whats the cost of the CEO turning FF on, thereby giving himself a corp full of free, legal targets? GREAT question. I can already see it.. Create corp, Advertise as FF OFF, bring in a bunch of shiny incursion runners/missioners. Bring in your buddies. turn FF ON and watch the tears. You got it. The mitigation is the 24 hour notice. Of course, people need to actually check their notices.
Two notices, if I read correctly: one when the 24 hour period begins and one when it ends.
Vote Sabriz!
|
|
CCP Lebowski
C C P C C P Alliance
454
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 17:57:43 -
[39] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:The default status of any setting says a lot about the developers' intentions - and Eve was originally developed with that setting on. Saying that suggests that we also intend you to name your corporation after yourself & have a 0% tax rate!
In all seriousness though I do take your point regarding this, it's just that extrapolating developer intent from the default option is a dangerous game. We expect that many corps will take advantage of the option of concord intervention, whereas many others will want to have the convenience of legal friendly fire. Either option is fine with us, as long as we're sure the consequences of either option are clear.
Ned Thomas wrote:Two notices, if I read correctly: one when the 24 hour period begins and one when it ends. Correct!
CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0
@CCP_Lebowski
|
|
Shailagh
WTB Somalians
76
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 18:04:00 -
[40] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote:War Kitten wrote:The default status of any setting says a lot about the developers' intentions - and Eve was originally developed with that setting on. Saying that suggests that we also intend you to name your corporation after yourself & have a 0% tax rate! In all seriousness though I do take your point regarding this, it's just that extrapolating developer intent from the default option is a dangerous game. We expect that many corps will take advantage of the option of concord intervention, whereas many others will want to have the convenience of legal friendly fire. Either option is fine with us, as long as we're sure the consequences of either option are clear. Ned Thomas wrote:Two notices, if I read correctly: one when the 24 hour period begins and one when it ends. Correct! Whats the consequence of turning FF off???
I get you guys dont want a tax, what about a wardec-esque fee? Say 50mill a month? Give ANY consequence for turning it off please.
Any. Also which one are you alluding to in your post? What consequences for turning it OFF? |
|
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
811
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 18:05:03 -
[41] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote:Ned Thomas wrote:Two notices, if I read correctly: one when the 24 hour period begins and one when it ends. Correct!
Since someone will ask this, I'll go ahead and be the one to do it: is there any thought to adding a similar second notification at the start and end of war decs?
Vote Sabriz!
|
Mag's
the united
19008
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 18:08:50 -
[42] - Quote
Just as I asked at EvE_NT.
Can we have a tax associated with this switch being active? If you want it to be illegal to shoot corp members, then you should be paying Concord at least 10% tax.
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Lord Battlestar
Faulcon de Lazy
206
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 18:19:47 -
[43] - Quote
Looks good, I think it is a great idea to make it optional. And the increased mailing list idea is great too.
I once podded myself by blowing a huge fart.
|
Desert Ice78
Gryphons of the Western Wind
447
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 18:24:08 -
[44] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:So whats the cost of the CEO turning FF on, thereby giving himself a corp full of free, legal targets? GREAT question. I can already see it.. Create corp, Advertise as FF OFF, bring in a bunch of shiny incursion runners/missioners. Bring in your buddies. turn FF ON and watch the tears. CONFIRM QUIT CORPORATION - YES/NO?
I am a pod pilot:
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg
CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused.
|
Maenth
The Thirteen Provinces
16
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 18:33:12 -
[45] - Quote
I like this attention to detail! For the 'character' of my corp I would like to make FF Illegal (and seriously we should say it like that, because "ON" and "OFF" are too vague: does "ON" mean that FF is allowed, or does it mean the new feature is active?)
However, for the safety of my my corp members' ships I can't enable this with 100% comfort and therefore will not. To my knowledge, issuing the command for drones to attack overrides the 'safety' setting rules, and on some occasions we tap our repair targets with attack drones while the safety is green so if we apply this new FF-ILLEGAL rule, then occasionally someone may lose their ship during missions by accidentally drone-striking a friend.
Soooo is there any chance of that getting fixed here? Because for me, this is a deal breaker, and I can't use this new feature which I would love, while drones continue to disobey the safety setting
Drones. Drones are a means to an end. An end to the ruthless Caldari 'progress' machines. An end to the barbaric 'redemption' proposed by the Amarr. What they see as chaos shall be my perfect order, merely beyond their comprehension.
|
SeneschaI
Ordo Ministorum Violent Society
16
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 18:34:11 -
[46] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Soko99 wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:So whats the cost of the CEO turning FF on, thereby giving himself a corp full of free, legal targets? GREAT question. I can already see it.. Create corp, Advertise as FF OFF, bring in a bunch of shiny incursion runners/missioners. Bring in your buddies. turn FF ON and watch the tears. You got it. The mitigation is the 24 hour notice. Of course, people need to actually check their notices. sure it is the new way to grief play. course, it'll take effort, and we all know griefers just love their low effort, low risk (to themselves) playstyle. Of course, there's already scammer corps out their already, so it'll just be another flavour to the mix.
