Or you could just bait and kill him. Apparently he wants your corp more than you do.

Adding this feature would protect people to lazy to protect themselves.

So NO!

I mostly agree with the Op.

I'm not sure I agree with the "Kick at the next DT", but I certainly believe that kicking a player from your corp shouldn't be based on whether you can log in quick enough. This is a terrible mechanic, as it really it is incredibly biased by timezone, and doesn't benefit the game in any tangible manner.

I'd think an compromise could be a 48 hour boot period, or something of that nature.

He isn't afk when he logs in. And surely if he awoxxed you then he is probably active during the day at some point. So if you tried baiting him around the time he killed a corp mate last time he might be tempted to spring the trap.

Or you could give in to his demands (medal, payment, etc.).

You were dumb enough to let him in and not have a plan to deal with an awoxxer.

I see no reason why CCP should protect your corp if you aren't going to.

I'm not asking to be protected from awoxers, I'm asking to be able to kick them once they unveil themselves. I don't even care if I have to wait a couple of days, as long as it's possible to do. I don't understand why this is too much to ask.

I am trying to be constructive in this thread, and your personal attacks are not constructive. In the forum rules, you will find the two items:

4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
22. Post constructively.

The fact is that he logs in, warps to a safe, goes AFK. Is there anything I can do about this? The answer is no, there is not unless I roll the dice every morning at 4:30am, hoping to get him before he logs in. Or I could disband the corporation and reform it without him. That's totally ridiculous.

As I stated previously, he had no history of awoxing and nothing in his API indicated as such. Should I then refuse to accept anyone into the corp, because there is a non-zero chance that he is an awoxer?

I'm not asking to be protected from awoxers, I'm asking to be able to kick them once they unveil themselves. I don't even care if I have to wait a couple of days, as long as it's possible to do. I don't understand why this is too much to ask.

I'm giving you ideas on how to get rid of him. How is that not constructive? And me not pointing out that you made the mistake of not having a plan in case he gets through your API check is an attack?

If he is afk he can't harm you now can he? The problem is that you can't tell if he is truly afk, so you need to have a plan when he comes back.


Here's what you can do:

1. Give in to his demands
He obviously wants something from you. Otherwise he wouldn't have a reason to stick around. If you cant get him to accept a convo then you will just have to mail him. Swallow your pride and strike up a deal for the terms of his departure.

2. Don't give in
If you or whomever accepted him can't swallow their pride and own up to making the mistake of accepting him and face the consequences then you could always bore him out. If he can't get what he wants he might grow bored and leave. Just ignore him and don't have anyone acknowledge him in corp.

3. Fight back
If giving in to his demands aren't acceptable and you want him out now, then the only other option is to kill him. Get something that he might attack and tank it out. Then get 3-4 other people in the following ships: a blackbird (to jam him out), 1 or 2 beefy cruisers (with the same type of tank), and a Exequror or a Scythe (depending on the beefy cruisers' tank), and face stomp him.


Your proposal is a major nerf to awoxxing. He took the time to scout out your corp for targets, get through a hopefully thorough recruitment process, get accepted, warp to the oblivious target, kill him, and survive any sort of a corp defensive response. He has gotten to this point and will probably now ask for a ransom to leave, but with your changes the people who have best case (failed at defending their corp and have learned their mistakes), or worst case (done nothing and complain about it) can just wait him out and with game mechanics kick him.

This is horrible idea because it rewards corps to lazy/incompetent to defend themselves from an easily avoided/dealt with threat.

Awoxxing is good for the game. It destroys bad corps. Bad corps are one of the biggest threats to player retention. New players look up to their CEO's and older members for guidance and protection. OP's corp didn't provide the latter and is now asking for changes so he doesn't have to deal with getting rid of him.

There are already effective ways of dealing with awoxxers. This proposed idea would harm the game more than it would help it by making awoxxing less meaningful, and give the victims less of a reason to adapt.

HTFU

Not sure if troll or just simple...

As for the original post, I agree with Arthur that it is a very reasonable request and could potentially find uses beyond taking care of awoxxing. +1 from me

I agree, CEOs should be able to drop any member at any time.

How is my post trolling or so "simple" in your mind. Is it too unreasonable for corps to defend themselves? Too much to realize they made a mistake and can't handle the consequences of that mistake?

This idea is bad since it gives less of a reason for corps to do background checks since if they mess up the awoxxer will only be around for a few days before he is kicked.

Instead the OP could try out any of the ideas I've listed or beat him to after downtime. The person who awoxxed OP is putting in more effort than the OP is.

Why should his game play be nerfed?

Here's what you can do:

1. Give in to his demands
He obviously wants something from you. Otherwise he wouldn't have a reason to stick around. If you cant get him to accept a convo then you will just have to mail him. Swallow your pride and strike up a deal for the terms of his departure.

2. Don't give in
If you or whomever accepted him can't swallow their pride and own up to making the mistake of accepting him and face the consequences then you could always bore him out. If he can't get what he wants he might grow bored and leave. Just ignore him and don't have anyone acknowledge him in corp.

3. Fight back
If giving in to his demands aren't acceptable and you want him out now, then the only other option is to kill him. Get something that he might attack and tank it out. Then get 3-4 other people in the following ships: a blackbird (to jam him out), 1 or 2 beefy cruisers (with the same type of tank), and a Exequror or a Scythe (depending on the beefy cruisers' tank), and face stomp him.

Your proposal is a major nerf to awoxxing. He took the time to scout out your corp for targets, get through a hopefully thorough recruitment process, get accepted, warp to the oblivious target, kill him, and survive any sort of a corp defensive response. He has gotten to this point and will probably now ask for a ransom to leave, but with your changes the people who have best case (failed at defending their corp and have learned their mistakes), or worst case (done nothing and complain about it) can just wait him out and with game mechanics kick him.

This is horrible idea because it rewards corps to lazy/incompetent to defend themselves from an easily avoided/dealt with threat.

Awoxxing is good for the game. It destroys bad corps. Bad corps are one of the biggest threats to player retention. New players look up to their CEO's and older members for guidance and protection. OP's corp didn't provide the latter and is now asking for changes so he doesn't have to deal with getting rid of him.

There are already effective ways of dealing with awoxxers. This proposed idea would harm the game more than it would help it by making awoxxing less meaningful, and give the victims less of a reason to adapt.

He isn't afk when he logs in.

So my corp had an awoxer who now refuses to leave, and we can't expel because, of course, he's afk cloaked in space somewhere. Instead of trying to beat him logging in at downtime every day, my suggestion is to add an option "Expel member at next downtime." Expelling someone in this manner would send them a notification so they would have some advance notice. I really do not understand why we should be beholden to this guy (before you ask, he had no history of awoxing and nothing that would indicate such motives in his API) and utterly powerless when it comes to the management of our own corporation.

As I have said numerous times, he just logs in and sits there doing nothing. Do you have a way to fight someone who isn't there? Honestly, I would like to know.

If he isn't there then he isn't a threat. And if he stays in that system all the time just don't go in there. I'm assuming that your in highsec. If so just move as it appear you already have. If the scout notices that he has moved then bingo he isn't afk anymore.

Maybe this weekend you can beat him on before downtime. Until then just remain aware.

The change you propose would kill this profession.

Also if you can't beat them join them. Make an alt sometime and try it out. Might find out it's a great way to make eve a little more fun.

First of all I would like to thank you for working with me on this issue and providing feedback from the other side, of which you seem intimately familiar.

I don't see how this would kill the profession since, as I understand it, many of these people jump from corp to corp ad infinitum. This doesn't prevent them from joining another corp or even killing more people inside the time window. In fact, I imagine that a new type of emergent gameplay would be discovering how to gank the most number of people inside the time window as possible. For example, infiltrating a number of awoxers at once and pulling off a coordinated assault.

Also, it's not just awoxers that do this. What if there some guy in your corp that is so irritating to everyone and sits in space cloaked polluting corp chat? I just have to sit and take it? I know, maybe I could bait him, but what about the worst case scenario in which he is never baited? There is no recourse, and that is a problem.

And part of the awox experience is to hold the corp for ransom to leave. This change would end that.

Good. First and foremost, they just betrayed you - so how can you trust that they're going to honor the ransom? You can't, and they never do - it's the AWOX equivalent of the "bonus round". Second, why should a CEO have to wait off-peak for downtime in the vain hopes of logging before the AWOX'er and managing to kick him? He shouldn't, and a determined AWOX'er has a better than 50-50 chance of beating it since he can both logoff and logon in space. Finally, more often than not the corporation is forced to simply block the individual due to the numerous taunts, vulgarities and other profanities that accompany a post-AWOX - usually in an attempt to further humiliate the victim and extract tears.

CEOs and directors of a corporation should be able to kick whomever whenever and wherever they want. And if that ends the "crying game", wellGǪ tough. This infantile game mechanic exists for no other reason than to fulfill the self-serving interests of a bunch of delinquents. It's not sandbox and it's not even sand trap; it's quicksand.

It is a very flawed mechanic that you can't boot someone unless they are docked. +1 to fix

I presume the reason is so you cannot boot someone who is in the process of attacking you.

Or, you could just bother screening your potential recruits.

Or we could give CEO's a completely logical new ability.
The question isn't why this should be incorporated into Eve, but why we shouldn't. And not a single good reason has presented to show how this is anything but a good thing.
Have a good day

Not being necessary (or possible), is a good reason. Do you actually know why you can't kick players in open space?

Oh, and if you're proposing change, the onus is on you to prove the need for it. I don't need the defend the status quo, it exists already. You have to justify changing it. And "Waah, awoxing!" doesn't justify very well, because you could have avoided it easily.

Yes, from what I recall it used to be this way. Like everything else, someone figured out a way to abuse it and it was changed to the current mechanic. And no, it's impossible to avoid a determined AWOX'er - this is another myth continuously perpetuated by the AWOX'ing community. I'm going to go one further with the OP's suggestion:

1. It's a suspect offense to shoot a corps member outside of a fleet.
2. It's a criminal offense (CONCORD) to kill a corps member.
3. Killing a corps member automatically results in corps eviction.

Problem solved. The mechanic can't be abused to kick corps members in space and AWOX'ers can still have their fun and "ransom" the victim's ship. Neutrals can provide logistics but receive a suspect flag (as they should), and if the AWOX'er kills the ship he gets CONCORD'ed and immediately dropped from the corps.

The inability to kick people in open space exists for a damned good reason.

You propose throwing those things away because some people can't be asked to put "Must submit full API" in the corp advertisement. Your cure is far, far worse than the disease.

Except for the part where all the things you're railing against are fully intended interactions. And have been held up numerous times.

Oh, and the statement that anyone can get in your corp is the same thing as "you can never prevent a gank". An often repeated lie to try and get more people to think that CCP must do something instead of doing something for themselves. It's your kind's attempt to get more converts against emergent gameplay, by misleading someone into mental helplessness.

The ability to fire on your own corp members exists for a reason.

The inability to kick people in open space exists for a damned good reason.

You propose throwing those things away because some people can't be asked to put "Must submit full API" in the corp advertisement. Your cure is far, far worse than the disease.

Full APIs are not a silver bullet to the issue. They don't guarantee that you are dealing with a clean alt of a known AWOXer.

Players like you are the disease in this game.

Cry more.

Your AWOX'ing days are numbered, so enjoy them while they last.

Except for the part where all the things you're railing against are fully intended interactions. And have been held up numerous times.

Oh, and the statement that anyone can get in your corp is the same thing as "you can never prevent a gank". An often repeated lie to try and get more people to think that CCP must do something instead of doing something for themselves. It's your kind's attempt to get more converts against emergent gameplay, by misleading someone into mental helplessness.

The ability to fire on your own corp members exists for a reason.

The inability to kick people in open space exists for a damned good reason.

You propose throwing those things away because some people can't be asked to put "Must submit full API" in the corp advertisement. Your cure is far, far worse than the disease.

There is no real way to make this an exploit, it would only give a fair power to the CEO of a corp that they should already have.

Lol, because this tearful entreaty will be successful out of all the rest?

Because it serves no legitimate game purpose, and you know it. In fact, if corporations start filing support tickets about the profanities, abuse and harassment typical of AWOXes - they'll be obligated to respond.

There is no real way to make this an exploit, it would only give a fair power to the CEO of a corp that they should already have.

Oh cool, an ignore feature.
Now I won't be bothered by your mindless drivel...

Remember kids, ignoring it when you're proven wrong somehow makes you right instead.

Hooray for echo chambers.

Please stop grieffing. You haven't proven anything, but that you like to make people mad.

Please don't introduce new game mechanics that rely on downtime.

Expelling a member from a corp should happen at worst on a long timer (i.e.: preferably so you can't time the character leaving corp to be in the middle of combat).

Please don't introduce new game mechanics that rely on downtime.

Expelling a member from a corp should happen at worst on a long timer (i.e.: preferably so you can't time the character leaving corp to be in the middle of combat).

Telling you all that you're wrong is not griefing. Especially not when I'm told such things like: "you people are a cancer on the game!"

Ummm..... what are the words I'm looking for? Oh yea! "Cry more"
We get it guy, you AWOX so you can say you "play" Eve while you watch My Little Pony in your footie PJ's clutching your dolly. Why not go back to the revered Eve profession of being anywhere other than your keyboard while playing a game and whining when no one else thinks your childish and simple shenanigans should be able to continue unhindered by logical requests. Waa waaa waaa little piggy, all the way home :)

Oh and as for the OP, have an additional +1 from me just for making that little fella there cry so loud.

Thing is, awoxing is a legitimate act in the game. You're all acting like it's some bug to be patched out. It's not, it's intended, and it's not something that needs to be "fixed".

Suicide ganking, miner bumping, and corp infiltration are all valid mechanics. There is a chance they might not be for much longer thanks to people who have industrialised the process of driving new players out of the game.

When (not if) this happens, EVE will be a sadder place for having these options removed, and the griefers will have nobody to blame but themselves.

I would like to point out that what the OP is experiencing is a player exploiting a flaw in the intented design of corporate member management.

Suicide ganking, miner bumping, and corp infiltration are all valid mechanics. There is a chance they might not be for much longer thanks to people who have industrialised the process of driving new players out of the game.

When (not if) this happens, EVE will be a sadder place for having these options removed, and the griefers will have nobody to blame but themselves.

I would like to point out that what the OP is experiencing is a player exploiting a flaw in the intented design of corporate member management.

Thanks for this well thought-out response. While I agree that corp infiltration is a valid game mechanic, this does not extend to AWOX'ing.

1. The victim is going to lose his ship regardless of whether he pays a ransom to prevent this.
2. The perpetrators are not going to leave regardless of whether they receive a ransom to leave.
3. This is readily apparent to everyone involved, hence why an AWOX basically consists of the "bonus round" - a period of unending harassment, profanities, abuse and otherwise implied threats to further grief and humiliate the victims. This continues until such time as they're able to successfully punt said perpetrators, or what is more common - disbandment of the corporation.

How anyone could describe this as a "legitimate" game mechanic is beyond me...

Nice ninja edit Arthur, but I saw your "psychotic" comment. Just silly.

Those who cry about legitimate game mechanics, and try to claim that losing their pixels is "abuse", "harassment", "griefing", etc, are borderline neurotic.

The solutions are very simple, folks. Get their API, learn about how to use it, and what to look for. If you can't be asked to do that, you don't belong in a leadership position in a player corp in the first place.

Regardless of what Mr. Optimism here might think, this isn't going to go away. Stop abdicating your own responsibility to defend yourselves.

If that were true, it would have been fixed in the last few... years.

Solution: Introduce Warp to Corp Member for CEO and Director.

Also:



Yeah like POS or SOV mechanic right?

So what your saying is its IMPOSSIBLE for someone to go buy a 20m sp pilot that has never awoxxed before then join a corp and awox? The OP was not asking for a beat all, end all when it comes to Awoxing. Just a reasonable way to get them out of the corp. The current game mechanics do not give a corp a fair chance.

Solution: Introduce Warp to Corp Member for CEO and Director.

Also:



Yeah like POS or SOV mechanic right?

The mechanics give the corp a perfectly fair chance. The OP has outright admitted that he can't be bothered doing it right.

You want a 100% guarantee that he leaves corp. Tough luck.

[edit: Oh, and Arthur? I just blew up a Mackinaw in your name. Made sure he knew it was because of people like you, who try to deny that PVP should happen in a PVP game.

Please oh great one. Give me one link to a Dev. or GM saying "Awoxing is intended, and I fully support it as an important part of the game." You have really done nothing but tell the 15+ people that have seid this is a good idea "though luck" becuase you do not like awoxing for ransom, and with the intent to destroy a corp not being viable as the CEO would have a rightful power to kick them in a fair and reasonable way.

[edit: Oh, and Arthur? I just blew up a Mackinaw in your name. Made sure he knew it was because of people like you, who try to deny that PVP should happen in a PVP game.

What a thoughtful gesture. I felt I should return the favor in-kind by rounding your bounty off to an even $300-million...

Give me one tiny bit of evidence to lend credence to your thought of why I shouldn't be able to inflitrate, spy, betray, or otherwise engage in skullduggery against a corp that I want to destroy.

You seem to think that the game should be changed to match your feelz. You seem to think that you are somehow entitled to have a player corp, or that people shouldn't be able to screw with your corp, just because it's yours.

You're wrong.

Why shouldn't I be able to destroy your corp, I ask you?

Who says you shouldn't be able to do that? Who says that you should be denied that? No one here that I can see. What is being said is that there should be a way of kicking someone out of a corporation that is exploiting the game mechanics to remain part of a corporation they've awoxed.

Who says you shouldn't be able to do that? Who says that you should be denied that? No one here that I can see. What is being said is that there should be a way of kicking someone out of a corporation that is exploiting the game mechanics to remain part of a corporation they've awoxed.

Is that all you've got? Yeesh, at least take it to 500, I might feel bad about it then.

I had a hard time justifying the $11-million and change as it wasGǪ

Give me one tiny bit of evidence to lend credence to your thought of why I shouldn't be able to inflitrate, spy, betray, or otherwise engage in skullduggery against a corp that I want to destroy.

You seem to think that the game should be changed to match your feelz. You seem to think that you are somehow entitled to have a player corp, or that people shouldn't be able to screw with your corp, just because it's yours.

You're wrong.

Why shouldn't I be able to destroy your corp, I ask you?

That poor? My condolences.

Arthur and Cloak have both said that, actually.

Arthur and Cloak have both said that, actually.

And it's not an exploit. The inability to kick someone who is logged in, in open space exists precisely to prevent exploits with CONCORD among other things. It's there for a reason.

Lastly, there already is a way to kick someone. Kick them when they're logged off. If you can't be asked to do that, well, that lack of effort is probably why you got awoxed in the first place.

And if they go to a safe spot in a system and remain cloaked until downtime, and they immediately log back on after downtime (which is what it appears the OP is stating) . . . ?

And if they go to a safe spot in a system and remain cloaked until downtime, and they immediately log back on after downtime (which is what it appears the OP is stating) . . . ?

At that point, if you aren't willing to login after downtime yourself, you might consider paying a ransom.

So how many have you honored?

Arthur and Cloak have both said that, actually.

And it's not an exploit. The inability to kick someone who is logged in, in open space exists precisely to prevent exploits with CONCORD among other things. It's there for a reason.

Lastly, there already is a way to kick someone. Kick them when they're logged off. If you can't be asked to do that, well, that lack of effort is probably why you got awoxed in the first place.

I honor every ransom, every time. Regardless of what I'm doing. That's my particular shtick, along with using female characters to awox with.

Then they're putting in effort to remain that way. Which, coincidentally enough, counters your lack thereof.

At that point, if you aren't willing to login after downtime yourself, you might consider paying a ransom.

Then they're putting in effort to remain that way. Which, coincidentally enough, counters your lack thereof.

At that point, if you aren't willing to login after downtime yourself, you might consider paying a ransom.

There's no honor among thieves.

So you don't have a job or work? So a CEO should be expected to be at a keyboard no matter where they live, what country they are located, whatever job or employment they might have, in order to log immediately after downtime, or otherwise they are simply "not putting in any effort"?

Why bother asking me, if you'd already made up your mind?

Then they're putting in effort to remain that way. Which, coincidentally enough, counters your lack thereof.

At that point, if you aren't willing to log in after downtime yourself, you might consider paying a ransom.

Playing the game > NOT playing the game, is what I'm saying.

Versus exploiting the game mechanics > NOT exploiting the game mechanics, is what I'm saying.

And Arthur? I do in fact honor ransoms, you'd be surprised by how many people do.

I've been playing for a year now. I've yet to have a single ransom honoredGǪ So yeah, I'd be very surprised - and very skeptical.

A year? That explains it, yeah. It fell out of popularity a while back. Through various accounts, I've been honoring ransoms for years however, little point in stopping now.

You're kind of making the point for us then, are you not?
1. Ransoms are no longer honored.
2. The sole purpose for the vast majority is tears and harassment.

This may still be a lucrative and honorable trade from your perspective, but for the rest of us it's just an effort in futility.

3) Players.

The feature idea that has been presented, in summation, is a way to remove a corporation member by setting a flag that, upon the next downtime/restart cycle, removes/ejects the flagged member. So I'd like to ask the following questions:


1) Would this detract from the game experience?
2) Would this inhibit "realism"?
3) Who would benefit from this?
4) Who would be adversely effected?


The answers would seem to be:

1) No.
2) No.
3) Players.
4) Griefers.

Lastly, there already is a way to kick someone. Kick them when they're logged off. If you can't be asked to do that, well, that lack of effort is probably why you got awoxed in the first place.

And? Regardless of their motivation, legitimate gameplay is what it is. Their motives are speculation on their part, furthermore, I know more than a few do it for profit.

Or are you actually advocating this based on what you think their motivations are?

Thank you. With out your continued "Its lagit cuz I do it!!" rant, this post has stayed at the top of the forum page and has tons of points as to why this is a valid change that should take place, from lost of people that agree. Also that the ONLY people that would not like this are Awoxers that want to ransom corps and/or destroy corps because they know how to use the map and a cloak. If you want to argue more please do. :D
Like I have said, there needs to be a way for CEO's to handle there corp. The delayed kick with a notice going to the pilot, as well as a CEO/Director ability to warp at 0 to corp mate, would both be good fixes. If you want to kill a corp, war deck them and turn off all the POS's from the inside like a good spy. This would still be possible mind you.

Awoxing is not griefing. Griefing is very specifically defined.

Furthermore, as has been mentioned, the ability to do this already exists. You just don't want to have to be online to do it.

Why should CCP cater to laziness?

Your right, griefing does have a Definition and here it is: "1. Player vs player abuse: Singling out the same person and killing them over and over when they are defensless until hey log off." (Urban Dictionary)
That is Awoxxing in a nut shell really.

That's why awoxing is even a thing, honestly, because risk averse cowards think they should be immune to getting shot at.

You do realize that this leads to the law of diminishing returns, yes? This just encourages the formation of 1-player corporations and relegates gameplay to high-sec. Why don't you dispense with the insults and theatrics and make an unemotional argument?

Then they're putting in effort to remain that way. Which, coincidentally enough, counters your lack thereof.

At that point, if you aren't willing to login after downtime yourself, you might consider paying a ransom.

Oh, my sides.

Sry same Post, pleas show us how we should counter this.

I thought I'd give you a second chance by unblocking you and listening to your viewpoint...

1. Pay the ransom, cross fingers.
2. Disband corporation.

You're the one who tried to equate being held for corp ransom as being a bannable offense because it's "harassment" and such. I just found that ironically amusing. Now, what would you like to discuss?

So this must be the legendary Risk vs. Reward System from Eve Online, huh?

So this must be the legendary Risk vs. Reward System from Eve Online, huh?

API keys. Failure to use them is a risk you shouldn't take.

In my experience it's been nothing but harassment. It really ruined my gameplay experience and left a lasting impression. I now fly solo in a 1-player corporation. So emotion aside (and clean slate), tell me how this benefits EVE as a whole? Because I'm sure mine is not an isolated incidentGǪ

API keys. Failure to use them is a risk you shouldn't take.

First of thank you for ignoring my question...

Second, API Keys are nothing worth thanks to the multiaccount and alt mechanic in Eve.

Third, i am OK with AWOXING but there should be a line where everthing has an end and unkickable members offline in space or online in space with cloak is broken, deal with it.

Posted - 2012.02.20 13:40:00 - [11] - Quote
To answer the follow up discussion; no, we still do not step in. However, I can say that we understand that this is a frustrating process and there are some internal discussions among senior members of the customer support department on this subject. Will this change? I do not know. Do we acknowledge that this is something that some of our customers are passionate about? Yes, we do and we do evaluate these issues on a regular basis.

And a follow up statement a couple of posts later

"Here, there's a GM statement on it from about two years ago. It also nicely details that they have no intention of changing how this works.

http://eve-search.com/thread/72092-1/page/all#4"

I have read this post and it real is about GM's saying that the feature is broken, but they can't help you. Not that they support it or even agree with it. Also one GM said that they ARE thinking of changing it. You really should read it. Its a good forum.

Clearly, your corp dealt with it poorly. Care to share your experience?

Where, precisely, do you see them say "broken"? Paraphrasing, maybe?

What I see is them explicitly, in absolutely no uncertain terms, that they will not do anything about it. Not "can't", WON'T.

And as for "thinking about changing it", that was two years ago, like I said above. You think you guys are the first people to bring this up? And yet the mechanics remain the same.

What I see is them explicitly, in absolutely no uncertain terms, that they will not do anything about it. Not "can't", WON'T.

Posted - 2012.02.22 16:08:00 - [40] - Quote
A small update. As I said earlier; these types of issues are continuously being reviewed and I can add a small addendum to the policy I stated earlier.

We will still not intervene, however should this tactic and behavior enter the realm of "griefing/harassment", we may opt to step in. Note that someone simply refusing to leave for several days does not fall into this category. Things need to go pretty far for us to classify this tactic as such, but we do acknowledge that in some rare, extreme cases an evaluation of that particular individual case may be warranted.

In other words; feel free to use the tactic, but don't be an utter and total ***.

I guess you selectively read it then. A little further down from the last entry i quoted, again by the same GM



"We may opt to step in" hows that for WONT.

We're talking about getting rid of someone in space. You seem to think that "griefing/harassment" has anything to do with the act of ransoming a corp.

Actually have a look at how CCP defines those things.

Oh, and has it actually ever happened, by the way? It would be interesting to find out.

Where in the OPs post did he say the AWOXer is giving him the option of paying a ransom???? the guys is exploiting the current mechanics to make it impossible for the OP to remove him from corp. He isnt asking for a ransom or medal or anything.

It would be interesting to see if CCP have ever had to step in, or where this has ever run over from an AWOXer being a 'reasonable' pain in the butt, to it becoming griefing/harassment.

Oh, here's one for you guys.

Did you know that you can petition GMs to ask for answers about these kind of things? You can outright ask them whether awoxing is allowed or not (or whether it's "griefing" or "harassment"), or whether they consider it an "exploit" to log in after downtime, or stay in space to not get kicked.

That should suffice to answer any questions you might have, should you not trust my word on the matter.

Oh, here's one for you guys.

Did you know that you can petition GMs to ask for answers about these kind of things? You can outright ask them whether awoxing is allowed or not (or whether it's "griefing" or "harassment"), .

Nobody in this thread has asked for AWOXing to be banned.

Simply to stop the exploiting on the corp kick mechanic.

Arthur has repeatedly.

Arthur has repeatedly.

And it's not an exploit.

1. You have been asked to link one of these, and have so far failed to do so.
2. The OP did not ask and never said he wanted an end to AWOXXing, so that is not even the point here.
3. This is about why a CEO is powerless to expel a member that is undesirable to the corp.
4. The OP also came up with a Viable solution that you have not even tried to counter.

In my opinion, staying cloaked/AFK in space, and repeatedly logging in straight after downtime to avoid getting booted from a corp is exploiting the mechanics.

I did link one. They outright said that they will not remove a player who is logged in space. I don't know how much more clear that can be.

A CEO is not powerless. It can be done, the OP just doesn't want to bother doing it. And he did not come up with a viable solution. He came up with a one button, one shot no thought solution to all awoxing ever. He came up with something to enable people being lazy.

The GMs disagree.

And if you don't believe me, file a petition and ask one.

Getting back to the OPGǪ As for solutions, if he's afk cloaked I don't think there's any recourse even if you know what system he's in. I think your only solution is to either wait for him to get bored and leave, wait for him to try and ambush someone or disband and form a new corporation. These are all really sh*tty scenarios, though.

I dont really care what the GMs think. This forum is for people to post ideas that they would like considered by CCP. Then people can discuss, agree or disagree with the idea. CCP can then take it under advisement.

If he isn't there then he isn't a threat. And if he stays in that system all the time just don't go in there. I'm assuming that your in highsec. If so just move as it appear you already have. If the scout notices that he has moved then bingo he isn't afk anymore.

Maybe this weekend you can beat him on before downtime. Until then just remain aware.

The change you propose would kill this profession.

Also if you can't beat them join them. Make an alt sometime and try it out. Might find out it's a great way to make eve a little more fun.

CCP has already disagreed, that's the whole point.

Have they? You should provide me with some proof to what you are saying beyond just your word. Saying something does not make it true. I agree with the OP. Something should be changed so that this can be handled.

I keep telling you people.

If you don't believe me, petition a GM and ask them whatever you please. Whether staying logged in and cloaked is an "exploit", or whatever floats your boat.

And how is that at all relevant to a discussion in features and ideas?

And how is that at all relevant to a discussion in features and ideas?

I keep telling you people.

If you don't believe me, petition a GM and ask them whatever you please. Whether staying logged in and cloaked is an "exploit", or whatever floats your boat.

Posted - 2012.02.20 13:40:00 - [11] - Quote
To answer the follow up discussion; no, we still do not step in. However, I can say that we understand that this is a frustrating process and there are some internal discussions among senior members of the customer support department on this subject. Will this change? I do not know. Do we acknowledge that this is something that some of our customers are passionate about? Yes, we do and we do evaluate these issues on a regular basis.

I will repost the above, its from the thread where Kaarous Aldurald keeps repeating his "GMs say they wont do anything and everything should stay the same and not be discussed ever" argument against the OPs idea.

.

Because what he's asking to be "fixed" is not considered a problem by CCP.

And it is not any of your business stating what CCP deems is a problem or not, that is for only CCP to make clear. You are merely repeating your own personal opinion over and over and over again hoping someone will take you seriously.

I know you won't go ask a GM, though.

Because you're gutless, and rather than be told you're wrong, you would rather argue from a position of ignorance.

Which, to me, is highly amusing.

I don't give a flying frack what the GMs think. How many times do I have to say that. This isn't the "State what the GMs think of a mechanic" Forum....

This is 'Features & Ideas Discussion"

The OP and many others are discussing a change we would like to be considered.

And I keep telling you.

If you don't believe me, drop a petition and ask a GM about it. Go on, do it.

You are pretty dense. I just told you all you are doing is repeating something which isn't relevant over and over again, your next response is to repeat the same thing again. Your not too bright it seems.

So, do you actually care what CCP's position on the matter is, or not?

So, do you actually care what CCP's position on the matter is, or not?

The Features and Ideas forum is primarily for players to make suggestions or put forth ideas that they feel may improve EVE.

Whatever CCP thinks of a mechanic, it does not mean we cant discuss other options or changes.

So, do you actually care what CCP's position on the matter is, or not?

Let me get this strait, and please feel free to post a link if I am wrong:
First you have no Proof that CCP has in fact said no to CEO's having some kind of delayed time expelling power for corp members
And secondly that a petition for an Idea is a valid way to find out if its a good idea?

If I am right, then please stop posting the same argument. This post is not about a current Awwoxer, its about giving the CEO a more reasonable ability to remove unwanted members.

Yeah, actually, it is. The first sentence begins with "So my corp had an awoxer".

The CEO already has a way to remove members. The OP wants to be able to do it without being logged in.

,,,,

...

Are you unaware that you can kick people in space, if they are offline?

Here, there's a GM statement on it from about two years ago. It also nicely details that they have no intention of changing how this works.

http://eve-search.com/thread/72092-1/page/all#4

Whoops! Your right, i was wrong, i am sorry, you can kick offline Members in Space out of Corp.

You convinced me their is nothing to change here.

A CEO is not powerless. It can be done, the OP just doesn't want to bother doing it. And he did not come up with a viable solution. He came up with a one button, one shot no thought solution to all awoxing ever. He came up with something to enable people being lazy.

On the other end, Arthur's and some others impassioned argument in support of the OP (while I support the OP) is getting a little overdone.

He isn't afk when he logs in. And surely if he awoxxed you then he is probably active during the day at some point. So if you tried baiting him around the time he killed a corp mate last time he might be tempted to spring the trap.

Or you could give in to his demands (medal, payment, etc.).

You were dumb enough to let him in and not have a plan to deal with an awoxxer.

I see no reason why CCP should protect your corp if you aren't going to.

but I certainly believe that kicking a player from your corp shouldn't be based on whether you can log in quick enough. This is a terrible mechanic, as it really it is incredibly biased by timezone, and doesn't benefit the game in any tangible manner.

OP, have you petitioned this?

A grief player, or "griefer," is a player who devotes much of his time to making othersGÇÖ lives miserable, in a large part deriving his enjoyment of the game from these activities while he does not profit from it in any way. Grief tactics are the mechanics a griefer will utilize to antagonize other players. At our discretion, players who are found to be consistently maliciously interfering with the game experience for others may receive a warning, temporary suspension or permanent banning of his account.

This should not be confused with standard conflict that might arise between two (or more) players, such as corporation wars. The EVE universe is a harsh universe largely driven by such conflict and notice must be taken of the fact that nonconsensual combat alone is not considered to be grief play per the above definition.

An example of grief play would be the so called "Can baiting" in starter systems. An experienced player drops a cargo container with some items and waits for a new player to take from it. The new player is flagged and promptly attacked and killed by the owner of the container. Doing the same in the systems the Blood Stained Stars epic arc takes you through is also considered grief play and will not be tolerated.

"A grief player, or "griefer," is a player who devotes much of his time to making othersGÇÖ lives miserable, in a large part deriving his enjoyment of the game from these activities while he does not profit from it in any way."

Grief tactics are the mechanics a griefer will utilize to antagonize other players. At our discretion, players who are found to be consistently maliciously interfering with the game experience for others may receive a warning, temporary suspension or permanent banning of his account.

If Kaarous still keeps up with this thread I would like to put forth the following for both his and the op's consideration

I have since re-petitioned for two reasons. First is that the member, who we cannot kick, has started using racist language in emails to the corp. The second is that he was gloating about how he caused one of our members to quit the game.

I don't think that the idea of the OP was to demand a 24h timer specifically in the first place. I think that just so long as there is an end in sight for the affected players/corp then they would be happy, even if it was say, a week.

I mean a wardec has a week long timer and upkeep costs to presumably avoid this EXACT kind of harassment and griefing yes?

So i take it he doesn't want to negotiate a ransom?

Also if you don't trust him to honor the ransom, find a third party (that you both can trust) to hold the ransom until he leaves. He leaves, then he gets his ransom. You both get what you want.

If he doesn't want a ransom just block him and ignore him. Have a corp wide order to act is if he isn't even in chat.

If he is using racist language CCP might give him a temp ban and you could kick him then. Not sure what is the line for CCP on racist comments.

Then there's what Kaarous suggested. Disband and reform. If your corp isn't that big it would be a quick and easy process. If it's too big to disband I'm going to guess you have directors that you can trust. Maybe one of them can get up early/lives in a different timezone and can kick him for you.

Don't know your situation, but if you keep on feeding him tears he's going to keep on doing what he's doing. You could have a special situation, and CCP might intervene on that, but just because your situation is special doesn't mean that the mechanic has to be changed. There are already plenty of tools to fight him. What your asking for is one tool that would make all the others obsolete. Having to deal with an awoxxer isn't fun, but making so you don't have to deal with him at all is broken.