coolstorybro

morememesplz

GHSC popped an officer fit something or other just before I started playing. A few people I know remarked that they heard about it and started playing because they were intrigued by the notion of a game that allowed players to engage in that type of activity. The Dbank, Ebank and T4U scams were shortly after, sparking similar levels of press attention, and reports of people subbing to see what the fuss was about. B-R and Asakai kicked off because of a failed sov bill and an accidental "jump to" instead of "bridge to" by a Titan (try telling me that button arrangement is "logical").

Some people are attracted to open ended game play where this type of activity is possible. Some are repulsed by it and accuse the participants of being vicious sociopath griefers who drive players out via cyberbullying. You don't have to engage in these activities to appreciate the value in allowing them to occur. It makes ingame achievements meaningful when they are earned in spite of dangers and risks. There's a trend here to curtail player driven interraction that generate noisy complaints and to smooth the rougher edges from something that stands apart by being prickly. Remember can-flipping and when there was no "enable safety" button? These were actually content generators that got people interracting and were treated with amusement by people playing in good fun.

Closing these "illogical" loopholes as you put it erodes our ability to generate player driven narratives that are unique to Eve. That GHSC awox will never happen again if this proposal is implemented. Once it's gone, you can't put it back. The whining of Highsec residents will never stop until CCP caves and puts them in an instanced zone where they have absolute control over their interraction with other players. Even then, they'll still find something to bellyache about. It's alright claiming changes like this are being proposed "for the noobies", but it affects everyone, and it's not unfair to react to a general 'dumbing down' or 'Eve Online for Numpties v.18' with a degree of dismay. We all started out in Highsec, and exposure to awoxing, thefts, wardecs, ganking may have been the trigger to draw us into a more engaged playstyle - or at the least taught us to be careful and to take responsibility for ourselves. How are new players supposed to gain those experiences when they are being gradually stripped away?

Or they can just duel. Or they can set up a separate corp and war dec each other.

Shooting corpmates is 99.9% done by AWOXERs who are totally unrealistic. It's nothing but an exploit. They call Titan bumping an exploit but not AWOXING? Please. If you're in a high security area and you do not have a legal war going or are not in a voluntary duel and you kill someone, the cops should take you away, whether that someone is in your corp or not.

Carte blanche killing corp mates is just contrary to reason. It's also bad for PR and discourages new players. There's no talent involved. There's no skill involved. There are secondary exploits involved such as using out of corp logi, another thing that doesn't make sense. If I am in a high security area and someone tries to kill me, the cops will come unless the killer is my friend, yet the cops WILL come to kill me for shooting his accomplice because his accomplice is NOT my friend.

AWOXING is not only bad for the game but just utterly absurd.

The issue with concord is that it exists in the first place.

But that requires more than zero effort, Dave, so it's unacceptable to them. It's also not a 100% guarantee, which they also won't budge on it seems.

My old corp got awoxed loads of times, on account of the fact that we were deeply unpopular...

Despite that, though I think it's a mistake to remove the ability to awox corps.

When I got awoxed it made me so goddam mad, it spured me and my corp mates into action against who we thought was responsible.

In other words it's the unpleasant stuff like corporate heists and awoxing, ganking etc that makes you emotionally invest in your character, your ships and your friends. If we lose awoxing then we lose one more route to emotinal investment.

If eve becomes a game without emotional investment then it is really is dead regardless of subscriber numbers.

do... do you even know what awoxing is?

Tell me more about these consequences... I'm still reading the 146 page pdf (which by the way I love).

no, that's because if concord gets involved... that's suicide ganking, not awoxing. so that suggestion literally translates to "we want to removing awoxing".

so what you're saying is, people should be protected from something even if they put 0 effort in to protecting themselves from it? really?

i'm willing to bet that most awoxes succeed because people don't bother to do basic checks before recruiting. accepting blank applications from known awoxers, for example.

of course it's solvable... fix neutral logi turning a 10 hour pilot in a gnosis in to an unstoppable killing machine once he has activated his scram and web.

how many high sec nerfs do there have to be for it to stop being a fallacy?

cos like, i'm not sure there's much left to nerf.

edit: or at least, there won't be if ccp get their way.