FYI, there's a new thing out their called Zkillboard - great for spotting blue on blues in corp history. BTW, personally, i'd welcome this new griefer corp flavour: it would make older corps more attractive |
SeneschaI
Ordo Ministorum Violent Society
16
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 18:43:48 -
[47] - Quote
Maenth wrote:Soooo is there any chance of that getting fixed here? Because for me, this is a deal breaker, and I can't use this new feature which I would love, while drones continue to disobey the safety setting really? that would take me all of 5 minutes to confirm on the test server. |
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
812
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 18:45:56 -
[48] - Quote
Maenth wrote:I like this attention to detail! For the 'character' of my corp I would like to make FF Illegal (and seriously we should say it like that, because "ON" and "OFF" are too vague: does "ON" mean that FF is allowed, or does it mean the new feature is active?)
However, for the safety of my my corp members' ships I can't enable this with 100% comfort and therefore will not. To my knowledge, issuing the command for drones to attack overrides the 'safety' setting rules, and on some occasions we tap our repair targets with attack drones while the safety is green so if we apply this new FF-ILLEGAL rule, then occasionally someone may lose their ship during missions by accidentally drone-striking a friend.
Soooo is there any chance of that getting fixed here? Because for me, this is a deal breaker, and I can't use this new feature which I would love, while drones continue to disobey the safety setting
I know drones do weird things sometimes, but I've never heard of them overriding a green safety.
Vote Sabriz!
|
SeneschaI
Ordo Ministorum Violent Society
16
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 18:53:46 -
[49] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:I know drones do weird things sometimes, but I've never heard of them overriding a green safety. only thing i remember a long time ago was accidentally repairing NPC ships in a mission, using repair drones instead of attack. boom! haha...i shoulda read that warning popup closely.
|
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
234
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 19:03:16 -
[50] - Quote
I'm not against the whole stopping Friendly Fire in Player corps.. But I think there needs to be a consequence.
I suggest a Tax. Call it a "Concord Protection Fee". NPC Corps are what? 11% Tax? So they aren't NPC and are now player, so call it 7%. 7% tax on everything in exchange for Concord Protection.
NOW you have a choice to make. Do you want to live tax free, do you want protection, make your choice.
This seems like a fair way to enable the system. |
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3133
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 19:12:12 -
[51] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:I'm not against the whole stopping Friendly Fire in Player corps.. But I think there needs to be a consequence.
I suggest a Tax. Call it a "Concord Protection Fee". NPC Corps are what? 11% Tax? So they aren't NPC and are now player, so call it 7%. 7% tax on everything in exchange for Concord Protection.
NOW you have a choice to make. Do you want to live tax free, do you want protection, make your choice.
This seems like a fair way to enable the system. But I can get both by making a one man corp; just me and my alts. No issues with FF, no tax. But now the consequence is solo play.
Do we really want the best min-max playstyle to be solo play?
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Soko99
Repercussus Goonswarm Federation
74
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 19:18:08 -
[52] - Quote
SeneschaI wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:Soko99 wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:So whats the cost of the CEO turning FF on, thereby giving himself a corp full of free, legal targets? GREAT question. I can already see it.. Create corp, Advertise as FF OFF, bring in a bunch of shiny incursion runners/missioners. Bring in your buddies. turn FF ON and watch the tears. You got it. The mitigation is the 24 hour notice. Of course, people need to actually check their notices. sure it is the new way to grief play. course, it'll take effort, and we all know griefers just love their low effort, low risk (to themselves) playstyle. Of course, there's already scammer corps out there, so it'll just be another flavour to the mix. FYI, there's a new thing out there called Zkillboard - great for spotting blue on blues in corp history. BTW, personally, i'd welcome this new griefer corp flavour: it would make older corps more attractive
I don't know if I'd say it's the love of low risk playstyle.. it's more the effort and the outsmarting your enemy that makes people do it. As you said.. there's plenty of ways to identify blue on blue. And unless someone makes a new alt that's completely clean and does it with that, you can find out AWOXERs and corp thieves pretty quickly.. Just takes the effort to research. Now if it's a bran spanking clean toon, then the guy obviously put a lot of effort into making that character so he's just as entitled to be able to AWOX as the guy that is trying do defend himself from it.
but that's just my .02 cents. |
Soko99
Repercussus Goonswarm Federation
74
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 19:19:55 -
[53] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Sniper Smith wrote:I'm not against the whole stopping Friendly Fire in Player corps.. But I think there needs to be a consequence.