I'm very late to this thread. Obviously I have not been lurking enough on this forum. I have skim read much of the thread and I am a little perturbed by the removal of legitimately shooting corpmates in high sec.

When I first started playing Eve I came into the game with a small group of gamers from another game - A RTCW clan from memory. We set up a little corp in high sec to run missions together to make isk and fund our ventures into low sec.

We tested a range game play styles on each other:

Could a blackbird with multi specs and raven pin down a solo Vagabond.
Could 3 insta locking hurricanes take down inties and coverts ops on gates.
How long can a domi with sentries and a scimitar keep a caracal alive in a level 3 mission when a gank fit thrasher shows up?

Can any of these situations be simulated via the current dueling system?

Wow thanks for reply. I am however surprised by the aggression you are venting on me.

The above occurrences are some of the fun moments I had as a new Eve player 8 years ago. My post was querying whether new players who come into the game now will have the option of learning the principles of PVP in a safe environment before venturing out into uncontrolled space.

New pilots who wish to learn are gold in this game. If removing the ability to practise shooting your friends makes learning pvp harder for new players it will make it harder for players to gain the basic skills needed in low or 0.0.

If the dueling system allows a range of possible options 6 vs 2, late arrivals after duel has started etc by all means remove the ability of players to ruin a corp for mere giggles with no consequence.

If the dueling system can not allow a full range of PVP options that a new player will face in low then it needs to be modified hand in hand with awox removing.

Is that ok with you Syn Shi?

I don't see why you think this word games are in any way a good argument or comment. If you have a problem understanding what some people mean with "awoxing" of "safari" in the context of this thread or the CSM minutes then you have a serious issue and should stop posting.

Your answers don't improve it seams. Now you ask a suicide ganker if he is afraid to lose his ship? I am not even a year old char and lost over 1300 Catalysts so far. Almost all of them exploded a miner or hauler.

And that word game is still no argument. It just demonstrates a lack of communication skills.

How much do you bet that I can shoot most of my corp mates even after the change without getting CONCORDed?

Do you even play this game? No one actually does this, even total newbies.

Let's cut to the chase Mike.

Would removing the ability to awox corp members without CONCORD intervention increase or decrease player conflict and content creation?

Seriously folks, if we can't ensure only CSM's that hold that key litmus test above to heart when elected, then the CSM needs to be blasted from existence, because yahweh knows CCP sure as hell doesn't need any more help from carebear players to rush down its road to nerfdom in pursuit of moar WoW subs.

F

The only ones that will stop are those unable to adapt. Players unable to adapt are not people EVE needs to keep around anyway; at least according to some of those same players.

Strange how that works.

The hypocrisy is really getting deep in here.

This.

+1 to Remiel.

The highlighted part makes no sense, as their are no "against all odds" when you tie down players who would be creating various kinds of content...till CCP decides that that kind fo content is not wanted.

"hard and cold" is the BASE of EVE, the core, the corner stone. Without that it's just a submarine simulator. Without people trying to kill me, saving the damn Damsel for the millionth time of sending Dread Pirate Scarlett to her death another millionth time is....bullcrap.



So it's ok to limit avenues in this game as long as it's happening to other people? The need and ability to adapt are noble, but that says nothing about whether a change is good or bad overall. in real life I could adapt to becoming homeless, doesn't mean i want to try it.

This thing that CCP wants to change (like other things they ahve changes) has value even if the so-caleld 'victims' and their enablers don't understand that. You don't take valuable things out of a game unless you are SURE of a net gain from it, and no on can be sure.



I just don't know what to say about this part , but it smacks of the (for lack of a better label) "pvp purists" mentality where people look down on an activity if one side isn't shooting back. It's crazy to me, because one thing EVE has in common with real life is that no on ever promised anyone a fair or even fight. i don't care than 5 guys try to jump my Rattlesnake in low sec, all i personally care about is surviving.

The part about fire in their belly vs fire in their face and concern about CCPs subs is just plain funny. It reeks of Kumbaya lol, which brings up the question "why play a game where 98% of the ships have weapons hardpoints and bonuses to weapons if you think more people should be bro-ing out with each other?".

"Shooting people in the face" (making this people mad thus giving them a reason to keep playing EVE, because saving Damsels get's tired after the millionth time for all but the weirdest of us) is the best way to retain the kinds of people EVE needs. Hungry, ruthless, creative, inventive, cunning, INTERESTING people.

Pretty sh*t move tbh if they do, it's a nice way to test setups and have inter corp competitions and had no detrimental affect on the rest of the game.


Tal

Agreed, highsec is far safer than it was in 2009 when I started playing.

Like you I'm primarily a highsec resident, and a PvE player to boot.

Eve, especially highsec, is rapidly becoming very different from the game I fell in love with.

There's a few of us left, unfortunately CCP seems to be going down the path of catering for the lowest common denominator, carebears.

Population of the game pretty well guarantees dumb people. And smart people and everyday folks.

http://funnyfilez.funnypart.com/pictures/FunnyPart-com-i_see_dumb_people.jpg

I am a teacher, this doesn't mean I don't think some kids are dumb, I just don't call them that and I try to remedy the situation as best I can. Here, I call some folks as I see them and there are NO requirements for CSM to be 'nice'.

m

Where does it say anything about one Member representing ALL players?




It is A CSM Member, not THE CSM. Stop twisting words. Mike may think player A is dumb, but when he brings it up at a Summit, maybe Bacon will think player A is fine and player B is dumb. Everything thinks everyone else is dumb in one way or the other. That's how you get ALL the players represented. By having as many play styles represented by different players on the CSM.

Players who may think one person or the other, is dumb. Get over it.


The only person with an agenda here is you. Cut the mud slinging and try to make an actual argument for or against the OP. Otherwise, your only (failed) purpose here seems to be character assassination and will hopefully be treated as such, and dismissed.

Well, once this change is in, it is that day, is it not? Although you forgot kill rights. Once that change is in, awoxing will now be pure thievery. (and S.E. to get them to duel you, but that's terrible)

How does running missions for no reason other than getting isk to upgrade your missions ship benefit the game? (not referring to all mission runners, but a lot do this afaik)

Sorry guys. I think I broke this dude like two pages ago. Woops.

I have no special love for awoxing - although it has produced some memorable player-driven stories - but it is an interesting mechanic which provides risk in all-too-safe highsec. Sandbox means we the players have the tools to create content and experiences beyond those scripted by CCP. Removing such a tool, for a purpose that everyone here seems to acknowledge is unlikely to result in many more players sticking around is wrong. CCP should be adding more tools like awoxing to allow us to build and destroy things in new and interesting ways.

But my primary objection is that at its heart, Sandbox means the actions of all of us - the players - influence each other. As Mike Azariah just seems to be realizing, that means practically everything we do, from mining to mission running to market trading to direct combat is PvP. My ore devalues your ore. My ISK devalues your ISK. Therefore, this additional reduction of risk in highsec is creating even further imbalance in the risk vs. reward, making other security spaces other than highsec even less competitive place to live.

Year after year highsec gets safer and safer, and we are now at the point where it is impossible to die unless you do something incredibly stupid. The economy is showing the stress of this problem, and the player-base is moving back , or never leaving highsec because it is too lucrative for the miniscule level of risk left. Anything that further reduces the risk in highsec is detrimental for the game.

More practically though, this nerf - no not nerf - complete removal of a time-honoured mechanic will not help new players. No new player stayed out of a corp because of awoxing (maybe because of wardecs but those are still there), so really this change only benefits highsec corps by reducing their risk. Why do highsec corps need yet another reduction in risk?

Eve is about conflict. Eve is not about creating a space utopia where no-one ever dies.

We should not remove game mechanics that drive conflict.

From some really skimmy skimming I'm gathering that:

TL;DR awoxers mad that their "content creation tools" (lol) are being removed. Is that what this thread is about? Did I miss anything?

As you've been repeatedly told, that turns it into a suicide gank, so for all intents and purposes awoxing is being removed.

Offtopic ~ Would you care to purchase a bridge to live under? I'll even throw in a couple of goats to make sure you feel at home.

Currently it's possible for the awoxer to lose his ship at the hands of the people being awoxed. There is no guaranteed outcome, which renders your "equations" invalid because they assume an absolute..

The proposed changes give a guaranteed outcome, the aggressor is going to lose their ship, not at the hands of the corp being awoxed, but at the hands of an infallible, omnipotent NPC that they can't escape from.

When Concord are involved in PvP it becomes a suicide gank, the outcome is guaranteed ship loss.

OI! Stop ignoring my posts and learn CONCORD mechanics.

You cannot "deal" with CONCORD. CONCORD are literally omnipotent space gods who immediately disable your warp drive when you illegally aggress someone and a maximum of 25 seconds later apply infinite strength ECM, disable drone control, completely neut you out and incidentally (this is the least important aspect) kill you with no chance of escape.

The difference is not that the ganker loses a ship, it's that he loses his ship for NOTHING.

Don't fix it because to fix it we'd have to fix the game. What the christ.

No, we aren't. Read the title of this thread. We're talking about awoxing, not hisec. If you want to lament the advantages of hisec, go make another thread.

Removing the ability to engage in any direct PVP element without losing a ship does not directly hurt new players. Indirectly it limits the play options new players have to experiment with shooting at each other.

In my opinion that will; make new players feel artificially safe in high security space making other potential loses seem more grievous and make the transition from high security space to low security space harder as newer players become less familiar with different PVP mechanics

Stopping lecherous players joining a group of new players and destroying every asset they have built up over three months of game play is a good thing. Things of think may do the job better:

Give a corp CEO the ability to "authorize" interpilot engagement and "restrict" interpilot engagment

Hopefully this is not carried into the "doxxing someone is PvP" realm of thought.

But if you mean "is calling for the elimination of someone's playstyle PvP"? Then I would say no. That's the act of a spineless coward who can't back up what they want to do in game, so they'd rather run to Mommy instead.

As for mocking those people, I would say that is warranted. Anyone who would call for the outright elimination of the way someone else plays a videogame is not someone I would want to associate with. Social pressure is how you exert such an activity.

That's why I have no problem with someone who has a bad attitude quitting EVE. Because I try to cultivate the EVE that I would want to play, and that includes the people in it. If your behavior would get kicked out of Board Game Night at my house, then you get written off in this social setting too. And if someone tries to tell me "You can't play class X in Talisman, because I don't like them!" then not only do I kick them, I do so after telling them that I think they're a petty, fascist douchebag to boot.

If you'd actually bothered to read the thread instead of just sperging, you'd realise that the opposition to this proposed change comes from players across the spectrum, not just PvPers.

Kindly keep your misinformed generalisations to yourself, and try to add something constructive to the thread next time you decide to post.

On a side note; newbie and noob are not interchangeable, Ctrl+Alt+Delete covers this nicely. When you call a newbie a noob you insult them.

TBH I hope that Star Citizen isn't just vapourware. The sooner it comes out of beta the sooner we can get shot of people like that, they're closed-minded and poisonous.

Good thing then that targeting new players gets you banned.

Now who's posting about something that hasn't been said?

Nobody is denying that newbies are essential for Eve, and nobody has said that specifically targeting newbies is beneficial for the game.

What is beneficial to the game is newbies realising that Eve is a dog eat dog game, and not some namby-pamby fluffy la-la land like a lot of others. Sometimes it's necessary to show them that at the end of a gun, especially if their corp leadership are imbeciles.

A genuine newbie will often get help and isk from the person who killed them if they ask "how, why and what can I do to stop it happening again", newbies like that are priceless and will often stick around for years.

Bollocks, if you knew anything at all you'd know that awoxers will go after anybody who is naive or dumb enough to recruit them, which aren't traits that are exclusive to newbies. You've been playing nearly a year according to your profile, and living proof of that.

Now begone troll, get back under your bridge, I'll send you a couple of goats later.

I'm still waiting for you to respond to "Please point out in the post you've quoted where I'm arguing about something that was not said" BTW. I doubt you ever will because your statement was false, and you know it.

My old corp got awoxed the day after I left. The only ship that died was an Orca belonging to guy who has been playing for about five years. At the time, I had been playing for about three months. I loaded up a t1 logi cruiser and repped some former corp mates when they lured him into running some missions with them and killed him.

It's a shame people pick on new players, right?

For the record, I hate the idea of removing the ability to shoot corp mates specifically because that story would have never happened if awoxing didn't exist. That story is why I bought my second subscription.

Which part of I am primarily a highsec PvE player did you not understand, I've never awoxed anybody, and I'm unlikely to.

Correct, and that swings both ways.

What game experience did you have? Or are you talking crap again?

Pot meet kettle

Still waiting.

That story would have never happened if CONCORD showed up, so it follows that something will be removed.

Please explain how the esteemed Ned Thomas' story would have been the same if CONCORD had shown up.

Here's another one. Don't bother reading Lucas, it has paragraphs.

We arranged an inter-corp tourney (frigs) and I accidentally started shooting before the countdown had expired. Popped someone early, said sorry, he didn't respond and flounced off. He came back in a BC, and without saying anything killed everyone, then podded a couple of people and legged it. This was a 5 year old player who did a lot of solo (who nobody particularly liked) while the majority of us were genuine rookies.

A few of us followed him upto a local hub and tried to smack him out, so he demanded 1v1s. We all hopped in our missions ships (bahaha) and he killed us one at a time. He convoed me, told us where we'd gone wrong in the fights and by that point most of us were laughing over it. He tried to make out he had a highgrade set in and thought we were going after his pod, but tbh he was just a prat.

Anyway, those who had lost implants were quite riled over it, so they went to the CEO (who was useless) and asked for the guy to be removed from corp. He refused, because the guy was a friend. So we packed up and joined a better corp. Most of the people involved still play, and we still snigger about that incident, whereas the original corp folded and a lot of the players quit early on. The only person who mentioned quitting over it was someone who had lost +4s so we clubbed together and bought him a new set. Hello new spacefriend.

The point I'm trying to illustrate there is that whilst stuff can happen that puts new players off - if they have the right attitude, and the people around them support them, they'll get over it and learn from the experience. If they don't have the capacity to adapt they're effectively just a ragequitter waiting to happen. Also, terrible corps with bad CEOs always find a way to annoy their members; it takes time to find the right one, but once you do, you're set. The reason older players treat ragequitters and NPC corp residents with such disdain is over their attitude. We can't pick everyone up and dust them off when they're mancrying over pixels, they have to learn to do it themselves.

Would you call them a noob?


So the 5 year Orca pilot that got awoxed wasn't in the corp? How'd he get awoxed then?


That, at least, is true.

Lets be honest. CCP with the aid of carebear pansies in the CSM are turning hisec into a consensual-only Disneyland for WoW-rejects, in the pursuit of more subs, with non-consensual gameplay mechanics that used to be EvE's defining aspect sacrificed on said altar.

They move slowly, iteratively, with continual paper cuts like the one Mike is trying to defend now, on the basis of 'player retention', when more compelling tutorials might simply be the better answer, rather than actual mechanics nerf to content creation and non-consensual play.

Give them time though, just like Ripard Teg before him, this next generation of CSM in the form of Mike will do their paper-cut damage to the sandbox, and then one day hand the baton to the next goddamned carebear to trained-seal handclap when CCP decides to make wardecs consensual only, or perhaps years from now when no more hisec vet content creators remain, trot out yet again the 'we need to make ganking harder/more expensive/impossible' because it is costing us subs...

Sounds reasonable right? We all want MOAR SUBS right?

All of this has happened before, it will happen again.

The CSM is an abomination, rendered so by people like Mike, who do not serve there role as protectors of the sandbox, but who instead give CCP the cover they seek to slit their own throats, and destroy what content creators hold dear.

I am sick of it.

F