I suggest a Tax. Call it a "Concord Protection Fee". NPC Corps are what? 11% Tax? So they aren't NPC and are now player, so call it 7%. 7% tax on everything in exchange for Concord Protection.
NOW you have a choice to make. Do you want to live tax free, do you want protection, make your choice.
This seems like a fair way to enable the system. But I can get both by making a one man corp; just me and my alts. No issues with FF, no tax. But now the consequence is solo play. Do we really want the best min-max playstyle to be solo play?
the drawback of that is that you're playing solo and have no friends to play with.
that option is there already.. so nothing changes, which makes it that this change is absolutely useless.. However, if there's absolutely no cost to turning FF OFF, then why even have the option. Just turn it off and be done with it. Since nobody in their right mind would turn it on anyways. |
|
CCP Lebowski
C C P C C P Alliance
459
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 19:27:43 -
[54] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:the drawback of that is that you're playing solo and have no friends to play with. As mentioned in the quoted post from CCP Fozzie, this is really not the kind of drawback we want as part of the games mechanics.
Soko99 wrote:However, if there's absolutely no cost to turning FF OFF, then why even have the option. Just turn it off and be done with it. Since nobody in their right mind would turn it on anyways. There are definitely some reasonable reasons to keep it available. One example would be an any organization like RvB who have free-for-all fights with members of the same corporation.
CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0
@CCP_Lebowski
|
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3133
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 19:28:15 -
[55] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:
the drawback of that is that you're playing solo and have no friends to play with.
that option is there already.. so nothing changes, which makes it that this change is absolutely useless.. However, if there's absolutely no cost to turning FF OFF, then why even have the option. Just turn it off and be done with it. Since nobody in their right mind would turn it on anyways.
We agree the drawback of a one man corp is solo play. But if there was a ff tax, and you are a min-maxer, then you would say "The best way to min-max is be in a one man corp". For the health of eve, that is undesirable. Thus we should not have a game mechanic that encourages it in any way.
And there is a cost to turning FF off. You cannot have corp free for alls, tank testing is more annoying, and web slinging freighters is more annoying, and many players will shun you corp.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Soko99
Repercussus Goonswarm Federation
74
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 19:34:58 -
[56] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote: We agree the drawback of a one man corp is solo play. But if there was a ff tax, and you are a min-maxer, then you would say "The best way to min-max is be in a one man corp". For the health of eve, that is undesirable. Thus we should not have a game mechanic that encourages it in any way.
I agreee.. but I also find that making the game safer is also not good for the health of eve as well.. I got can flipped my first 2 days.. got blown up trying to 1 steal my stuff back, and then when I went back to try and fight the guy.. I'm still playing. and paying. It's what makes EvE so different from other games.
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3133
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 19:44:30 -
[57] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:Vincent Athena wrote: We agree the drawback of a one man corp is solo play. But if there was a ff tax, and you are a min-maxer, then you would say "The best way to min-max is be in a one man corp". For the health of eve, that is undesirable. Thus we should not have a game mechanic that encourages it in any way.
I agreee.. but I also find that making the game safer is also not good for the health of eve as well.. I got can flipped my first 2 days.. got blown up trying to 1 steal my stuff back, and then when I went back to try and fight the guy.. I'm still playing. and paying. It's what makes EvE so different from other games. You are, many others are not. The result is CCP cannot hire the devs needed to fix all the issues in this game.
Also, this change does not make the game safer. It is equally safe to be in a one man corp right now.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Soko99
Repercussus Goonswarm Federation
74
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 19:49:13 -
[58] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Soko99 wrote:Vincent Athena wrote: We agree the drawback of a one man corp is solo play. But if there was a ff tax, and you are a min-maxer, then you would say "The best way to min-max is be in a one man corp". For the health of eve, that is undesirable. Thus we should not have a game mechanic that encourages it in any way.
I agreee.. but I also find that making the game safer is also not good for the health of eve as well.. I got can flipped my first 2 days.. got blown up trying to 1 steal my stuff back, and then when I went back to try and fight the guy.. I'm still playing. and paying. It's what makes EvE so different from other games. You are, many others are not. The result is CCP cannot hire the devs needed to fix all the issues in this game. Also, this change does not make the game safer. It is equally safe to be in a one man corp right now.
but you had a risk in any other corp.. now you don't. thus safer |
Gorongo Frostfyr
106
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 20:00:13 -
[59] - Quote
Anyone else went to check out http://katrin.is/ ? |
Mynxee
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
66
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 20:22:37 -
[60] - Quote
Those are some really helpful changes...and *sigh* that last image...such a promise of more good stuff to come! After so many years of thinking these kinds of changes would never be addressed, it's great to see them getting some love.
Lost in space, looking for sigs...
Blog: Outlaw Insouciant
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |