EVE Search - The end of Corpmate Awoxxing?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

The end of Corpmate Awoxxing?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 33 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 206	Posted - 2014.10.30 03:26:31 - [1] - Quote Looking through the new CSM minutes on p.78, at http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/csm/CSM9Summer_Minutes_2014.pdf There seems to be a strong suggestion that you will soon no longer be able to "legally" shoot corpmates, and the implication seems to be that shooting corpmates will be a criminal act in highsec that will be met with CONCORD retribution. I guess this is the natural mechanic fix now that dueling is an option. I would tend to support this change, but not being very involved in the corporation scene, wanted to see how others felt about the idea. Would ending the ability to shoot corpmates help or harm the game, in your view?
Persifonne The Scope Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2014.10.30 03:29:00 - [2] - Quote THIS WILL DESTORY EVE.. AS WE KNOW IT. Terrible
Xuixien The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People 1874	Posted - 2014.10.30 03:30:53 - [3] - Quote Yay another buff to HiSec!!!! [u]Epic Space Cat[/u]
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2411	Posted - 2014.10.30 03:31:35 - [4] - Quote If you attack someone in hisec w/o a wardec or duel, expect to lose your ship. Simple. There's no real reason for the corp concord loophole to exist save giving the risk averse easy pew.
Persifonne The Scope Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2014.10.30 03:33:43 - [5] - Quote When will hisec become pvp free (except for duels and wardecs). Anyone activating weapons on player ship that you arent wardecced to, isnt flashy red or in a duel with will get concorded. Only pvp in lowsec null and wh. This day is coming. It is closer than we think.
Xuixien The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People 1874	Posted - 2014.10.30 03:35:22 - [6] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: If you attack someone in hisec w/o a wardec or duel, expect to lose your ship. Simple. There's no real reason for the corp concord loophole to exist save giving the risk averse easy pew. Why, because you say so? Now we enter another idiotic debate where you say it's risk-free PvP, and in comes people with actual experience to tell you it's not, and you deny facts, logic, and reason and kiss CCP's butt because you want to be safer in HiSec. [u]Epic Space Cat[/u]
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2411	Posted - 2014.10.30 03:35:55 - [7] - Quote Grow a pair and shoot whoever you want to shoot. Suicide gank them. War dec them. Duel them.
Xuixien The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People 1874	Posted - 2014.10.30 03:36:33 - [8] - Quote Persifonne wrote: When will hisec become pvp free (except for duels and wardecs). Anyone activating weapons on player ship that you arent wardecced to, isnt flashy red or in a duel with will get concorded. Only pvp in lowsec null and wh. This day is coming. It is closer than we think. I'm ready to unsub my accounts basically any time at this point. No point in staying subbed... once EVE goes themepark it'll go the way of all the other themepark MMOs. In it's place some other small, niche, dark game will pop up to satisfy people who actually enjoy hard games without having their hands held. [u]Epic Space Cat[/u]
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2411	Posted - 2014.10.30 03:36:44 - [9] - Quote Xuixien wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: If you attack someone in hisec w/o a wardec or duel, expect to lose your ship. Simple. There's no real reason for the corp concord loophole to exist save giving the risk averse easy pew. Why, because you say so? Now we enter another idiotic debate where you say it's risk-free PvP, and in comes people with actual experience to tell you it's not, and you deny facts, logic, and reason and kiss CCP's butt because you want to be safer in HiSec. Don't need to debate anyone, the issue's already resolved as per the minutes.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 206	Posted - 2014.10.30 03:37:16 - [10] - Quote Personally I think awoxxing never made much sense. How does it really benefit the game?

Xuixien The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People 1874	Posted - 2014.10.30 03:37:20 - [11] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Grow a pair And here we have a case of takes internet gaming too seriously. [u]Epic Space Cat[/u]
Xuixien The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People 1874	Posted - 2014.10.30 03:38:07 - [12] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Xuixien wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: If you attack someone in hisec w/o a wardec or duel, expect to lose your ship. Simple. There's no real reason for the corp concord loophole to exist save giving the risk averse easy pew. Why, because you say so? Now we enter another idiotic debate where you say it's risk-free PvP, and in comes people with actual experience to tell you it's not, and you deny facts, logic, and reason and kiss CCP's butt because you want to be safer in HiSec. Don't need to debate anyone, the issue's already resolved as per the minutes. Well it's good to know you can just appeal to authority instead of defending the views you present. Other people did the work for you. They... ...held your hand. [u]Epic Space Cat[/u]
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2411	Posted - 2014.10.30 03:39:15 - [13] - Quote Xuixien wrote: Persifonne wrote: When will hisec become pvp free (except for duels and wardecs). Anyone activating weapons on player ship that you arent wardecced to, isnt flashy red or in a duel with will get concorded. Only pvp in lowsec null and wh. This day is coming. It is closer than we think. I'm ready to unsub my accounts basically any time at this point. No point in staying subbed... once EVE goes themepark it'll go the way of all the other themepark MMOs. In it's place some other small, niche, dark game will pop up to satisfy people who actually enjoy hard games without having their hands held. Cool, adapt or leave. If you leave, send your stuff my way please.
Xuixien The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People 1874	Posted - 2014.10.30 03:42:20 - [14] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Xuixien wrote: Persifonne wrote: When will hisec become pvp free (except for duels and wardecs). Anyone activating weapons on player ship that you arent wardecced to, isnt flashy red or in a duel with will get concorded. Only pvp in lowsec null and wh. This day is coming. It is closer than we think. I'm ready to unsub my accounts basically any time at this point. No point in staying subbed... once EVE goes themepark it'll go the way of all the other themepark MMOs. In it's place some other small, niche, dark game will pop up to satisfy people who actually enjoy hard games without having their hands held. Cool, adapt or leave. If you leave, send your stuff my way please. Yes, just mindlessly parrot lines we saw other people post on the forums. Again, letting other people do the work for you again I see. Since you have nothing constructive to add to the discussion and just want to hide behind CCP's skirt (which is ironic because you said "grow a pair") I'm just going to hide your posts. Bye bye. [u]Epic Space Cat[/u]
Anthar Peva Hedion University Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2014.10.30 03:45:20 - [15] - Quote Persifonne wrote: When will hisec become pvp free (except for duels and wardecs). Anyone activating weapons on player ship that you arent wardecced to, isnt flashy red or in a duel with will get concorded. Only pvp in lowsec null and wh. This day is coming. It is closer than we think. 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) Veers Belvar wrote: Personally I think awoxxing never made much sense. How does it really benefit the game? 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)
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2411	Posted - 2014.10.30 03:46:36 - [16] - Quote Xuixien wrote: (which is ironic because you said "grow a pair") I'm just going to hide your posts. Bye bye. Irony at it's finest.
Xuixien The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People 1874	Posted - 2014.10.30 03:47:30 - [17] - Quote Anthar Peva wrote: Persifonne wrote: When will hisec become pvp free (except for duels and wardecs). Anyone activating weapons on player ship that you arent wardecced to, isnt flashy red or in a duel with will get concorded. Only pvp in lowsec null and wh. This day is coming. It is closer than we think. 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) Veers Belvar wrote: Personally I think awoxxing never made much sense. How does it really benefit the game? 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) Less ships blowing up = good for the EVE economy, I hear. Gotta get those carebear subs! [u]Epic Space Cat[/u]
Persifonne The Scope Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2014.10.30 03:48:12 - [18] - Quote CCP says its cuz players hide in ncp corps[ie their stats on player retention for npc corps == ccps money lost] to avoid safaris. No ccp its cuz of wardecs. Thats why in npc corps. So remove wardecs!!
Xuixien The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People 1874	Posted - 2014.10.30 03:51:14 - [19] - Quote Persifonne wrote: CCP says its cuz players hide in ncp corps[ie their stats on player retention for npc corps == ccps money lost] to avoid safaris. No ccp its cuz of wardecs. Thats why in npc corps. So remove wardecs!! lol Nobody sits in NPC corps to avoid safaris. Safaris are one of those things where it's entirely in the players' hands - to run background checks (of which they have numerous tool), to have security (again, numerous tools). CCP is basically stepping in and saying "We must hold the hand of hiseccers to keep those mission runners who pay subs safe. Even though they usually unsub in less than a year." [u]Epic Space Cat[/u]
Persifonne The Scope Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2014.10.30 03:52:41 - [20] - Quote Xuixien wrote: Persifonne wrote: CCP says its cuz players hide in ncp corps[ie their stats on player retention for npc corps == ccps money lost] to avoid safaris. No ccp its cuz of wardecs. Thats why in npc corps. So remove wardecs!! lol Nobody sits in NPC corps to avoid safaris. Safaris are one of those things where it's entirely in the players' hands - to run background checks (of which they have numerous tool), to have security (again, numerous tools). CCP is basically stepping in and saying "We must hold the hand of hiseccers to keep those mission runners who pay subs safe. Even though they usually unsub in less than a year." Read the mins. Ccp is saying thats why people stay in npc corps. Its wardecs so ccp gonna nerf that again?

Xuixien The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People 1874	Posted - 2014.10.30 03:53:49 - [21] - Quote Persifonne wrote: Xuixien wrote: Persifonne wrote: CCP says its cuz players hide in ncp corps[ie their stats on player retention for npc corps == ccps money lost] to avoid safaris. No ccp its cuz of wardecs. Thats why in npc corps. So remove wardecs!! lol Nobody sits in NPC corps to avoid safaris. Safaris are one of those things where it's entirely in the players' hands - to run background checks (of which they have numerous tool), to have security (again, numerous tools). CCP is basically stepping in and saying "We must hold the hand of hiseccers to keep those mission runners who pay subs safe. Even though they usually unsub in less than a year." Read the mins. Ccp is saying thats why people stay in npc corps. Its wardecs so ccp gonna nerf that again? I know and I'm laughing at how woefully wrong CCP is. [u]Epic Space Cat[/u]
ll Kuray ll The Scope Gallente Federation 7	Posted - 2014.10.30 03:56:41 - [22] - Quote Awoxing and ganking are two things that should be tackled at the same time. Recruiting is a pain in the ass and if you want to build something from scratch finding people to go along with you and not stab you in the back is tough and no sophisticated API checking system will unveil that. Ganking for me is becoming an ever increasing issue, and good luck to anyone who tries to find a balance between the needs of those that: Pay with real money and want to be in their own "leave me alone" world [IMPORTANT!] Pay with real money and want to be in the "dark world [IMPORTANT! Make enough in game ISK to sub their accounts and want to be in their own "leave me alone" world Make enough in game ISK to sub their accounts and want to be in the 'dark' world I think you take on a different perspective if you pay with real money to play the game.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8794	Posted - 2014.10.30 04:02:41 - [23] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Personally I think awoxxing never made much sense. How does it really benefit the game? Ships blowing up always benifit the game. People produce ships, if ships didn't explode nothing any of us do in EVE would worth anything. Awoxxing (like all such interactions) teaches players to be aware, to be concerned about who they trust. This is good because being able to trust everyone simply because you're in high sec and in the same corp is boring. Their is this tendency among some to wish for peace and comfort only to find that those things get boring after a while. It's conflict and danger that is interesting. This is why people leave EVE for 'safer' games only to come back when they realise that games without risk and danger is about as fun as riding a roller coaster that doesn't exceed 5 miles per hour. This is why every epic, every good movie, every good book, every good game is about conflict. It's why real life news media types live by the rule of "if it bleeds it leads". These moves to make EVE safer are actually moves to make EVE a worse game.
Doc J Assisted Homicide 9	Posted - 2014.10.30 04:07:29 - [24] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Personally I think awoxxing never made much sense. How does it really benefit the game? Ships blowing up always benifit the game. People produce ships, if ships didn't explode nothing any of us do in EVE would worth anything. Awoxxing (like all such interactions) teaches players to be aware, to be concerned about who they trust. This is good because being able to trust everyone simply because you're in high sec and in the same corp is boring. Their is this tendency among some to wish for peace and comfort only to find that those things get boring after a while. It's conflict and danger that is interesting. This is why people leave EVE for 'safer' games only to come back when they realise that games without risk and danger is about as fun as riding a roller coaster that doesn't exceed 5 miles per hour. This is why every epic, every good movie, every good book, every good game is about conflict. It's why real life news media types live by the rule of "if it bleeds it leads". These moves to make EVE safer are actually moves to make EVE a worse game. People have the right to play the game in the safe manner they wish or in the conflict/dangerous way. You shouldn't be wanting to impose your belief of "conflict makes the game interesting" on people who say for instance-pay to play the game the way they wish which might actually be in the comfort zone.
Doc J Assisted Homicide 9	Posted - 2014.10.30 04:08:58 - [25] - Quote ll Kuray ll wrote: Awoxing and ganking are two things that should be tackled at the same time. Recruiting is a pain in the ass and if you want to build something from scratch finding people to go along with you and not stab you in the back is tough and no sophisticated API checking system will unveil that. Ganking for me is becoming an ever increasing issue, and good luck to anyone who tries to find a balance between the needs of those that: Pay with real money and want to be in their own "leave me alone" world [IMPORTANT!] Pay with real money and want to be in the "dark world [IMPORTANT! Make enough in game ISK to sub their accounts and want to be in their own "leave me alone" world Make enough in game ISK to sub their accounts and want to be in the 'dark' world I think you take on a different perspective if you pay with real money to play the game. Couldn't agree more with this.
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2411	Posted - 2014.10.30 04:13:44 - [26] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Ships blowing up always benifit the game. People produce ships, if ships didn't explode nothing any of us do in EVE would worth anything. And now the awoxxers have to lose a catalyst to concord once in a while. The sky is surely falling!
Remiel Pollard Layman's Terms. Don't Tell Me The Odds 5802	Posted - 2014.10.30 04:15:52 - [27] - Quote Doc J wrote: ...the comfort zone. The appeal of EVE to many of us was that there was supposed to be no comfort zone. Anyone that's looking for a comfort zone is playing the wrong game. Looking for comfort zones in EVE is like getting in a plane but never taking off. Unfortunately, it seems that won't be the case for much longer. It looks like a day is coming where EVE will only be EVE by name, but the game it is/was will no longer exist. EVE was originally created by people who didn't like the PVP restrictions in Ultima Online. Now they're going in a completely opposite direction, and handing it over to the same kinds of people who ruing Ultima. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Persifonne The Scope Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2014.10.30 04:17:00 - [28] - Quote Point is slippery slope we been going down. Wardecs are next. Once people still stay in npc corps after this change ccp will see its cuz wardecs and supanerf em. Heard here 1st
Nariya Kentaya Ministry of War Amarr Empire 1615	Posted - 2014.10.30 04:19:00 - [29] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Grow a pair and shoot whoever you want to shoot. Suicide gank them. War dec them. Duel them. wardec has not, will not, and cannot be made viable without CCP punishing "those poor carebears" theyre protecting with changes like this to start with, because anyone who doesnt want a wardec, simply drops corp, simple as that. and no one that has something you want will agree to duel you in what you want them to duel you with, youll only get duels if they have a cheap ship, pr a ship they KNOW cant lose to what you have, leaving the only way to take something from another player to be ganking, but with the way highsec works, most ships arent gankable with less than their value (especially battleships) in ganknados or catalysts, and the only way to hold somebody is by bumping (which is a **** mechanic). in short, all this does is buff the mission runners who dont want to EVER be exposed to the dangerous side of EVE, ever, and instead do nothing but inject ISK into the economy day in and day out devaluing all the work of every other player. either way, tried the elite dangerous beta, it was fun, the lack of a player centric market bothers me, huge turnoff, but if EVE keeps making these "improvements", i might just suck it up and move over, if im gonna be in a game that caters to carebears and risk-averse kiddies, id at least like the devs to man up and straight with it from the beginning. EVE hasnt been a "cold harsh universe" for the last 3 years.
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2411	Posted - 2014.10.30 04:21:44 - [30] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: Doc J wrote: ...the comfort zone. The appeal of EVE to many of us was that there was supposed to be no comfort zone. Anyone that's looking for a comfort zone is playing the wrong game. Looking for comfort zones in EVE is like getting in a plane but never taking off. Unfortunately, it seems that won't be the case for much longer. It looks like a day is coming where EVE will only be EVE by name, but the game it is/was will no longer exist. EVE was originally created by people who didn't like the PVP restrictions in Ultima Online. Now they're going in a completely opposite direction, and handing it over to the same kinds of people who ruing Ultima. Was awoxxing possible in ultima?

PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2411	Posted - 2014.10.30 04:33:38 - [31] - Quote Persifonne wrote: Point is slippery slope we been going down. Wardecs are next. Once people still stay in npc corps after this change ccp will see its cuz wardecs and supanerf em. Heard here 1st The slippery slope argument can be used for anything, making it rather worthless.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8795	Posted - 2014.10.30 04:33:58 - [32] - Quote Doc J wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Personally I think awoxxing never made much sense. How does it really benefit the game? Ships blowing up always benifit the game. People produce ships, if ships didn't explode nothing any of us do in EVE would worth anything. Awoxxing (like all such interactions) teaches players to be aware, to be concerned about who they trust. This is good because being able to trust everyone simply because you're in high sec and in the same corp is boring. Their is this tendency among some to wish for peace and comfort only to find that those things get boring after a while. It's conflict and danger that is interesting. This is why people leave EVE for 'safer' games only to come back when they realise that games without risk and danger is about as fun as riding a roller coaster that doesn't exceed 5 miles per hour. This is why every epic, every good movie, every good book, every good game is about conflict. It's why real life news media types live by the rule of "if it bleeds it leads". These moves to make EVE safer are actually moves to make EVE a worse game. People have the right to play the game in the safe manner they wish or in the conflict/dangerous way. You shouldn't be wanting to impose your belief of "conflict makes the game interesting" on people who say for instance-pay to play the game the way they wish which might actually be in the comfort zone. This is the worst possible thinking. In EVE, it doesn't matter what you WANT to do, it matters what you are strong/clever/ruthless enough to either get away with or make someone else do. I succeed in EVE as a pve player ebcause I've been smart enough (except for a few times) to outwit the 'bad guys'. I get to do what I want because I put some thoguht into my gameplay before undocking. My whole game is built around not letting other people decide for me what I will do. That's how the game has value, becuase of my efforts. But others seem to want the powers that be to delvier to them the same success that I only experienced through effort. This is annoying, because if you want success without working for it, why play a sandbox game? Why play a harsh, cold game if you want comfort? Why are these 'comfort seekers' not playing a themepark MMO that is built on the philosophy of giving comfort? Can we not have ONE game in the MMO genre that treats it's players like adults who can think for themselves rather than kids who need protecting? EVE was that one game when I started playing in 2007 (before all this safe BS), but it seems that with every passing year CCP is mroe determined to turn it ito the same mushy nothingness most MMOs are.
Valkin Mordirc 381	Posted - 2014.10.30 04:36:37 - [33] - Quote If they take out corp aggression, how would a corp provide logi when they are at war? Or when they need to repair a pos? Or Test a fit out? Sure you can duel, but a POS isnt going to aspect a duel request, Regardless of that if AWOXing goes, I really don't like the idea of it going, I've awoxed once, and sure it was interesting, but it wasn't my thing, but I think it provides a nice bit of player made creation. It nice to have conflict with players in this game. It's apart of the meta. `#DeleteTheWeak`
Persifonne The Scope Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2014.10.30 04:53:11 - [34] - Quote And didnt corp kick que tske care of this enough??
Mike Azariah DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited 1750	Posted - 2014.10.30 05:04:34 - [35] - Quote Xuixien wrote: Yay another buff to HiSec!!!! And people said a single hisec rep[ would be useless and have no influence bwa ha haaaaaa m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
Valkin Mordirc 382	Posted - 2014.10.30 05:55:42 - [36] - Quote Also I know it was a sarcastic comment, But this isnt a buff to highsec, It's a nerf to the Villain "Meta", which in turn affects the Highsec PVE'ers. The CSM's and CCP should not be removing content, but balancing out, and add new content. For the most part, If I wanted to AWOX I should be able to, it been apart of the game for so long, I can't see why they are taking it away now. EVE doesn't (IMO) to have awoxing taken away. If you want to make Highsec a better place, add something to it. Don't take it away from the people, just so the little lonely types that want to be secluded in there fantasy isk runs. Those people don't last long in EVE. EVE is about the connection with people you CAN trust. And when you make that connection with somebody, it important because they CAN **** you over, and when they don't it, it makes the game WAY better. `#DeleteTheWeak`
Abraham Nalelmir THE INQUISITI0N 42	Posted - 2014.10.30 06:39:15 - [37] - Quote I see it as EVE is under a big nerfing campaign, because it has been around since 10 years, all mechanics have been known and used/exploited, many vets have left the game after "finishing the game", nullsec is at a boring sucks stale status... It is time to give people "new" EVE that is not like how it was before, and I think the intended audience are the people who are considered carebears/noobs/whatever bad names we have on those guys... because those guys are paying customers as well and they are majority in the game... and they need to get in deeper in the game and it's mechanics... Of course the older players won't just let those new guys do it because "they need to play as the elders want"... so I think that's a normal act from CCP to do it, even if they did not mean it... It is like, ok old generation, your time is up, thanks a lot for being part of this game's history, and for all your awesome work you've done, but it is time you let the new younger generation take the initiative in a new looking game with new mechanics and rules. That's what I saw happened in wormholes, and what will happen in nullsec soon and what might happen in highsec as well. So either the elders adapt to live under the new rule of the young, or they just get an honorable goodbye party and finally retire. Again it is how I read this. In Go.. ECM I trust
Crumplecorn Eve Cluster Explorations 1584	Posted - 2014.10.30 06:44:15 - [38] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Doc J wrote: People have the right to play the game in the safe manner they wish or in the conflict/dangerous way. You shouldn't be wanting to impose your belief of "conflict makes the game interesting" on people who say for instance-pay to play the game the way they wish which might actually be in the comfort zone. This is the worst possible thinking. In EVE, it doesn't matter what you WANT to do I'd actually replace 'EVE' with 'any game'. In 'any game', if you start playing and find the rules aren't to your liking, then you can **** right back off on whatever comfort zone you rode in on. Witty Image - Stream Not Liking this post hurts my RL feelings and will be considered harassment
Arronicus Bitter Lemons Brothers of Tangra 1206	Posted - 2014.10.30 06:47:58 - [39] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Xuixien wrote: Yay another buff to HiSec!!!! And people said a single hisec rep[ would be useless and have no influence bwa ha haaaaaa m Where is DJ from? The guy who was throwing all he had at stopping the change. Out of curiousity
lord xavier Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel 53	Posted - 2014.10.30 07:34:26 - [40] - Quote Doc J wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Personally I think awoxxing never made much sense. How does it really benefit the game? Ships blowing up always benifit the game. People produce ships, if ships didn't explode nothing any of us do in EVE would worth anything. Awoxxing (like all such interactions) teaches players to be aware, to be concerned about who they trust. This is good because being able to trust everyone simply because you're in high sec and in the same corp is boring. Their is this tendency among some to wish for peace and comfort only to find that those things get boring after a while. It's conflict and danger that is interesting. This is why people leave EVE for 'safer' games only to come back when they realise that games without risk and danger is about as fun as riding a roller coaster that doesn't exceed 5 miles per hour. This is why every epic, every good movie, every good book, every good game is about conflict. It's why real life news media types live by the rule of "if it bleeds it leads". These moves to make EVE safer are actually moves to make EVE a worse game. People have the right to play the game in the safe manner they wish or in the conflict/dangerous way. You shouldn't be wanting to impose your belief of "conflict makes the game interesting" on people who say for instance-pay to play the game the way they wish which might actually be in the comfort zone. This game makes it way to easy to play it safely. The problem isn't the safety not being there. The problem is that players want it to be really easy, as in they don't have to be aware of what is going on. Like the charons and orca's that sit going 0 m/s on a belt in a 0.5/0.6 system with a lowsec gate. Then dont have an evac plan for when you get the 20+ criminal notifications in the middle of your screen. That is just idiocy. That has nothing to do with the fact it is really safe to actually live in high sec. You just have to not be ****** and know how to actually keep yourself safe. Nothing in eve is handed to us. Some areas are just less safe and require you to pay more attention than others. It is absolutely absurd if you think that there should be a completely, 100% safe zone in this type of a game that allows complete player control. Player controlled markets, player controlled minerals, player controlled content. Now we are starting to cater to the needs of the people who want to play a Single-Player-Online-Role-Playing-Game? What? Are you attempting to ** on me right now? If you want a completely safe game where another player cannot come ruin your game I suggest finding a game that is not an MMO and meant to be played with others for overall content.

Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1631	Posted - 2014.10.30 07:35:23 - [41] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Ships blowing up always benifit the game. People produce ships, if ships didn't explode nothing any of us do in EVE would worth anything. Awoxxing (like all such interactions) teaches players to be aware, to be concerned about who they trust. This is good because being able to trust everyone simply because you're in high sec and in the same corp is boring. Their is this tendency among some to wish for peace and comfort only to find that those things get boring after a while. It's conflict and danger that is interesting. This is why people leave EVE for 'safer' games only to come back when they realise that games without risk and danger is about as fun as riding a roller coaster that doesn't exceed 5 miles per hour. This is why every epic, every good movie, every good book, every good game is about conflict. It's why real life news media types live by the rule of "if it bleeds it leads". These moves to make EVE safer are actually moves to make EVE a worse game. So obviously suicide ganking is a much better alternative than ganking then because even more ships blow up! You bring forward a terrible mechanic. As Falcon (or was it Fozzie) said, if ships blowing up was good, then a 10% chance of blowing up every time you jump a gate would be a good mechanic. It's not just about ships blowing up, it's about HOW ships blow up. Learn to be inventive with your spying and awoxing. Learn to do it by sucking them into low sec, into duels for 'fit testing'. Adapt. Don't just sit there and cry because CCP are removing an easy mode for you. And awoxing is Easy Mode. No API check will catch a grown from scratch Alt. Removing a terrible inconsistency from the rules of PvP is a good thing, as it allows CCP to increase the difficulty in evading war decs in return, as well as other ways to encourage meaningful PvP where both sides have fun.
lord xavier Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel 53	Posted - 2014.10.30 07:36:42 - [42] - Quote Oh, and lul no this wont stop AWOXing. It also wont stop people joining to completely rob the corps. Though not sure why anyone would try to rob a highsec dweller corp. They are all poor as hell anyways.
Cecil Montague PCG Enterprises 49	Posted - 2014.10.30 07:45:00 - [43] - Quote It's kinda hard to run background checks to avoid Awoxing when you're part of a corp dedicated to accepting and training new players in order to help them stick with the game. "There is no such thing as an effective segment of Totality" - Bruce Lee: The only man with a Chuck Norris killmail.
Doc J Assisted Homicide 10	Posted - 2014.10.30 08:49:25 - [44] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: The appeal of EVE to many of us was that there was supposed to be no comfort zone. Anyone that's looking for a comfort zone is playing the wrong game. I get that apart from the bit about playing the wrong game. Who are you to tell someone they are playing the wrong game? You can tell me how I can play when you pay for my subscription. Quote: Looking for comfort zones in EVE is like getting in a plane but never taking off. Unfortunately, it seems that won't be the case for much longer. It looks like a day is coming where EVE will only be EVE by name, but the game it is/was will no longer exist. Not true by a long stretch of the imagination. I think you are being pretty ignorant to the great work CCP have done to ensure game play remains open. Quote: EVE was originally created by people who didn't like the PVP restrictions in Ultima Online. Now they're going in a completely opposite direction, and handing it over to the same kinds of people who ruined Ultima. Not really, they're just opening the idea of allowing people and corporations to protect themselves. Awoxing isn't PVP, just like suicide ganking, it's about tears.
Valkin Mordirc 383	Posted - 2014.10.30 09:02:10 - [45] - Quote Quote: I get that apart from the bit about playing the wrong game. Who are you to tell someone they are playing the wrong game? You can tell me how I can play when you pay for my subscription. Because you whine about parts of the game, that most people understand and feel perfectly okay with. No one likes a whiner. Quote: Not true by a long stretch of the imagination. I think you are being pretty ignorant to the great work CCP have done to ensure game play remains open. No he's not. EVE is a game of villenary and conflict. IF they take away Awoxing, they remove a intergial part of the game, a part that encourages caution, and helps develop real trust in a video game. Many people in my corp could F* me over, but they don't, and that makes a bond that KEEPS people in the game, far longer than a solo mission runner afraid that he might lose his Billion isk Navy Raven. CCP even has a song, HTFU, What does that tell you about how they feel about the subject? EVE is MEANT to be a game where you can be the bad guy. It encourages it. Taking this away is an active attempt to change that. If the Trend keeps going, theres no point for EVE to call itself a 'dark' mmo. Quote: Not really, they're just opening the idea of allowing people and corporations to protect themselves. Awoxing isn't PVP, just like suicide ganking, it's about tears. No. Tears are a by-product. Awoxing some corp, is about an expensive killmail, good loot, and maybe a ransom and hence a good payday. Some, not many, but some, people make Isk BY Awoxing. Awoxing is totally Pvp as well, Its more PVP then just a random lowsec fight. It's a mindgame, you pitting yourself against a larger force than you, with what is probably a less than 5-mil alt. And totally wrecking. Suicide ganking is also, the same. Tears are a by-product. You can make a fortune burning a freighter and getting a good drop. So Sorry. But this is suppose to be a game with assholes, and people who ** you off. If you don't like that, than HTFU, `#DeleteTheWeak`
Persifonne The Scope Gallente Federation 4	Posted - 2014.10.30 09:09:59 - [46] - Quote lord xavier wrote: Oh, and lul no this wont stop AWOXing. It also wont stop people joining to completely rob the corps. Though not sure why anyone would try to rob a highsec dweller corp. They are all poor as hell anyways. It will now take long time to get director roles to loot cuz thats only way to awox now. Almost 1 Billion isk for a Plex Gonna need to STEAL BILLIONS ANS BILLIONS ANS more BILLIONS to make awox even worthwile and pay more than just mining dor that time period. Think bout it
Doc J Assisted Homicide 10	Posted - 2014.10.30 10:04:21 - [47] - Quote Valkin Mordirc wrote: Quote: I get that apart from the bit about playing the wrong game. Who are you to tell someone they are playing the wrong game? You can tell me how I can play when you pay for my subscription. Because you whine about parts of the game, that most people understand and feel perfectly okay with. No one likes a whiner. Quote: Not true by a long stretch of the imagination. I think you are being pretty ignorant to the great work CCP have done to ensure game play remains open. No he's not. EVE is a game of villenary and conflict. IF they take away Awoxing, they remove a intergial part of the game, a part that encourages caution, and helps develop real trust in a video game. Many people in my corp could F* me over, but they don't, and that makes a bond that KEEPS people in the game, far longer than a solo mission runner afraid that he might lose his Billion isk Navy Raven. CCP even has a song, HTFU, What does that tell you about how they feel about the subject? EVE is MEANT to be a game where you can be the bad guy. It encourages it. Taking this away is an active attempt to change that. If the Trend keeps going, theres no point for EVE to call itself a 'dark' mmo. Quote: Not really, they're just opening the idea of allowing people and corporations to protect themselves. Awoxing isn't PVP, just like suicide ganking, it's about tears. No. Tears are a by-product. Awoxing some corp, is about an expensive killmail, good loot, and maybe a ransom and hence a good payday. Some, not many, but some, people make Isk BY Awoxing. Awoxing is totally Pvp as well, Its more PVP then just a random lowsec fight. It's a mindgame, you pitting yourself against a larger force than you, with what is probably a less than 5-mil alt. And totally wrecking. Suicide ganking is also, the same. Tears are a by-product. You can make a fortune burning a freighter and getting a good drop. So Sorry. But this is suppose to be a game with assholes, and people who ** you off. If you don't like that, than HTFU, Good reply, Let me point out that just because someone doesn't have the same point of view as you they aren't whinging or has to HTFU. Eve is and always will be a "dark" MMO. The thing you are missing is consequence. The fundamentals of the game haven't changed but the consequences have. As the game has evolved so too have players but the the diminishing penalty of being the bad guy haven't, Its all about balance and as much as people say Eve is easy, the ease at which someone can be that bad guy through awox or suicide gank is totally unbalanced towards the bad guy.
Aqriue Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 700	Posted - 2014.10.30 10:06:06 - [48] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: And now the awoxxers have to lose a catalyst to concord once in a while. The sky is surely falling! Someone else gets it. One person screams that CCP is hold hands, another is pointing out that person's fallacies. Let's break it down. 1. High sec. No one is safe. 2. No PVP flag exists. CONCORD is a brake mechanism to prevent total chaos. War dec bypass that. 3. AWOX hide in high sec with the same protection as everyone else, but the is nothing in the entire game that says they get free kills via corporates they have infiltrated. Nothing...it's risk free PvP since CONCORD won't respond back. 4. ???? 5. Profit! Loopholes are closed, null and low have no restriction, high sec has CONCORD and gank prevention via consequences, nobody gets to spout who has the correct play style. There is still no PVP flag for immunity, just humility now that you lose ships just as the gank target. AWOX at best destroy the game because trust is more valuable than a plex, AWOX creates more paranoia than trust and they sure as hell do not lose that many ships compared to what they destroy...everybody is equal in that regard,
Bastion Arzi Mortis Angelus The Kadeshi 192	Posted - 2014.10.30 10:49:42 - [49] - Quote i support a concord response to awoxing.
Persifonne The Scope Gallente Federation 5	Posted - 2014.10.30 10:52:03 - [50] - Quote CCP STILL OBLIVIOUS TO FACT NEUTRAL LOGI R/R IS BIGGEST "GRIEF" FACTOR IN AWOX They got corp kick que. Just fix neut logi but giving corpmates a stupid engaugment timer. Then rr suspect fixed. While keeping corp violnce. Evrrybody wins yo

Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21296	Posted - 2014.10.30 11:06:37 - [51] - Quote Doc J wrote: People have the right to play the game in the safe manner they wish or in the conflict/dangerous way. You're correct, but it should be up to those who wish to play the game in the "safe manner" to protect themselves from those that wish to play in the "conflict/dangerous manner". Jenn plays the game in the "safe manner", as do I; both of us take precautions to ensure that we don't become victims of those who play in the "conflict/dangerous manner". Not getting ganked because you took measures to prevent it is as much PvP as ganking those who fail to take those measures. Quote: You can tell me how I can play when you pay for my subscription. That swings both ways my friend. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 88	Posted - 2014.10.30 11:16:24 - [52] - Quote Persifonne wrote: CCP STILL OBLIVIOUS TO FACT NEUTRAL LOGI R/R IS BIGGEST "GRIEF" FACTOR IN AWOX They got corp kick que. Just fix neut logi but giving corpmates a stupid engaugment timer. Then rr suspect fixed. While keeping corp violnce. Evrrybody wins yo Since Neutral Logi will be repaired: Also we will get bumping repaired! Nice! Forum Main
eliminator2 The Trolls from Tunttaras Bad-Intentions 17	Posted - 2014.10.30 11:18:54 - [53] - Quote in my eyes this kills most of eve i dont awox myself but to me it seems idiotic safe gaurding the missioners/miners in high-sec what next only pvp in low-sec on belts/planets?
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 88	Posted - 2014.10.30 11:21:26 - [54] - Quote Many tactics where cool and fun in the early years of EvE. Awoxing, spying, ganking... For more growth all things have to be reconsidered. Forum Main
Jean Luc Lemmont Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 145	Posted - 2014.10.30 11:21:44 - [55] - Quote This has the potential to be an even larger fiasco than Incarna. A bitter vet trying to start anew.
John Ratcliffe Sarumans Hand 278	Posted - 2014.10.30 11:27:29 - [56] - Quote Xuixien wrote: Persifonne wrote: When will hisec become pvp free (except for duels and wardecs). Anyone activating weapons on player ship that you arent wardecced to, isnt flashy red or in a duel with will get concorded. Only pvp in lowsec null and wh. This day is coming. It is closer than we think. I'm ready to unsub my accounts basically any time at this point. No point in staying subbed... once EVE goes themepark it'll go the way of all the other themepark MMOs. In it's place some other small, niche, dark game will pop up to satisfy people who actually enjoy hard games without having their hands held. There's a difference between facilitating enjoyable gameplay and allowing griefing pricks to be griefing pricks. P.S. Can I haz your stuffs? Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Doc J Assisted Homicide 10	Posted - 2014.10.30 11:27:54 - [57] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Doc J wrote: People have the right to play the game in the safe manner they wish or in the conflict/dangerous way. You're correct, but it should be up to those who wish to play the game in the "safe manner" to protect themselves from those that wish to play in the "conflict/dangerous manner". Jenn plays the game in the "safe manner", as do I; both of us take precautions to ensure that we don't become victims of those who play in the "conflict/dangerous manner". Not getting ganked because you took measures to prevent it is as much PvP as ganking those who fail to take those measures. Quote: You can tell me how I can play when you pay for my subscription. That swings both ways my friend. As I do, I play the game with a small group of people but on my own most of the time. That's how i safe gaurd myself from awoxers, This is completely against what Eve wants but I don't want my game being ruined by an *******. Curious, how do you safe guard yourself from lets says the idiotic ganking that is going on at the moment. The JF's, Freighters? There isn't anything. Now that the majority of the player base has ISK this is why I mention in a previous post, the consequence of engaging in a dark act has changed because it hasn't.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21296	Posted - 2014.10.30 11:44:16 - [58] - Quote Doc J wrote: Curious, how do you safe guard yourself from lets says the idiotic ganking that is going on at the moment. I don't fly freighters and JF's I use tanked T1 haulers and keep my cargo value below 3000isk/hp. If I have a valuable load to move I outsource the risk to Red Frog or PushX. I've got most of the known ganking groups set to show up in the overview as "evil bastages" via the standings mechanic, as well as being in some of their public chat channels for intel purposes. Most importantly I never use autopilot or go afk unless I'm cloaked or docked. TL;DR I make somebody else an easier/ more desirable target. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Remiel Pollard Layman's Terms. Don't Tell Me The Odds 5804	Posted - 2014.10.30 12:02:39 - [59] - Quote A lot of people seem to be forgetting here that awoxing works both ways - if you can awox a corp, they can fight back just as easily, if not more easily than if you were just ganking them or dueling one guy. As it is right now, a whole corp can gang up on you to take you down. Limit it to ganking/dueling and one guy at best is going to have that chance to beat you, at worst, no one at all. I can tell you now that if someone were to awox us, our first instinct wouldn't be to kick them, it would be to blow them up in the shiniest **** they have as much as possible and force them into quitting, and then continue blowing them up anyway. This move is pandering to the carebears, and as far as making things more welcoming to newbros, there's only so much cotton wool you can wrap them up in before they begin to expect it all the time. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Doc J Assisted Homicide 10	Posted - 2014.10.30 12:25:13 - [60] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Doc J wrote: Curious, how do you safe guard yourself from lets says the idiotic ganking that is going on at the moment. I don't fly freighters and JF's I use tanked T1 haulers and keep my cargo value below 3000isk/hp. If I have a valuable load to move I outsource the risk to Red Frog or PushX. I've got most of the known ganking groups set to show up in the overview as "evil bastages" via the standings mechanic, as well as being in some of their public chat channels for intel purposes. Most importantly I never use autopilot or go afk unless I'm cloaked or docked. TL;DR I make somebody else an easier/ more desirable target. But that still doesn't solve ganking. I think awoxing and ganking are two things which need to be looked at, like I keep talking about, the consequence of either act is now so minimal that it's a bit like the travel nerf "forcing people to consider their actions more closely".

Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21296	Posted - 2014.10.30 12:43:48 - [61] - Quote Doc J wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Doc J wrote: Curious, how do you safe guard yourself from lets says the idiotic ganking that is going on at the moment. I don't fly freighters and JF's I use tanked T1 haulers and keep my cargo value below 3000isk/hp. If I have a valuable load to move I outsource the risk to Red Frog or PushX. I've got most of the known ganking groups set to show up in the overview as "evil bastages" via the standings mechanic, as well as being in some of their public chat channels for intel purposes. Most importantly I never use autopilot or go afk unless I'm cloaked or docked. TL;DR I make somebody else an easier/ more desirable target. But that still doesn't solve ganking. Why does it need solving? It's relatively easy to avoid if you take steps to mitigate the risk of it happening, people who don't take steps choose to be easy targets, which is why they get ganked. Quote: I think awoxing and ganking are two things which need to be looked at, like I keep talking about, the consequence of either act is now so minimal that it's a bit like the travel nerf "forcing people to consider their actions more closely". This has been done to death, there's plenty of consequences to ganking. Gankers have adapted their gameplay to those consequences by using cheap ships, often en masse, and mostly using dedicated characters to carry out their dastardly business. If people wish to see more consequences for ganking then it is up to them to provide them, the mechanics are already there, it's just that most are too lazy to use them. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Haedonism Bot Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 1456	Posted - 2014.10.30 12:48:25 - [62] - Quote Replying to a Veers thread makes me feel sort of greasy, but since it's a discussion the community needs to have, here goes: I oppose this change. Corp infiltration is a key part of what makes EVE, EVE. This change, coupled with the corp kick queue effectively end AWOXing as a playstyle, and not just in highsec. Yes, players will still be able to perform corp thefts and spying, but going on a murderous rampage will no longer be possible in highsec, and will be restricted to a one-off attack followed by a speedy boot in all other zones. These are not broken mechanics - they are mechanics which a large portion of the player base enjoy, either directly as participants or vicariously reading stories about them on these forums and various third party sites. They are a long standing part of our shared culture. However- I can see the point that AWOXing is one of the factors which discourages joining player corps. I also agree that encouraging people to get out of NPC corps and interact meaningfully with other players is a worthwhile goal. If We are going to address the factors which keep people in NPC corps, I think that we would be remiss if we did not bring up the point of immunity to wardecs. People stay in NPC corps because as solo players they have no significant disadvantages from doing so and because they are averse to the risks of joining player corps. With these changes we have significantly reduced the level of risk. To balance that we should reduce the advantages of NPC corps. Done right, we could see a mass exodus into player corps, and all the potential content that would lead to. My suggestion- make faction militias the default NPC corps and limit time in starter "school" corps. That way, newbros would be channeled towards lowsec and chronic carebears would have to either join player corps or accept a more limited, more dangerous game. And wardeccers would experience a new golden age (reduce war fees too and we'll know you're still cool). CODE. is recruiting highsec PvPers for wardecs www.everevolutioanryfront.blogspot.com
Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10398	Posted - 2014.10.30 13:05:25 - [63] - Quote If such changes ever come to pass, I already know what I'll be playing instead of EVE Online. In the meantime though, reported for trolling, flame baiting, and rumor mongering. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8802	Posted - 2014.10.30 13:07:53 - [64] - Quote Crumplecorn wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Doc J wrote: People have the right to play the game in the safe manner they wish or in the conflict/dangerous way. You shouldn't be wanting to impose your belief of "conflict makes the game interesting" on people who say for instance-pay to play the game the way they wish which might actually be in the comfort zone. This is the worst possible thinking. In EVE, it doesn't matter what you WANT to do I'd actually replace 'EVE' with 'any game'. In 'any game', if you start playing and find the rules aren't to your liking, then you can **** right back off on whatever comfort zone you rode in on. The problem is that most companies are so money hungry that they just give customers what they say they want rather than a god product. CCP mostly resisted being this way till recently. Now we have safeties, CCP will get rid of high sec awoxing, and the game is getting new rigs purely aimed at helping miners not get bumped (which is stupid given that the only miners that can get bumped are the miners who alrady can't be arsed to be at the keyboard of use the 1000s of mods and tools the game already has). Meanwhile null keeps getting nerf (I'm still pissed at that ESS crap lol), wormholes get shafted and CCP displays the same kind of error filled thinking that created a lot of the mes sin the 1st place. It's almost as is they don't WANT us to ever want to (or be financially able to) leave high sec at all... I mean it's crazy, CCP is nerfing jump ranges to the point that B-R and Asakai battles will be much much less likly while at the same time nerfing people's abilty to be villains in a game that advertises villainy.. WTF is going on at CCP? Does their health insurance not cover testosterone injections? At the end of the day, none one of it's a big deal as it's a game and there are (and will be) other games to play, it's just sad to see a company I like be so ham-fisted with a game I enjoy. They should know from experience by now that making the game safer doesn't work (the carebears won't like it any more becuase they are carebears and thus don't like anything, and the hard core players will hate it because it caters to carebears). Making the game MORE violent and sneaky is what they shold be doing.
Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10398	Posted - 2014.10.30 13:08:38 - [65] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Was awoxxing possible in ultima? Yep. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8803	Posted - 2014.10.30 13:18:00 - [66] - Quote La Rynx wrote: Many tactics where cool and fun in the early years of EvE. Awoxing, spying, ganking... For more growth all things have to be reconsidered. Sure. However, where is the evidence form any sandbox game (let's not even limit this to EVE) that doing the things CCP is doing creates 'growth'? I'd feel different if anyone could point to a single instance of a niche IP going mainstream and the devloper making loads of cash. But I've never seen it. I've seen developers take a niche product/IP and try to "mainsteam" it to make more money only to realize that it's a niche IP for a reason. 14 years ago, FASA Interactive (then owned by microsoft, MS has since closed FASAi down) tried to do that with the Battletech/mechwarrior IP. The went away from making mech sims like mechwarrior 3 and made mechwarrior 4 an 'action game'. They succeeded in doing 2 things : Ticking off the core battletech fanbase while FAILING to draw in the casual FPS crowd they were looking for. Giant robots with weapons is a NICHE genre no matter how cool they are, any idiot could have seen that it would never appeal to the fast paced FPS types. This is a main reason why there is a 13 year gap between the launch of MW4 and the launch of the next MW title (Mechwarrior Online) The futuristic "demi-gods" in space thing EVE online does is and will always be a niche as well. CCP an't try to DUST/LEGION/PHOENIX it up all they want, they can add as many safe features to EVE Online proper as they want, it's still be niche. CCP's choices aren't "niche game income or mainstream game income", it's "niche game income or less income overall because your game will always be niche and never appeal to the mainstream unless you unicorn and ELF-atize it".
Ria Nieyli 21944	Posted - 2014.10.30 13:20:49 - [67] - Quote Xuixien wrote: Persifonne wrote: When will hisec become pvp free (except for duels and wardecs). Anyone activating weapons on player ship that you arent wardecced to, isnt flashy red or in a duel with will get concorded. Only pvp in lowsec null and wh. This day is coming. It is closer than we think. I'm ready to unsub my accounts basically any time at this point. No point in staying subbed... once EVE goes themepark it'll go the way of all the other themepark MMOs. In it's place some other small, niche, dark game will pop up to satisfy people who actually enjoy hard games without having their hands held. Highsec is only one part of the game, and you live in a wormhole. There's a clear disconnect in your reasoning as to EvE becoming a theme park. The majority of players don't really care about highsec either. Mirrored eyes
Krell Kroenen The Devil's Shadow 221	Posted - 2014.10.30 13:32:13 - [68] - Quote I will confess that I will miss sparing with corp mates on the fly. I know there is the duel system but it is messy and requires opening yourself up to outside corp duel request spam unless you keep going back and forth with your settings. In my history I can't recall any Highsec Awoxing happening in the corps I was in, thefts yes but not awoxers. Maybe we were just lucky and our vetting process weeded out such types. I just don't see this change making much of an impact of getting players out of NPC corps. The ones I know are there for the Wardec shelter that they offer. But over all this change is more annoying to me than harmful. It just adds more clicks to do what I used to do freely. But it does feel like another layer of useless bubble wrap is being added to help protect the less robust player. Or rather CCP is trying to blunt the tools used by some players to disrupt or harm other players. Making highsec a nicer, gentler place. Shrugs
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 1508	Posted - 2014.10.30 13:36:13 - [69] - Quote -1. Anything that decreases conflict & content generation bad, anything that increases it good. Also, what is this horesh1t from carebear champion Mike Asariah.... "Mike believes that a slightly larger non-harassment zone for new players might be a good idea." Uh, no Mike, its called f#cking hisec. And then this nugget... "Sugar pointed out that new player career agents are one jump outside of protected systems. This leads to people spam duel invites to new players or getting them to GÇÿhelpGÇÖ them with tank tests and such." Uh Sugar, why not just push for just a global block-duel request setting, or better education instead perhaps, rather than jumping on the nerf bandwagon? Guardians of the sandbox indeed. But then this glimmer of hope... "Ali adds that some people stay because they were ganked." Amen Ali. Amen. We must all fight against this constant slow-boiling of the frog on the road to nerfdom, and quite frankly stop electing carebears as guardians of the sandbox to the CSM. F Would you like to know more?
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8808	Posted - 2014.10.30 13:37:08 - [70] - Quote Krell Kroenen wrote: I will confess that I will miss sparing with corp mates on the fly. I know there is the duel system but it is messy and requires opening yourself up to outside corp duel request spam unless you keep going back and forth with your settings. In my history I can't recall any Highsec Awoxing happening in the corps I was in, thefts yes but not awoxers. Maybe we were just lucky and our vetting process weeded out such types. I just don't see this change making much of an impact of getting players out of NPC corps. The ones I know are there for the Wardec shelter that they offer. But over all this change is more annoying to me than harmful. It just adds more clicks to do what I used to do freely. But it does feel like another layer of useless bubble wrap is being added to help protect the less robust player. Or rather CCP is trying to blunt the tools used by some players to disrupt or harm other players. Making highsec a nicer, gentler place. Shrugs Very well said. I feel the same. These little changes are the death knell of EVE Online, they are to me just nudges in the wrong direction. I take pride in how I've been able to protect my high sec corp from the fuckery of awoxxing, now there will be nothing to take pride in, the ~~government~~ game will now just do our work for us. It's the wrong direction for us, the wrong direction for the game, the wrong direction for life as we know it! That's why I'm asking for your vote, lets go and take Washington back and...wait, what was I talking about again? Sorry, it's election season, I get confused

Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8808	Posted - 2014.10.30 13:39:23 - [71] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: -1. Anything that decreases conflict & content generation bad, anything that increases it good. You didn't say that loud enough, so I fixed. Quote: Also, what is this horesh1t from carebear champion Mike Asariah.... "Mike believes that a slightly larger non-harassment zone for new players might be a good idea." Uh, no Mike, it exists already, its called f#cking hisec. I don't think the guy is evil, I think it's incredibly misguided about what a 'game' is.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 206	Posted - 2014.10.30 13:48:27 - [72] - Quote There were 3 main reasons that have deterred me from joining Highsec corps - 1. Awoxxing 2. Wardeccs 3. Theft Even if CCP knocks off reason 1, I still think 2 and 3 are a pretty big deterrent to joining corps, and a good reason for many to stay in NPC/1 man corps.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 1511	Posted - 2014.10.30 13:55:19 - [73] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: There were 3 main reasons that have deterred me from joining Highsec corps - 1. Awoxxing 2. Wardeccs 3. Theft Even if CCP knocks off reason 1, I still think 2 and 3 are a pretty big deterrent to joining corps, and a good reason for many to stay in NPC/1 man corps. The answer then is to greatly increase taxes in NPC corps, for if people are going to get the benefits you mention by hiding out in NPC corps then there should be a much higher premium to get that. Also, wardecs should follow a player who leaves a player corp, for one week (or until wardec ends) when they leave corp and join another (or go to an NPC corp). The existing exploit of ducking wardecs must be closed. IF wardec mechanics are to exist, they should be meaningful. F Would you like to know more?
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8809	Posted - 2014.10.30 13:57:02 - [74] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: There were 3 main reasons that have deterred me from joining Highsec corps - 1. Awoxxing 2. Wardeccs 3. Theft Even if CCP knocks off reason 1, I still think 2 and 3 are a pretty big deterrent to joining corps, and a good reason for many to stay in NPC/1 man corps. OR people could figure out ways of doing things in a video game despite those things. This is where EVE is going wrong, it's no longer saying "well, figure it out" (unless you are a null sec logistics director lol), the game is slowly starting to say "we'll fix that for you so you don't have to strain a brain cell". You combat awoxxing by having 1 set of ships/fits for solo pve and another (tanked to survive/fight back) for non-solo stuff . You avoid war decs by having an insta undock bookmark for every station in you constellation (especially your main agent), by watching local and by fitting to escape . You avoid theft by controlling who has access to what (I'n my corp we have a rule, "if it's expensive, keep it in a personal hanger not a corp hanger, if I need it I will ping you on jabber, if you arne't online to give it to me screw it, I'll get it later lol"). But that takes effort, and it seems a whole bunch of people don't want to make any effort in a hobby lke EVE. They want a 'game' like WoW. I think that's sad, because if you can't be arsed to put some thought into a game about thinking, why even bother to install?
Brochan McLeod Frigateer 65	Posted - 2014.10.30 13:58:42 - [75] - Quote Persifonne wrote: lord xavier wrote: Oh, and lul no this wont stop AWOXing. It also wont stop people joining to completely rob the corps. Though not sure why anyone would try to rob a highsec dweller corp. They are all poor as hell anyways. It will now take long time to get director roles to loot cuz thats only way to awox now. Almost 1 Billion isk for a Plex Gonna need to STEAL BILLIONS ANS BILLIONS ANS more BILLIONS to make awox even worthwile and pay more than just mining dor that time period. Think bout it Maybe then its that CCP would prefer subs payed with real money than free PLEX-subs ? Im pretty sure CCP is a real company and not a EVE fairytale one... so no paying the bills with ISK I think EVE is too top-heavy with peeps that don't pay subs with real money anymore but are so powerful they almost call the shots. Even the nicest person's patience has a limit!
Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10398	Posted - 2014.10.30 14:02:36 - [76] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: There were 3 main reasons that have deterred me from joining Highsec corps - 1. Awoxxing 2. Wardeccs 3. Theft Even if CCP knocks off reason 1, I still think 2 and 3 are a pretty big deterrent to joining corps, and a good reason for many to stay in NPC/1 man corps. The answer then is to greatly increase taxes in NPC corps, for if people are going to get the benefits you mention by hiding out in NPC corps then there should be a much higher premium to get that. Also, wardecs should follow a player who leaves a player corp, for one week (or until wardec ends) when they leave corp and join another (or go to an NPC corp). The existing exploit of ducking wardecs must be closed. IF wardec mechanics are to exist, they should be meaningful. We've been beaten into pansification for years with nerf sticks, its time for some content creation carrots CCP. F Bingo. CCP has correctly identified the existence of the problem only. That too many people are in NPC corps and they stay there for too long. But they have, of course, incorrectly identified the cause of this. It's not that player corps are unattractive. It's that NPC corps are entirely too attractive. They have too many benefits for not enough penalties. The only actual penalty they have is POS use. Oh no, I don't get to use the single most pain-in-the-ass mechanic to ever exist in videogames, woe is me! "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 115	Posted - 2014.10.30 14:07:50 - [77] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: There were 3 main reasons that have deterred me from joining Highsec corps - 1. Awoxxing 2. Wardeccs 3. Theft Even if CCP knocks off reason 1, I still think 2 and 3 are a pretty big deterrent to joining corps, and a good reason for many to stay in NPC/1 man corps. Wardecs are an issue but will not go away. In fact, they need to be buffed if all other forms of PvP in highsec are to be removed (except suicide ganking). Otherwise, most ships will become 100% safe to anything but the largest of suicide gank fleets. The only conclusion is NPC corps need to go away or be nerfed hard to make it unprofitable to hide behind CONCORD forever. But 3 shouldn't be a deterrent for you. There is no risk to your assets when you join a corporation - only the corp assets are at risk - and even then only in some situations. The upcoming overhaul to POS and corp mechanics should help provide the granularity and clarity to restrict new corp members from access to corp assets until they are trusted. If the ability to gather resources and ISK risk-free continues unabated like the current risk vs. reward of highsec allows, the Eve economy will eventually disintegrate - we can see signs of this already.
Marsha Mallow 1630	Posted - 2014.10.30 14:16:07 - [78] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: "Ali adds that some people stay because they were ganked." Amen Ali. Amen. +1. Missions were boring, mining was boring, but being ganked made me upgrade from a trial. Veers Belvar wrote: There were 3 main reasons that have deterred me from joining Highsec corps - 1. Awoxxing 2. Wardeccs 3. Theft Even if CCP knocks off reason 1, I still think 2 and 3 are a pretty big deterrent to joining corps, and a good reason for many to stay in NPC/1 man corps. None of those put me off, if anything they added new tiers of gameplay. But I'm in a corp with the folk who wardecced my old one nearly 6 years ago, one of whom still gleefully likes to remind me how I tried to fight him once in a ship with no mods fitted >.> Looking at that list, even if all of those things were addressed you'll probably be able to think of some more. There is a clear need to improve the NPE and retention rates, but wrapping rookies in additional layers does nothing but delay the inevitable tantrum when they realise they can't control every aspect of their interraction with others. Honestly, dumbing down the non-consensual elements of gameplay won't make the risk-averse babbies suddenly turn into sociable players. They just want to farm in instance syle themepark areas, and I don't see why the rest of us should tolerate it. It's disgusting. If CCP want to address the core issue that the majority of highsec residents are gibbering lunatics Remove NPC corps Remove Concord Remove Highsec Stick rookies in a starter system and don't let them out until they've killed 10 other rookies Remove all forms of PVE and make all materials come from combat drops from other players. Get rid of passive skilltraining. I want lootable SP too. DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
Indahmawar Fazmarai 3163	Posted - 2014.10.30 14:17:31 - [79] - Quote So CCP is willing to shot down a remarkably stupid mechanic because it is hurting their bottom line... Live to see, dude. The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! Ingame chat channel: The Greater Fool Bar
Anne Dieu-le-veut Natl Assn for the Advancement of Criminal People 149	Posted - 2014.10.30 14:19:04 - [80] - Quote This would not surprise me if this happens. Just in the short time I've been playing this game, I've noticed the slow, steady march from HTFU to Happy Carebear Land. When will devs of sandbox MMOs learn making your game more WoWish in a vain attempt to get more subs only destroys the game? You can't out WoW WoW, and there are a couple carebear friendly space MMOs in the pipeline. Why destroy what makes your game different? Will some folks leave EVE for one of the less harsh MMOs if EVE doesn't change? Probably, but all the people that only play this game because it is so harsh will leave. Oh well, at least it seems corp theft will still be permitted.

Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21297	Posted - 2014.10.30 14:23:17 - [81] - Quote Brochan McLeod wrote: Maybe then its that CCP would prefer subs payed with real money than free PLEX-subs ? Im pretty sure CCP is a real company and not a EVE fairytale one... so no paying the bills with ISK I think EVE is too top-heavy with peeps that don't pay subs with real money anymore but are so powerful they almost call the shots. Every PLEX in the system has been purchased for real money, and costs more than your monthly sub. For example a single PLEX costs -ú16.99 in the UK, a monthly sub costs -ú9.99. Ergo CCP make more money through people paying their sub via PLEX than they do from people paying their sub direct. TL;DR You have no idea what you're talking about. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4349	Posted - 2014.10.30 14:31:12 - [82] - Quote Excellent News! I've always thought this would be a good idea to get changed. Sure, there are players who enjoy joining corps and ganking a bunch of people and they won't be able to do that anymore. The thing is that's a small group of people and they undoubtedly like a good many other methods of ganking people in EVE. The upside to the change would be that newer players wanting to become part of the social groups which make EVE what it is will be able to do so with a far greater ease, and without undocking their first ever battleship, getting blown up by their "friends" for no reason beyond "the lulz" and quitting. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8812	Posted - 2014.10.30 14:42:20 - [83] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Excellent News! I've always thought this would be a good idea to get changed. Sure, there are players who enjoy joining corps and ganking a bunch of people and they won't be able to do that anymore. The thing is that's a small group of people and they undoubtedly like a good many other methods of ganking people in EVE. The upside to the change would be that newer players wanting to become part of the social groups which make EVE what it is will be able to do so with a far greater ease, and without undocking their first ever battleship, getting blown up by their "friends" for no reason beyond "the lulz" and quitting. YAY, newbies can join a corp in a game where it's increasingly unlikely that anythingreally interesting or noteworthy will ever happen. This is the exact opposite of what EVE should be doing. Playing EVE should keep a player on edge, not making him feel comfortable. The last thing CCP should be doing is making it easier for a player who would have quit had he been confronted with an unpleasant reality. CCP should be trying to find ways to intice more emotionally stable and tough minded players into the game, not catering to the lowest common denominator like almost all other MMOs do.
Brochan McLeod Frigateer 65	Posted - 2014.10.30 14:46:42 - [84] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: TL;DR You have no idea what you're talking about. Seems that way... Even the nicest person's patience has a limit!
Brochan McLeod Frigateer 66	Posted - 2014.10.30 14:52:39 - [85] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Excellent News! I've always thought this would be a good idea to get changed. Sure, there are players who enjoy joining corps and ganking a bunch of people and they won't be able to do that anymore. The thing is that's a small group of people and they undoubtedly like a good many other methods of ganking people in EVE. The upside to the change would be that newer players wanting to become part of the social groups which make EVE what it is will be able to do so with a far greater ease, and without undocking their first ever battleship, getting blown up by their "friends" for no reason beyond "the lulz" and quitting. YAY, newbies can join a corp in a game where it's increasingly unlikely that anythingreally interesting or noteworthy will ever happen. This is the exact opposite of what EVE should be doing. Playing EVE should keep a player on edge, not making him feel comfortable. The last thing CCP should be doing is making it easier for a player who would have quit had he been confronted with an unpleasant reality. CCP should be trying to find ways to intice more emotionally stable and tough minded players into the game, not catering to the lowest common denominator like almost all other MMOs do. Would'nt they limit their own growth that way? Even the nicest person's patience has a limit!
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21297	Posted - 2014.10.30 14:52:56 - [86] - Quote Brochan McLeod wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: TL;DR You have no idea what you're talking about. Seems that way... +1 for being able to admit it , that's makes you significantly better than others I could name. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
ll Kuray ll The Scope Gallente Federation 9	Posted - 2014.10.30 14:55:01 - [87] - Quote Personally, and this is a gut feeling, the reason why the majority of people play this game isn't to be a jackass and screw peoples' game over. However asking loyal players why they unsub I bet for sure top reasons are because some one was a jackass and ruined 6 months of work in the game or they lost their game savings to a gank, of which you took all the precautions possible. People obviously are looking at this and prioritising their life. People are accepting when they have something to show for their efforts, when they don't they choose to unsub. Ask me why ill unsub. Eve has always been about choice and response. If I made the choice to gank someone 4 years ago I expected to pay with losing an expensive ship and then have to grind to make it back and therefore pay with it via real money or time in game. Its now too easy to make a choice and not have a real consequence. Coming from experience, the people who are loyal to CCP are the majority who sign in and can play it safe. Over the last 12 months the stats of Eve don't make for pretty reading. It's gone from 65k signed in players to 37k. Is the drop of players a connection to the increased occurrence of either a gank or awox ? Could be, I think it's all tied in. It's cheaper to keep buying customers happy and the thing with awoxers and gankers all they need to do is do it a few times and they have the flexibility to sign in and out when they please. Not like the players who are willing enough to keep grinding.
Brochan McLeod Frigateer 66	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:00:03 - [88] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Brochan McLeod wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: TL;DR You have no idea what you're talking about. Seems that way... +1 for being able to admit it , that's makes you significantly better than others I could name. Im just embarassed its only now that i understand how it works ...lol No use trying to hide my foot-in-mouth moments... i have so many of them ... Even the nicest person's patience has a limit!
Bethan Le Troix Krusual Investigation Agency 129	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:04:49 - [89] - Quote La Rynx wrote: Persifonne wrote: CCP STILL OBLIVIOUS TO FACT NEUTRAL LOGI R/R IS BIGGEST "GRIEF" FACTOR IN AWOX They got corp kick que. Just fix neut logi but giving corpmates a stupid engaugment timer. Then rr suspect fixed. While keeping corp violnce. Evrrybody wins yo Since Neutral Logi will be repaired: Also we will get bumping repaired! Nice! I haven't read the latest CSM minutes yet so I don't know what they have said exactly. But if 'bumping' is 'repaired' I feel there will have to be a limit on how long you can stay in an NPC corp before you join a player run corp. An once you leave the NPC corp you shall not be able to return to one and remain in a corpless limbo section that can be wardecced. Otherwise some capsuleers will not be able to be attacked which will set a bad precedent. If a miner joins a NPC corp, flies a Procurer, and 'bumping' gets 'repaired' they will be virtually indestructible. The only other way to fix the situation then would be to equal the build cost of a Procurer with the T2 mining vessels such as the Hulk & Mackinaw.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21299	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:05:35 - [90] - Quote ll Kuray ll wrote: Over the last 12 months the stats of Eve don't make for pretty reading. It's gone from 65k signed in players to 37k. 65k signed in players was not, and never has been a regular state of affairs, that's why it's called a record. The average player count over the last year is around 28k, over Eve's entire lifespan it is around 27.5k. (source) Nil mortifi sine lucre.

Bethan Le Troix Krusual Investigation Agency 129	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:07:54 - [91] - Quote ll Kuray ll wrote: Personally, and this is a gut feeling, the reason why the majority of people play this game isn't to be a jackass and screw peoples' game over. However asking loyal players why they unsub I bet for sure top reasons are because some one was a jackass and ruined 6 months of work in the game or they lost their game savings to a gank, of which you took all the precautions possible. People obviously are looking at this and prioritising their life. People are accepting when they have something to show for their efforts, when they don't they choose to unsub. Ask me why ill unsub. Eve has always been about choice and response. If I made the choice to gank someone 4 years ago I expected to pay with losing an expensive ship and then have to grind to make it back and therefore pay with it via real money or time in game. Its now too easy to make a choice and not have a real consequence. Coming from experience, the people who are loyal to CCP are the majority who sign in and can play it safe. Over the last 12 months the stats of Eve don't make for pretty reading. It's gone from 65k signed in players to 37k. Is the drop of players a connection to the increased occurrence of either a gank or awox ? Could be, I think it's all tied in. It's cheaper to keep buying customers happy and the thing with awoxers and gankers all they need to do is do it a few times and they have the flexibility to sign in and out when they please. Not like the players who are willing enough to keep grinding. It's what I said earlier Good luck to anyone who tries to find a balance between the needs of those that: Pay with real money and want to be in their own "leave me alone" world [IMPORTANT!] Pay with real money and want to be in the "dark world [IMPORTANT! Make enough in game ISK to sub their accounts and want to be in their own "leave me alone" world Make enough in game ISK to sub their accounts and want to be in the 'dark' world I think you take on a different perspective if you pay with real money to play the game. The online figures have dropped so much because of stagnation within Null sec sovereignty. CCP relaise this and are in the process of fixing it. Once that is fixed and wars can begin again you will see the figures rise.
Bethan Le Troix Krusual Investigation Agency 129	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:11:00 - [92] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Brochan McLeod wrote: Maybe then its that CCP would prefer subs payed with real money than free PLEX-subs ? Im pretty sure CCP is a real company and not a EVE fairytale one... so no paying the bills with ISK I think EVE is too top-heavy with peeps that don't pay subs with real money anymore but are so powerful they almost call the shots. Every PLEX in the system has been purchased for real money, and costs more than your monthly sub. For example a single PLEX costs -ú16.99 in the UK, a monthly sub costs -ú9.99. Ergo CCP make more money through people paying their sub via PLEX than they do from people paying their sub direct. TL;DR You have no idea what you're talking about. People buy PLEX to get ISK without having to 'farm' ISK. Other pilots who don't have the RL cash buy PLEX with ISK. No one actually subs their account by buying PLEX with RL cash.
Indahmawar Fazmarai 3163	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:13:21 - [93] - Quote Brochan McLeod wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Excellent News! I've always thought this would be a good idea to get changed. Sure, there are players who enjoy joining corps and ganking a bunch of people and they won't be able to do that anymore. The thing is that's a small group of people and they undoubtedly like a good many other methods of ganking people in EVE. The upside to the change would be that newer players wanting to become part of the social groups which make EVE what it is will be able to do so with a far greater ease, and without undocking their first ever battleship, getting blown up by their "friends" for no reason beyond "the lulz" and quitting. YAY, newbies can join a corp in a game where it's increasingly unlikely that anythingreally interesting or noteworthy will ever happen. This is the exact opposite of what EVE should be doing. Playing EVE should keep a player on edge, not making him feel comfortable. The last thing CCP should be doing is making it easier for a player who would have quit had he been confronted with an unpleasant reality. CCP should be trying to find ways to intice more emotionally stable and tough minded players into the game, not catering to the lowest common denominator like almost all other MMOs do. Would'nt they limit their own growth that way? They've done so proficently that now they've come to realize that fear of AWOXing is keeping new players away from corporations as not recruiting anyone is the optimal strategy both for noobs and veterans. This makes that the only people willing to recruit anyone it's reverse AWOXers, which leads to many people's first and last corp experience in EVE is to be griefed by corpmates. This means that people does not join corps and people who don't join corps don't say subbed for long (generally). So now that CCP's is counting every dime, they are willing to kill one of the most stupid mechanics ever perpretated on a playerbase to improve corporation recruiting and thus long term retention of new players... ...that is, If they still can find any new players willing to join after 11 years. The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! Ingame chat channel: The Greater Fool Bar
Bethan Le Troix Krusual Investigation Agency 129	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:16:33 - [94] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: There were 3 main reasons that have deterred me from joining Highsec corps - 1. Awoxxing 2. Wardeccs 3. Theft Even if CCP knocks off reason 1, I still think 2 and 3 are a pretty big deterrent to joining corps, and a good reason for many to stay in NPC/1 man corps. The answer then is to greatly increase taxes in NPC corps, for if people are going to get the benefits you mention by hiding out in NPC corps then there should be a much higher premium to get that. Also, wardecs should follow a player who leaves a player corp, for one week (or until wardec ends) when they leave corp and join another (or go to an NPC corp). The existing exploit of ducking wardecs must be closed. IF wardec mechanics are to exist, they should be meaningful. We've been beaten into pansification for years with nerf sticks, its time for some content creation carrots CCP. F NPC corps should be for new pilots only. They should be allowed to stay for four to six weeks and then have to join a player run corp or make their own corp. People who 'harvest' to stay in NPC corps continually should be banned from playing EVE Online.
Brochan McLeod Frigateer 66	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:16:46 - [95] - Quote Bethan Le Troix wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Brochan McLeod wrote: Maybe then its that CCP would prefer subs payed with real money than free PLEX-subs ? Im pretty sure CCP is a real company and not a EVE fairytale one... so no paying the bills with ISK I think EVE is too top-heavy with peeps that don't pay subs with real money anymore but are so powerful they almost call the shots. Every PLEX in the system has been purchased for real money, and costs more than your monthly sub. For example a single PLEX costs -ú16.99 in the UK, a monthly sub costs -ú9.99. Ergo CCP make more money through people paying their sub via PLEX than they do from people paying their sub direct. TL;DR You have no idea what you're talking about. People buy PLEX to get ISK without having to 'farm' ISK. Other pilots who don't have the RL cash buy PLEX with ISK. No one actually subs their account by buying PLEX with RL cash. Ehh.... i do.... (not really, but almost) Well i sub by paying with real cash and have twice bought and sold a plex for some ingame breathing space. I'm the Captain of the Noob Team ... nice to make your aquaintance ... hihi You can bet im pretty much NOT flying anything i cant afford to loose Even the nicest person's patience has a limit!
Bethan Le Troix Krusual Investigation Agency 129	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:18:13 - [96] - Quote Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: Brochan McLeod wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Excellent News! I've always thought this would be a good idea to get changed. Sure, there are players who enjoy joining corps and ganking a bunch of people and they won't be able to do that anymore. The thing is that's a small group of people and they undoubtedly like a good many other methods of ganking people in EVE. The upside to the change would be that newer players wanting to become part of the social groups which make EVE what it is will be able to do so with a far greater ease, and without undocking their first ever battleship, getting blown up by their "friends" for no reason beyond "the lulz" and quitting. YAY, newbies can join a corp in a game where it's increasingly unlikely that anythingreally interesting or noteworthy will ever happen. This is the exact opposite of what EVE should be doing. Playing EVE should keep a player on edge, not making him feel comfortable. The last thing CCP should be doing is making it easier for a player who would have quit had he been confronted with an unpleasant reality. CCP should be trying to find ways to intice more emotionally stable and tough minded players into the game, not catering to the lowest common denominator like almost all other MMOs do. Would'nt they limit their own growth that way? They've done so proficently that now they've come to realize that fear of AWOXing is keeping new players away from corporations as not recruiting anyone is the optimal strategy both for noobs and veterans. This makes that the only people willing to recruit anyone it's reverse AWOXers, which leads to many people's first and last corp experience in EVE is to be griefed by corpmates. This means that people does not join corps and people who don't join corps don't say subbed for long (generally). So now that CCP's is counting every dime, they are willing to kill one of the most stupid mechanics ever perpretated on a playerbase to improve corporation recruiting and thus long term retention of new players... ...that is, If they still can find any new players willing to join after 11 years. It does sound then like removing AWOXing may be a good idea. Although removing 'bumping' would be game-breaking IMO.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21299	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:18:25 - [97] - Quote Bethan Le Troix wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Brochan McLeod wrote: Maybe then its that CCP would prefer subs payed with real money than free PLEX-subs ? Im pretty sure CCP is a real company and not a EVE fairytale one... so no paying the bills with ISK I think EVE is too top-heavy with peeps that don't pay subs with real money anymore but are so powerful they almost call the shots. Every PLEX in the system has been purchased for real money, and costs more than your monthly sub. For example a single PLEX costs -ú16.99 in the UK, a monthly sub costs -ú9.99. Ergo CCP make more money through people paying their sub via PLEX than they do from people paying their sub direct. TL;DR You have no idea what you're talking about. People buy PLEX to get ISK without having to 'farm' ISK. Other pilots who don't have the RL cash buy PLEX with ISK. No one actually subs their account by buying PLEX with RL cash. True enough, which is why I didn't say that , but the fact is that CCP earn more money, however indirectly, from players who use PLEX as an alternative payment method. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Xuixien The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People 1882	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:20:05 - [98] - Quote ll Kuray ll wrote: Pay with real money and want to be in their own "leave me alone" world [IMPORTANT!] Make enough in game ISK to sub their accounts and want to be in their own "leave me alone" world Obviously in this case the rights of the gankers take precedent. This is a multiplayer game, you have no right or entitlement to be "left alone". If you want to be "left alone", go play Mass Effect or some other single player game. [u]Epic Space Cat[/u]
Bethan Le Troix Krusual Investigation Agency 129	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:20:54 - [99] - Quote Brochan McLeod wrote: Bethan Le Troix wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Brochan McLeod wrote: Maybe then its that CCP would prefer subs payed with real money than free PLEX-subs ? Im pretty sure CCP is a real company and not a EVE fairytale one... so no paying the bills with ISK I think EVE is too top-heavy with peeps that don't pay subs with real money anymore but are so powerful they almost call the shots. Every PLEX in the system has been purchased for real money, and costs more than your monthly sub. For example a single PLEX costs -ú16.99 in the UK, a monthly sub costs -ú9.99. Ergo CCP make more money through people paying their sub via PLEX than they do from people paying their sub direct. TL;DR You have no idea what you're talking about. People buy PLEX to get ISK without having to 'farm' ISK. Other pilots who don't have the RL cash buy PLEX with ISK. No one actually subs their account by buying PLEX with RL cash. Ehh.... i do.... Well i sub by paying with real cash and have twice bought and sold a plex for some ingame breathing space. I'm the Captain of the Noob Team ... nice to make your aquaintance ... hihi You can bet im pretty much NOT flying anything i cant afford to loose Why would you do that? All you needed to do is go to the account management page, start up a subscription, then once one payment had been taken cancel the subscription. Would be nearly half the price of PLEX then.
Bethan Le Troix Krusual Investigation Agency 129	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:22:34 - [100] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Bethan Le Troix wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Brochan McLeod wrote: Maybe then its that CCP would prefer subs payed with real money than free PLEX-subs ? Im pretty sure CCP is a real company and not a EVE fairytale one... so no paying the bills with ISK I think EVE is too top-heavy with peeps that don't pay subs with real money anymore but are so powerful they almost call the shots. Every PLEX in the system has been purchased for real money, and costs more than your monthly sub. For example a single PLEX costs -ú16.99 in the UK, a monthly sub costs -ú9.99. Ergo CCP make more money through people paying their sub via PLEX than they do from people paying their sub direct. TL;DR You have no idea what you're talking about. People buy PLEX to get ISK without having to 'farm' ISK. Other pilots who don't have the RL cash buy PLEX with ISK. No one actually subs their account by buying PLEX with RL cash. True enough, which is why I didn't say that , but the fact is that CCP earn more money, however indirectly, from players who use PLEX as an alternative payment method. You are correct there Jonah. CCP loves PLEX.

Brochan McLeod Frigateer 66	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:22:50 - [101] - Quote Bethan Le Troix wrote: Brochan McLeod wrote: Bethan Le Troix wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Brochan McLeod wrote: Maybe then its that CCP would prefer subs payed with real money than free PLEX-subs ? Im pretty sure CCP is a real company and not a EVE fairytale one... so no paying the bills with ISK I think EVE is too top-heavy with peeps that don't pay subs with real money anymore but are so powerful they almost call the shots. Every PLEX in the system has been purchased for real money, and costs more than your monthly sub. For example a single PLEX costs -ú16.99 in the UK, a monthly sub costs -ú9.99. Ergo CCP make more money through people paying their sub via PLEX than they do from people paying their sub direct. TL;DR You have no idea what you're talking about. People buy PLEX to get ISK without having to 'farm' ISK. Other pilots who don't have the RL cash buy PLEX with ISK. No one actually subs their account by buying PLEX with RL cash. Ehh.... i do.... Well i sub by paying with real cash and have twice bought and sold a plex for some ingame breathing space. I'm the Captain of the Noob Team ... nice to make your aquaintance ... hihi You can bet im pretty much NOT flying anything i cant afford to loose Why would you do that? All you needed to do is go to the account management page, start up a subscription, then once one payment had been taken cancel the subscription. Would be nearly half the price of PLEX then. Yes sorry... i just changed that statement... im not that dumb... just dont read too well today. Even the nicest person's patience has a limit!
Xuixien The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People 1882	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:23:35 - [102] - Quote Doc J wrote: People have the right to play the game in the safe manner they wish No. Absolutely wrong. Nobody has the "right" to play this game in safety. The only "right" is to be aware of risks and to take steps to mitigate them. No one in EVE has the "right" to be totally and perfectly exempt from conflict and destruction. [u]Epic Space Cat[/u]
Xuixien The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People 1883	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:28:42 - [103] - Quote Valkin Mordirc wrote: Also I know it was a sarcastic comment, But this isnt a buff to highsec, It's a nerf to the Villain "Meta", which in turn affects the Highsec PVE'ers. Dude, it's a buff to HiSec. Think about it. Player corps will now be immune from AWOXers in HiSec. [u]Epic Space Cat[/u]
Sol Project Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 47	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:29:21 - [104] - Quote Hhhrrrrrmmmmm...........
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1344	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:30:40 - [105] - Quote Bethan Le Troix wrote: It does sound then like removing AWOXing may be a good idea. Although removing 'bumping' would be game-breaking IMO. What exactly would it break to remove bumping?
Xuixien The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People 1883	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:32:25 - [106] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Learn to be inventive with your spying and awoxing. Learn to do it by sucking them into low sec, into duels for 'fit testing'. Adapt. Don't just sit there and cry because CCP are removing an easy mode for you. And awoxing is Easy Mode. No API check will catch a grown from scratch Alt. I'm sorry, who the ** are you to tell anyone to "adapt or die"? You're a sniveling little whingey * who's hiding behind CCP's skirt and chanting for a safer EVE, you loser *** carebear. [u]Epic Space Cat[/u]**
Xuixien The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People 1883	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:35:07 - [107] - Quote Aqriue wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: And now the awoxxers have to lose a catalyst to concord once in a while. The sky is surely falling! Someone else gets it. One person screams that CCP is hold hands, another is pointing out that person's fallacies. Let's break it down. 1. High sec. No one is safe. 2. No PVP flag exists. CONCORD is a brake mechanism to prevent total chaos. War dec bypass that. 3. AWOX hide in high sec with the same protection as everyone else, but the is nothing in the entire game that says they get free kills via corporates they have infiltrated. Nothing...it's risk free PvP since CONCORD won't respond back. 4. ???? 5. Profit! Loopholes are closed, null and low have no restriction, high sec has CONCORD and gank prevention via consequences, nobody gets to spout who has the correct play style. There is still no PVP flag for immunity, just humility now that you lose ships just as the gank target. AWOX at best destroy the game because trust is more valuable than a plex, AWOX creates more paranoia than trust and they sure as hell do not lose that many ships compared to what they destroy...everybody is equal in that regard, I like how the AWOXers are granted hyperagency while people who live in HiSec have hypoagency. In fact, their level of hypoagency is so extreme that the idea that they can shoot back isn't even factored! They're basically treated like scripted NPCs... very interesting. Since they have such a low level of agency, CCP should deffo hold their hands. [u]Epic Space Cat[/u]
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1344	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:35:25 - [108] - Quote Xuixien wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: Learn to be inventive with your spying and awoxing. Learn to do it by sucking them into low sec, into duels for 'fit testing'. Adapt. Don't just sit there and cry because CCP are removing an easy mode for you. And awoxing is Easy Mode. No API check will catch a grown from scratch Alt. I'm sorry, who the ** are you to tell anyone to "adapt or die"? You're a sniveling little whingey * who's hiding behind CCP's skirt and chanting for a safer EVE, you loser ***** carebear. You look mad. You might not be but the amount of insult is kinda high in your posts...
Xuixien The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People 1883	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:37:23 - [109] - Quote John Ratcliffe wrote: Xuixien wrote: Persifonne wrote: When will hisec become pvp free (except for duels and wardecs). Anyone activating weapons on player ship that you arent wardecced to, isnt flashy red or in a duel with will get concorded. Only pvp in lowsec null and wh. This day is coming. It is closer than we think. I'm ready to unsub my accounts basically any time at this point. No point in staying subbed... once EVE goes themepark it'll go the way of all the other themepark MMOs. In it's place some other small, niche, dark game will pop up to satisfy people who actually enjoy hard games without having their hands held. There's a difference between facilitating enjoyable gameplay and allowing griefing pricks to be griefing pricks. P.S. Can I haz your stuffs? Sorry kid, but there's no such thing as "griefing" in EVE Online once you step out of the rookie systems, it's called "emergent gameplay". Go back to WoW. [u]Epic Space Cat[/u]
Xuixien The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People 1883	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:38:08 - [110] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Xuixien wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: Learn to be inventive with your spying and awoxing. Learn to do it by sucking them into low sec, into duels for 'fit testing'. Adapt. Don't just sit there and cry because CCP are removing an easy mode for you. And awoxing is Easy Mode. No API check will catch a grown from scratch Alt. I'm sorry, who the ** are you to tell anyone to "adapt or die"? You're a sniveling little whingey * who's hiding behind CCP's skirt and chanting for a safer EVE, you loser *** carebear. You look mad. You might not be but the amount of insult is kinda high in your posts... coolstorybro [u]Epic Space Cat[/u]**

Inxentas Ultramar Ultramar Independent Contracting 1574	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:40:20 - [111] - Quote I thought about this proposition long and hard before I posted. "It's about hisec, so I don't care" is the best I can do, sorry. Awox off gates and stations from now on, check. Carry on.
Xuixien The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People 1883	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:41:21 - [112] - Quote Inxentas Ultramar wrote: I thought about this proposition long and hard before I posted. "It's about hisec, so I don't care" is the best I can do, sorry. Awox off gates and stations from now on, check. Carry on. Because CONCORD only responds on gates and stations andomgwhendidpeoplebecomesoretardedaroundhere. [u]Epic Space Cat[/u]
Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1578	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:42:23 - [113] - Quote Xuixien wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: Learn to be inventive with your spying and awoxing. Learn to do it by sucking them into low sec, into duels for 'fit testing'. Adapt. Don't just sit there and cry because CCP are removing an easy mode for you. And awoxing is Easy Mode. No API check will catch a grown from scratch Alt. I'm sorry, who the ** are you to tell anyone to "adapt or die"? You're a sniveling little whingey * who's hiding behind CCP's skirt and chanting for a safer EVE, you loser ***** carebear. mmmm delicious tears
Xuixien The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People 1883	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:43:36 - [114] - Quote Rowells wrote: Xuixien wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: Learn to be inventive with your spying and awoxing. Learn to do it by sucking them into low sec, into duels for 'fit testing'. Adapt. Don't just sit there and cry because CCP are removing an easy mode for you. And awoxing is Easy Mode. No API check will catch a grown from scratch Alt. I'm sorry, who the ** are you to tell anyone to "adapt or die"? You're a sniveling little whingey * who's hiding behind CCP's skirt and chanting for a safer EVE, you loser *** carebear. mmmm delicious tears coolstorybro morememesplz [u]Epic Space Cat[/u]**
Krusty the Klown University of Caille Gallente Federation 7	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:45:28 - [115] - Quote Xuixien wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: Learn to be inventive with your spying and awoxing. Learn to do it by sucking them into low sec, into duels for 'fit testing'. Adapt. Don't just sit there and cry because CCP are removing an easy mode for you. And awoxing is Easy Mode. No API check will catch a grown from scratch Alt. I'm sorry, who the ** are you to tell anyone to "adapt or die"? You're a sniveling little whingey * who's hiding behind CCP's skirt and chanting for a safer EVE, you loser ***** carebear. You seem highly upset over some internet pixel spaceship rule changes. Why don't you take a break, go for a walk or something, remember it's just a game and come back refreshed?
Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1578	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:47:43 - [116] - Quote Xuixien wrote: Rowells wrote: Xuixien wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: Learn to be inventive with your spying and awoxing. Learn to do it by sucking them into low sec, into duels for 'fit testing'. Adapt. Don't just sit there and cry because CCP are removing an easy mode for you. And awoxing is Easy Mode. No API check will catch a grown from scratch Alt. I'm sorry, who the ** are you to tell anyone to "adapt or die"? You're a sniveling little whingey * who's hiding behind CCP's skirt and chanting for a safer EVE, you loser ***** carebear. mmmm delicious tears coolstorybro morememesplz "I was just pretending to be mad!" meme for you
Inxentas Ultramar Ultramar Independent Contracting 1574	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:48:44 - [117] - Quote Xuixien wrote: Inxentas Ultramar wrote: I thought about this proposition long and hard before I posted. "It's about hisec, so I don't care" is the best I can do, sorry. Awox off gates and stations from now on, check. Carry on. Because CONCORD only responds on gates and stations andomgwhendidpeoplebecomesoretardedaroundhere. Should you not have deducted it for yourself, I was referring to sentry gun mechanics in lowsec.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 24	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:50:43 - [118] - Quote Xuixien wrote: Rowells wrote: Xuixien wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: Learn to be inventive with your spying and awoxing. Learn to do it by sucking them into low sec, into duels for 'fit testing'. Adapt. Don't just sit there and cry because CCP are removing an easy mode for you. And awoxing is Easy Mode. No API check will catch a grown from scratch Alt. I'm sorry, who the ** are you to tell anyone to "adapt or die"? You're a sniveling little whingey * who's hiding behind CCP's skirt and chanting for a safer EVE, you loser ***** carebear. mmmm delicious tears coolstorybro morememesplz Everyone told me Eve was where the pvp happens. So far it has turned out to be everyone in Null holding hands and when their palms get sweaty they hang in high-sec doing risk averse pvp. Isn't the in thing to say is...."Leave high sec if you want pvp".......so funny on so many levels with the current state of Eve.
Xuixien The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People 1883	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:51:24 - [119] - Quote Krusty the Klown wrote: You seem highly upset over some internet pixel spaceship rule changes. Yawn, meme, meme, meme, I've never had a unique thought, meme, meme, meme. Please tell me how to think, I am but a sheep for memes. Inxentas Ultramar wrote: Should you not have deducted it for yourself, I was referring to sentry gun mechanics in lowsec. Should you not have deducted it for yourself, nobody cares about LowSex. [u]Epic Space Cat[/u]
R0mparkin Caldari Provisions Caldari State 5	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:51:52 - [120] - Quote too be fair here. it really is a buff to high sec, with null sec about to burn. why not go to high sec till things calm down.

Gaan Cathal Angry Mustellid The Periphery 16	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:52:58 - [121] - Quote Why is this being framed as a Carebears vs Hardcore debate? High-sec AWOXing is a Carebear vs Carebear interaction (minimal risk/cost activities with as little chance of interference as the game allows). As far as I can see from the minutes CCP's standpoint is that AWOXing is an anomalous exception to one of the rules of Highsec - if you attack a non-hostile target in Highsec, Concord blap you. They've made repeated changes to Highsec to stop exploits allowing avoidance of this consequence, this just appears to be a continuance of those changes. You can still AWOX to your heart's content, but if you attack a non-hostile target, you will get Concordokkened. Xuixien wrote: Sorry kid, but there's no such thing as "griefing" in EVE Online once you step out of the rookie systems, it's called "emergent gameplay". Go back to WoW. Actually, repeated harassment of the same individual can reach a point at which it's regarded as griefing by CCP.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8815	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:54:22 - [122] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Ships blowing up always benifit the game. People produce ships, if ships didn't explode nothing any of us do in EVE would worth anything. Awoxxing (like all such interactions) teaches players to be aware, to be concerned about who they trust. This is good because being able to trust everyone simply because you're in high sec and in the same corp is boring. Their is this tendency among some to wish for peace and comfort only to find that those things get boring after a while. It's conflict and danger that is interesting. This is why people leave EVE for 'safer' games only to come back when they realise that games without risk and danger is about as fun as riding a roller coaster that doesn't exceed 5 miles per hour. This is why every epic, every good movie, every good book, every good game is about conflict. It's why real life news media types live by the rule of "if it bleeds it leads". These moves to make EVE safer are actually moves to make EVE a worse game. So obviously suicide ganking is a much better alternative than ganking then because even more ships blow up! You bring forward a terrible mechanic. As Falcon (or was it Fozzie) said, if ships blowing up was good, then a 10% chance of blowing up every time you jump a gate would be a good mechanic. It's not just about ships blowing up, it's about HOW ships blow up. Learn to be inventive with your spying and awoxing. Learn to do it by sucking them into low sec, into duels for 'fit testing'. Adapt. Don't just sit there and cry because CCP are removing an easy mode for you. And awoxing is Easy Mode. No API check will catch a grown from scratch Alt. Removing a terrible inconsistency from the rules of PvP is a good thing, as it allows CCP to increase the difficulty in evading war decs in return, as well as other ways to encourage meaningful PvP where both sides have fun. Where did CCP say they were ging to increase the difficulty in evading wardecs. And that "meaningful pvp where both sides have fun" is BS, this is EVE, the way to "have fun" is to outsmart the other guy, not some 'fairness' mechanics. CCP gettiing rid of corp awoxxing can only be a good thing for me, but it's still wrong for this game, it's still CCP going the wrong way. Now people can join corps and as long as the corp doesn't give them roles, everyone is safe except for suicide ganking. Tha'ts boring and anti-EVE. Also (since you mentioned it) it's no surpise that you came to the same false conlusion (about my comment that ships exploding is good for a game about ships exploding) Greyscale did. I was explaining to him that the idea that nerfing jump ranges will create more "local conflict" (while killing events like Asakai and B-R) is as crazy an idea as actually thinking this was going to work: Quote: tl;dr There's now a reason to fight for better space again: sov upgrades will spawn better cosmic anomalies in lower truesec space; cosmic anomalies spawned by methods other than sov upgrades are unaffected. CCP thought nerfing anomaly spawns would create 'conflict'. What it actually did was make things worse, devaluing so much null space that renting (something that was small scale prior to this change) became the norm, leading to the 'blue donut'. Likewise, this jump range nerf will lead to null powers consolidating in "near null" and renting out space (and safe passage, because the only reliable way will be through BLOC territory, even to NPC space) to 'deep null', turning the blue donut into a BLUE BRICK that's even worse than the current blue donut. There is something...backwards...about the development culture at CCP. This awoxxing change is just another example.
Xuixien The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People 1883	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:54:29 - [123] - Quote R0mparkin wrote: too be fair here. it really is a buff to high sec, with null sec about to burn. why not go to high sec till things calm down. Anything that increases the safety of HiSec, it's biggest feature, is a buff to HiSec. Increasing CONCORD's jurisdiction does in fact make HiSec safer, thus buffing it. And removing an interesting niche of gameplay too. I'm really starting to hate Fozzie. He had some good ideas but mostly EVE has gone downhill. [u]Epic Space Cat[/u]
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 2945	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:55:27 - [124] - Quote CCP brought up 3 issues: 1) New players get caught by a game mechanic that is not intuitive. The only way around that is either present them with walls of text explaining an odd game mechanic, or change the mechanic. 2) AWOXing. 3) Corp recruitment. The last issue seemed to be the big one for CCP. Most CEOs approach recruitment in one of 3 ways: 1) Only recruit people you know in real life 2) Turn yourself into a detective agency, checking everyone out, having "new member" subsidiary corps, and so on. 3) Recruit openly, and deal with the consequences. Most eve corps take option 1. Option 2 turns eve into a job, and most CEOs want to play a game, not have a second job as a detective agency. A few do option 3. The result is a general push that keeps players in NPC corps. There are many ways to increase your safety in eve, but one of the best is to stay in an NPC corp, or in you are a CEO, don't recruit. CCP has data that indicates players who stay in NPC corps quit sooner than players who join corps. The conclusion: The game needs ways to make being in a corp, or growing your corp, more desirable and easier. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/
Xuixien The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People 1883	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:58:37 - [125] - Quote Gaan Cathal wrote: Why is this being framed as a Carebears vs Hardcore debate? High-sec AWOXing is a Carebear vs Carebear interaction (minimal risk/cost activities with as little chance of interference as the game allows). As far as I can see from the minutes CCP's standpoint is that AWOXing is an anomalous exception to one of the rules of Highsec - if you attack a non-hostile target in Highsec, Concord blap you. They've made repeated changes to Highsec to stop exploits allowing avoidance of this consequence, this just appears to be a continuance of those changes. You can still AWOX to your heart's content, but if you attack a non-hostile target, you will get Concordokkened. The carebears have the same tools available to them as the hardcore player who's AWOXing. They, too, can bring logi, ECM, and DPS. In fact, the carebears actually have the ADVANTAGE... while the hardcore player who's AWOXing gets an element of surprise, really, he's just 1 person, possibly with 1-2 logi, vs an entire corporation. I mean, basically what this change means is that we cannot expect HiSec players to actually engage with EVE and defend themselves, better let CCP do it based on some tenuous logic of how aggression should work in HiSec. Gaan Cathal wrote: Xuixien wrote: Sorry kid, but there's no such thing as "griefing" in EVE Online once you step out of the rookie systems, it's called "emergent gameplay". Go back to WoW. Actually, repeated harassment of the same individual can reach a point at which it's regarded as griefing by CCP. Oh please, by that logic blowing the same person up in FW would be griefing. [u]Epic Space Cat[/u]
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1344	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:59:03 - [126] - Quote Xuixien wrote: Krusty the Klown wrote: You seem highly upset over some internet pixel spaceship rule changes. Yawn, meme, meme, meme, I've never had a unique thought, meme, meme, meme. Please tell me how to think, I am but a sheep for memes. Look at how clever I am, repeating memes that I copied from someone else who was repeating them from the meme machine generator of memeeememememememems. Inxentas Ultramar wrote: Should you not have deducted it for yourself, I was referring to sentry gun mechanics in lowsec. Should you not have deducted it for yourself, nobody cares about LowSex. If you are so good a thinking by yourself, you should spot the writing on the wall as why this is happening. No matter how right r wrong he is, someone at CCP pushed this idea and the kick queue and got what he wanted. I'm gonna go with a guess and say his argument involved $$$.
Xuixien The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People 1883	Posted - 2014.10.30 16:01:30 - [127] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: CCP brought up 3 issues: 1) New players get caught by a game mechanic that is not intuitive. The only way around that is either present them with walls of text explaining an odd game mechanic, or change the mechanic. When joining a corporation, be aware that members of the same player corporate are free to engage eachother in combat without the protection of CONCORD. zomgz, WALL OF TEXT. I guess carebears can't be expect to read and learn about the game either! Vincent Athena wrote: The conclusion: The game needs ways to make being in a corp, or growing your corp, more desirable and easier. lol How did every successful corp become successful? By being smart about it, not by having CCP hold their hand. Since this change is mostly a buff to HiSec... if you really want corps in HiSec you have to give people a reason to form corps in HiSec beyond jump clones and tax dodging. They already took away one incentive for POSs. [u]Epic Space Cat[/u]
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8815	Posted - 2014.10.30 16:04:33 - [128] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Doc J wrote: People have the right to play the game in the safe manner they wish or in the conflict/dangerous way. You're correct, but it should be up to those who wish to play the game in the "safe manner" to protect themselves from those that wish to play in the "conflict/dangerous manner". Jenn plays the game in the "safe manner", as do I; both of us take precautions to ensure that we don't become victims of those who play in the "conflict/dangerous manner". Not getting ganked because you took measures to prevent it is as much PvP as ganking those who fail to take those measures. Well said. Sadly, some people will never get that, and in their narrow-mindedness they'll think a bad change (which takes away the need for caution, which provides a sense of danger and thus fun in a video game) is actually a good change. CCP should not devlaue the efforts of those of us who take responsibilty for our game play experience (as oppsoed to those who do nothing but lay blame elsewhere and then beg CCP for game mechanics crutches on which to lean). As for the guy saying that you are trying to tell him how to play, well, you aren't Jonah. I, however, AM. DAMN RIGHT I am. If the choice is "you get to play the way you want including not having to think about what youre doing or who you are doing it with" or "EVE is dangerous, you need to be aware at all times while undocked, even in high sec surrounded by corp mates" (our way), then hell yes you have to play our way or suffer the consequences. You can't claim that sloth and lazyness is a 'valid playstyle'. If they want lazy, they should have to leave EVE and install some themepark MMO that does lazy.
Bullet Therapist Caldari Provisions Caldari State 159	Posted - 2014.10.30 16:10:00 - [129] - Quote Why does it matter when you can form a community within an NPC corp? vOv
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21301	Posted - 2014.10.30 16:14:44 - [130] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Well said. Sadly, some people will never get that, and in their narrow-mindedness they'll think a bad change (which takes away the need for caution, which provides a sense of danger and thus fun in a video game) is actually a good change. CCP should not devlaue the efforts of those of us who take responsibilty for our game play experience (as oppsoed to those who do nothing but lay blame elsewhere and then beg CCP for game mechanics crutches on which to lean). As for the guy saying that you are trying to tell him how to play, well, you aren't Jonah. I, however, AM. DAMN RIGHT I am. If the choice is "you get to play the way you want including not having to think about what youre doing or who you are doing it with" or "EVE is dangerous, you need to be aware at all times while undocked, even in high sec surrounded by corp mates" (our way), then hell yes you have to play our way or suffer the consequences. You can't claim that sloth and lazyness is a 'valid playstyle'. If they want lazy, they should have to leave EVE and install some themepark MMO that does lazy. TL;DR for those that suffer from selective reading YOU are responsible for your own safety in Eve, if you can't accept that responsibility then you shouldn't be playing a game like Eve. Nil mortifi sine lucre.

Mike Azariah DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited 1759	Posted - 2014.10.30 16:17:27 - [131] - Quote I try to see both sides of an argument, honest I do. That this 'buffs hisec' and makes the game safer? Yeah I see that. Thing is it does so by removing a stupid loophole. Can one of the opposition explain to me WHY it makes sense that I can shoot a guy in my corp but not a stranger? Why concord will react to one incident and not the other? With dual mechanics we now have ways to 'test a tank' ignoring completely sisi server for the moment. So why did the awox mechanic make sense to you? I understand it made Eve 'dangerous' and allowed a certain type of gameplay but at the bottom of it . . . is there a logic to that rule? m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10399	Posted - 2014.10.30 16:18:07 - [132] - Quote Gaan Cathal wrote: Why is this being framed as a Carebears vs Hardcore debate? Because that's exactly what it is. CCP spitting in the face of one group of players to bow and scrape in front of another. One group matters, and if CCP goes too far they'll find out exactly which group that is. Quote: You can still AWOX to your heart's content, but if you attack a non-hostile target, you will get Concordokkened. So then you can't awox. At least be honest about taking a position on the sniveling, risk averse coward side. Quote: Actually, repeated harassment of the same individual can reach a point at which it's regarded as griefing by CCP. Entirely untrue. A legal target is a legal target, always. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Herzog Wolfhammer Sigma Special Tactics Group 5593	Posted - 2014.10.30 16:20:40 - [133] - Quote Again, AWOXing has it's uses, but it's been long abused. Knowing what "kind of player" is going to shed tears over this, I'll be stockpiling popcorn. Making people unwilling to join corps is "making your game all about making other people not want to play the game" and this is a reason why the game stagnates. Told you kids to play with the sand in the sandbox and not make it all about bonking other kids with the pail and shovel. You didn't listen. Now mommy might have to change some rules. Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10399	Posted - 2014.10.30 16:20:55 - [134] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: I try to see both sides of an argument, honest I do. Forgive me if I don't believe you, while you and yours celebrate the death of my playstyle. Quote: That this 'buffs hisec' and makes the game safer? Yeah I see that. Thing is it does so by removing a stupid loophole. If closing a "stupid loophole" (by the way my playstyle is not a stupid loophole, thanks) means that highsec ends up with a net buff to safety, then other things need to be buffed to compensate. Wardecs should not permit dodging, and CONCORD response time should be lowered across the board. Awoxing is, right now one of the few decent ways to actually inflict damage on people in highsec. Highsec is too safe already. If you make it moreso, you HAVE to take something away in balance. I don't care about whatever lore non logic you want to use to justify this. Buffing highsec is unacceptable. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Some Rando University of Caille Gallente Federation 1220	Posted - 2014.10.30 16:30:39 - [135] - Quote Have to say, I'm on the fence about this one, for the most part. Removing the ability to awox people certainly reduces the dark, gritty feeling of the game and also removes a method of violent interaction (never a good thing), but it's kind of a dumb mechanic (even while being useful in a good set of situations.) This could be a good thing in that it engenders a greater sense of false trust in other players, which is great for thieves because it makes people less paranoid overall and could make social engineering loads easier, at least amongst the unclean carebear population. Also, CCP needs to drop this idea that ganking is the apex method of violence in high-sec. Fixing wardec evasion (one week follow is the accepted fix, I like it) and brutally taxing NPC corps would go a long way towards dealing with the negative effects of killing awoxing. CCP has no sense of humour.
Sol Project Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 48	Posted - 2014.10.30 16:35:27 - [136] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: I try to see both sides of an argument, honest I do. That this 'buffs hisec' and makes the game safer? Yeah I see that. Thing is it does so by removing a stupid loophole. Can one of the opposition explain to me WHY it makes sense that I can shoot a guy in my corp but not a stranger? Why concord will react to one incident and not the other? With dual mechanics we now have ways to 'test a tank' ignoring completely sisi server for the moment. So why did the awox mechanic make sense to you? I understand it made Eve 'dangerous' and allowed a certain type of gameplay but at the bottom of it . . . is there a logic to that rule? m In my first half year of playing me and my corpmate used to surprise shoot at each other for lols and to be reminded to always keep the guards up. Losses always were paid by the winner. This was fun, because it could happen anytime out of nowhere. If CCP really believes this will help player retention, then this game is doomed. Tell me, you CSM person, what are they doing against the real reasons that make new players quit? .) Player run New player corps which do not provide gameplay for their new players, or completely one sided gameplay. .) Vets in rookie corps who make people mine or run missions, which equals to playing solo or not at all, although CCP themselves said that players who become social are more likely to stay. .) Vets in rookie corps who lie about lowsec and the attitude of PvPers in general. .) Player run New player corps who do not teach anything and force their members to become targets, instead of making them understand how to survive and defend themselves. I will wait for your response.
Bastion Arzi Mortis Angelus The Kadeshi 195	Posted - 2014.10.30 16:36:21 - [137] - Quote Some Rando wrote: Also, CCP needs to drop this idea that ganking is the apex method of violence in high-sec. Fixing wardec evasion (one week follow is the accepted fix, I like it) awesome idea
Notorious Fellon 348	Posted - 2014.10.30 16:36:25 - [138] - Quote I support concord response to awoxers. Concorde should respond to all unsanctioned aggression in hisec. Awoxers should have to at least think a bit, instead of just praying on new corp members in a one-sided risk-free engagement. Remove the loophole. Crime, it is not a "career", it is a lifestyle.
Ama Scelesta 74	Posted - 2014.10.30 16:36:30 - [139] - Quote Xuixien wrote: Vincent Athena wrote: The conclusion: The game needs ways to make being in a corp, or growing your corp, more desirable and easier. lol How did every successful corp become successful? By being smart about it, not by having CCP hold their hand. Since this change is mostly a buff to HiSec... if you really want corps in HiSec you have to give people a reason to form corps in HiSec beyond jump clones and tax dodging. They already took away one incentive for POSs. Nothing you said conflicts what he said. It's not about whether it is possible or not to currently form a successful corp. It's about making changes to make forming them much easier, since there are massive benefits for CCP and majority of the players in doing so. Your ideas about creating more incentives to form corps are positive changes too, but will also work much better when you have a framework to back it up where players have better ways to securing their assets. They don't need to be 100% safe, but as long as any random corp member can just come along and pocket or destroy those assets the system isn't going to produce good enough results. The current system just can't do any of that and the limited security options available are a managing nightmare. That is why one of the main focuses of the corp system revamp is to make sure the new system can do all of it. It is going to be a massive boost to getting people to group up and the only cost is taking the most blatant eazee-mode options away from awoxers.
Dersen Lowery Drinking in Station 1240	Posted - 2014.10.30 16:38:41 - [140] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Doc J wrote: People have the right to play the game in the safe manner they wish or in the conflict/dangerous way. You're correct, but it should be up to those who wish to play the game in the "safe manner" to protect themselves from those that wish to play in the "conflict/dangerous manner". Jenn plays the game in the "safe manner", as do I; both of us take precautions to ensure that we don't become victims of those who play in the "conflict/dangerous manner". Yes, and that's the problem: The best way to take precautions to ensure that your little PVE corp doesn't become a victim of the latter group is to not recruit people. CCP has hard data that says that new players who get into a corp quickly stick around a lot longer, which should really not surprise anyone who plays this game. EVE is and has always been primarily about players dealing with other players. The issue is not that AWOXing is going away. It is not going away, full stop. It may require more social engineering now, which is good! It might be more difficult, and more rewarding, gameplay for those inclined toward it. This change is good to the extent that it accomplishes the following: 1) makes corps more comfortable recruiting newbies; 2) makes newbies more comfortable creating corps (why shouldn't you have a shot at learning by doing?); 3) streamlines and makes consistent the rules of engagement in high sec, which is where most newbies are going to learn the game; 4) makes the rules of membership in a social group more intuitive to new players. Remember, EVE has a terrible retention rate. This is a real problem, and they need to solve it. This is one step in the direction of a solution. I don't expect that AWOXing or predatory gameplay in high sec will go away any time soon. Why would it? Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8819	Posted - 2014.10.30 16:42:33 - [141] - Quote Some Rando wrote: Have to say, I'm on the fence about this one, for the most part. Removing the ability to awox people certainly reduces the dark, gritty feeling of the game and also removes a method of violent interaction (never a good thing), but it's kind of a dumb mechanic (even while being useful in a good set of situations.) This could be a good thing in that it engenders a greater sense of false trust in other players, which is great for thieves because it makes people less paranoid overall and could make social engineering loads easier, at least amongst the unclean carebear population. There is that (and why even if CCP does this and I build a pve corp I will still keep my safeguard policies in place). I just think making a change in hopes that somehting else will cover the loss is bad game development. CCP has done so many things for risk averse and weak willed players. Safeties, the noob system restrictions, buffing mining ships, crimewatch which killed some of the more interesting ways people like to screw with mission runners (as a mission runner I take pride in the fact that I never fail for the bait) etc etc. CCP needs to decide what kind of game is wants t make and who it wants to market it too, because if the answer to that is "market it to people so weak that they won't fight back or learn cleaver ways to evade when you screw with them", then EVE isn't dying, it's already dead lol. Quote: Also, CCP needs to drop this idea that ganking is the apex method of violence in high-sec. Fixing wardec evasion (one week follow is the accepted fix, I like it) and brutally taxing NPC corps would go a long way towards dealing with the negative effects of killing awoxing. At this point i don't think any of that will happen. I don't think the current CCP has the will of the true original company, the one that said "we're making this unique game about freedom in the coldness of space, a sci-fi ultima online, screw it if you don't like it".
Josef Djugashvilis 2636	Posted - 2014.10.30 16:43:44 - [142] - Quote Xuixien wrote: Persifonne wrote: When will hisec become pvp free (except for duels and wardecs). Anyone activating weapons on player ship that you arent wardecced to, isnt flashy red or in a duel with will get concorded. Only pvp in lowsec null and wh. This day is coming. It is closer than we think. I'm ready to unsub my accounts basically any time at this point. No point in staying subbed... once EVE goes themepark it'll go the way of all the other themepark MMOs. In it's place some other small, niche, dark game will pop up to satisfy people who actually enjoy hard games without having their hands held. You are only allowed to threaten to unsub with your zillion accounts due to the new travel restrictions on capital ships etc. Do try to keep up dear, or are you hoping to start a new mass unsub movement? This is not a signature.
Gaan Cathal Angry Mustellid The Periphery 18	Posted - 2014.10.30 16:44:26 - [143] - Quote Xuixien wrote: The carebears have the same tools available to them as the hardcore player who's AWOXing. They, too, can bring logi, ECM, and DPS. In fact, the carebears actually have the ADVANTAGE... while the hardcore player who's AWOXing gets an element of surprise, really, he's just 1 person, possibly with 1-2 logi, vs an entire corporation. I mean, basically what this change means is that we cannot expect HiSec players to actually engage with EVE and defend themselves, better let CCP do it based on some tenuous logic of how aggression should work in HiSec. A) They're not being AWOXed by a Hardcore player. It's Carebear PVP. The risk/reward ratio is absolutely at the Carebear end of the scale. B) It's not a "tenuous logic", it's how CCP have decided Highsec combat works outside of Wardecs. They are, and they've stated this in the minutes, just normalising the areas that currently fall outside the intended, and stated, mechanics. Kaarous Aldurald wrote: So then you can't awox. At least be honest about taking a position on the sniveling, risk averse coward side. Sure you can, you just loose a ship in the process. You still get to pop up in some guys mission without being an obvious hostile, neut his active tank flat and alpha his pathetic buffer off while he's under NPC fire, then get your alt in to scoop his deadspace toys. There's just a cost in the form of the ship you aggressed with. It's a Carebear vs Carebear debate. Awoxing carries next to no risk/cost and a higher reward than ganking if done right. In essence, it's not bad because of the effect on Missionbears, it's bad because it's a Carebear alternative to ganking that is superior to the latter. Kaarous Aldurald wrote: If closing a "stupid loophole" (by the way my playstyle is not a stupid loophole, thanks) means that highsec ends up with a net buff to safety, then other things need to be buffed to compensate. Wardecs should not permit dodging, and CONCORD response time should be lowered across the board. Awoxing is, right now one of the few decent ways to actually inflict damage on people in highsec. Highsec is too safe already. If you make it moreso, you HAVE to take something away in balance. I don't care about whatever lore non logic you want to use to justify this. Buffing highsec is unacceptable. I have no issue with adjustments to Concord, or to changes to the Wardec mechanic to make dodging abuse harder - particularly the latter. They seem like sensible considerations that should be taken into account when making changes like this. CCP want to close an exception to a supposedly (and otherwise) global mechanic, that makes sense. Saying they need to look at the consequences of that and possibly make compensatory changes also makes sense. A lot more sense than raging that they shouldn't touch it because it's central to the game to have null-risk PVP available. "Buffing highsec is unacceptable" seems a bit odd though, firstly - if highsec at some point was in need of a buff, it should get one. Same as lowsec, nullsec and wormhole space. They all need to function. Secondly, you are a Highsec player. This isn't a global "Highsec buff" because it's nerfing you, and you are a part of Highsec.
Valkin Mordirc 384	Posted - 2014.10.30 16:45:21 - [144] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: I try to see both sides of an argument, honest I do. That this 'buffs hisec' and makes the game safer? Yeah I see that. For me, It's not so much making High-sec safer, it's closing a door on consequences that should be apart of the game. If people get Awoxed right now it one of three things, One, and probably the most likely, there is a HUGE amount of ignorance with New Players when it comes almost ALL of the EVE mechanics. CCP Needs to do a better job and teaching it's player base the basics. If a player joins a corp, he should know the positives and negatives of it before he does it. Two,The player is lazy and generally the lazy player only cares that he can get awoxed after he has been awoxed. Three, The Awoxer is just good at his job, and manages a successful job. Quote: Thing is it does so by removing a stupid loophole. Can one of the opposition explain to me WHY it makes sense that I can shoot a guy in my corp but not a stranger? Why concord will react to one incident and not the other? With dual mechanics we now have ways to 'test a tank' ignoring completely sisi server for the moment. So why did the awox mechanic make sense to you? I understand it made Eve 'dangerous' and allowed a certain type of gameplay but at the bottom of it . . . is there a logic to that rule? m I keep my dual requests turned off, for a good reason. I'm a wardeccer, but if I'm in Amarr or Jita or some other trade hub, and I'm fighting a wartarget, I WILL get spammed with dual requests. Since I'm given the option to turn it off, I do. However having to go into my settings and turning it off and on, Every Time I was to test a tank, or see how well a certain ship can kite another ship, or test my ships DPS. Seems silly to me. I don't need to be fighting someone, and getting 4 to 5 spam invites to duels from some dude in a Vindi, in the middle of trying to blow someone up. So it's better if I disable them. Also in the CSM notes, CCP Falcon or Fozzie, mentioned that if you want to kill a player for doing wrong to you, you should just wardec them. What's stopping that player from dropping to a NPC Corp? `#DeleteTheWeak`
Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10401	Posted - 2014.10.30 16:46:47 - [145] - Quote Dersen Lowery wrote: The issue is not that AWOXing is going away. It is not going away, full stop. It may require more social engineering now, which is good! It might be more difficult, and more rewarding, gameplay for those inclined toward it. Why do you people keep spouting this lie? Yes, awoxing would be removed, full stop. Because if you're talking about tricking someone into duelling you, I can do that without joining their corp. You are not adding any player interaction, you are taking it away. At least be honest about it. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8820	Posted - 2014.10.30 16:49:33 - [146] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: I try to see both sides of an argument, honest I do. That this 'buffs hisec' and makes the game safer? Yeah I see that. Thing is it does so by removing a stupid loophole. Can one of the opposition explain to me WHY it makes sense that I can shoot a guy in my corp but not a stranger? Why concord will react to one incident and not the other? With dual mechanics we now have ways to 'test a tank' ignoring completely sisi server for the moment. So why did the awox mechanic make sense to you? I understand it made Eve 'dangerous' and allowed a certain type of gameplay but at the bottom of it . . . is there a logic to that rule? m You answered your own question. Awoxing makes a corp owner/honcho/recuriter THINK about what they are doing (and potentially punishes them if they don't). A change that lessens the need to think is bad in a game about thinking. Danger (not comfort, not even consistant rules) is at the heart of EVE Online. The things that CCP has done to lessen the dangers of EVE (and it is less dangerous even from when I started in 2007) devalues the efforts of folks like me who don't do the dangerous or evil stuff but rather take pride in figuring it out and surviving it. This is why I have survived 7 years as a mission runner and explorer without getting ganked and without running to the forums to beg CCP to save me via game mechancis changes.
Bronson Hughes The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration 651	Posted - 2014.10.30 16:49:36 - [147] - Quote Being something of a rogue myself, I am all about maintaining avenues for content creation, and AWOXxing is certainly one of them. But, on the other hand, if said avenue ends up driving away new players or keeping them in NPC corps, then it could well drive a net decrease in content creation opportunities because there are fewer players available to interact with. Also, as the CEO of a corporation, I made a conscious decision to not invite other players and AWOXxing was specifically one of the reasons why. So long as there remain other avenues of aggression (wardecs, kill rights, dueling, ganking, etc.), I think I'd actually be okay with a change to corporate aggression rules. CCP changed them for fleets, so changing them for corps seems somewhat in line with that. Here's how I see it: PROS: 1. Easier player corp management (less time working, more time playing). 2. Player corps would still be vulnerable to corp thieves (so some work is still necessary). 3. Potentially more players in player corps (i.e. more wardec targets). 4. Potentially more players in the game overall (i.e. more targets, period). CONS: 1. No more Safaris. I can't possibly imagine how some lulzmails generated in a Safari could outweigh the pros of removing AWOXxing. And I say this as a general non-carebear who enjoys creating content. CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking. Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook. I want to create content, not become content.
Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10401	Posted - 2014.10.30 16:49:36 - [148] - Quote Gaan Cathal wrote: Sure you can, you just loose a ship in the process. Then it's suicide ganking. Which I can do without joining their corp. Knock off the lies already. Quote: "Buffing highsec is unacceptable" seems a bit odd though, firstly - if highsec at some point was in need of a buff, it should get one. And right now it's in need of nerfs. They have been nerfing it, in fact. It is finally no longer the only acceptable place to perform industry, which is a good start. Now they need to work on the fact that it's the only acceptable place to mission or run incursions. It's too safe by half. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Mike Azariah DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited 1763	Posted - 2014.10.30 16:50:03 - [149] - Quote Sol Project wrote: If CCP really believes this will help player retention, then this game is doomed. Tell me, you CSM person, what are they doing against the real reasons that make new players quit? .) Player run New player corps which do not provide gameplay for their new players, or completely one sided gameplay. .) Vets in rookie corps who make people mine or run missions, which equals to playing solo or not at all, although CCP themselves said that players who become social are more likely to stay. .) Vets in rookie corps who lie about lowsec and the attitude of PvPers in general. .) Player run New player corps who do not teach anything and force their members to become targets, instead of making them understand how to survive and defend themselves. I will wait for your response. Out of curiosity, what makes you think that the above are the real reasons new players quit? Have you stats? Exit polls? You know, the things CCP does to see why people leave? But bullet by bullet 'do not provide gameplay' yeah, I agree some folks who came looking for a themepark experience leave when they find this is not it. I do not propose we ever try to become one, either. Sometimes you are just not the right game for the player. Force players to mine or run missions. um, how? Oh they may suggest it for standings or to get some isk while the skill queue ripens but are you talking slave labour? What are they, Amarr? People lie in Eve . . . yup Some corps are bad and don't teach. Yup, others are better at it. I'd like to see an encouragement to the latter class of corps. m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
Doc Fury Furious Enterprises 6992	Posted - 2014.10.30 16:51:25 - [150] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Dersen Lowery wrote: The issue is not that AWOXing is going away. It is not going away, full stop. It may require more social engineering now, which is good! It might be more difficult, and more rewarding, gameplay for those inclined toward it. Why do you people keep spouting this lie? Yes, awoxing would be removed, full stop. Because if you're talking about tricking someone into duelling you, I can do that without joining their corp. You are not adding any player interaction, you are taking it away. At least be honest about it. Might be referring to the corp theft and other shenanigans that can still occur by infiltrating a corp. Maybe there needs to be a consensus on what awoxing means exactly? Gÿ+ The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the ho's and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' and I'll look down, and whisper 'Hodor'.

Gaan Cathal Angry Mustellid The Periphery 18	Posted - 2014.10.30 16:52:09 - [151] - Quote Valkin Mordirc wrote: I keep my dual requests turned off, for a good reason. I'm a wardeccer, but if I'm in Amarr or Jita or some other trade hub, and I'm fighting a wartarget, I WILL get spammed with dual requests. Since I'm given the option to turn it off, I do. However having to go into my settings and turning it off and on, Every Time I was to test a tank, or see how well a certain ship can kite another ship, or test my ships DPS. Seems silly to me. I don't need to be fighting someone, and getting 4 to 5 spam invites to duels from some dude in a Vindi, in the middle of trying to blow someone up. So it's better if I disable them. Also in the CSM notes, CCP Falcon or Fozzie, mentioned that if you want to kill a player for doing wrong to you, you should just wardec them. What's stopping that player from dropping to a NPC Corp? Manually turning duel requests on doesn't seem so much of a hardship, certainly it's easy enough that "tank testing and pvp practice" aren't a legitimate argument against the in-corp Concordokken change, at least once the "multi-duel" deployable they were talking about in the minutes arrives. And the Wardec thing is something that needs fixing irrespective of this. Not making Change A if CCP believe it's the right change purely because it's impacted by a failing already present in Mechanic B is daft. Make Change A and fix Mechanic B. The idea of a "follow" duration for Wardec targets makes most sense to me, since locking people into decced corps is so abusable it's not funny.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8820	Posted - 2014.10.30 16:55:48 - [152] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Out of curiosity, what makes you think that the above are the real reasons new players quit? Have you stats? Exit polls? You know, the things CCP does to see why people leave? All I personally know is that when I came into EVE, I joined a mission running corp and were told all these things that were untrue about lw and null. If it wasn't for CCP introducing Faction Warfare, I'd have quit because based on bad information I was too afraid to venture outside of high sec. My experience is not unique. I've trained more than a few guys back when I was in Atlas and IT and then Raiden who would say "man, can't belvie I didn't do this sooner". I've come to realize that goons were doing it right, quickly ejecting their new players from high sec before they could become brainwashed lol. I now encourage new players to get the hell out of high sec as soon as possible, and avoid pve only high sec corps if they don't stay with my group.
Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10401	Posted - 2014.10.30 16:56:40 - [153] - Quote Doc Fury wrote: Maybe there needs to be a consensus on what awoxing means exactly? It's defined as individual, active betrayal of one's ostensible corporation. Active, as in not spying. It can encompass corp theft, but was originally used to describe the activity of providing warp ins for hostile players(which can be easily done with cloaked ships instead), and is presently used primarily to describe the act of infiltrating a corporation with the intent to attack them from within. Removing this particular interaction reduces the concept of awoxing to have the functional effect of only permitting corp theft. Thereby functionally removing the concept instead. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Dersen Lowery Drinking in Station 1241	Posted - 2014.10.30 16:57:38 - [154] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Why do you people keep spouting this lie? Yes, awoxing would be removed, full stop. Because if you're talking about tricking someone into duelling you, I can do that without joining their corp. You are not adding any player interaction, you are taking it away. At least be honest about it. If by AWOXing you specifically mean "blowing up a corpmate's ship with no NPC intervention" then yeah, probably. I was using the term more to mean joining a corp with the intention of ransoming, sabotaging, destroying or stealing it. If that's the one and only reason you can think of to play this vast game, uh, sorry? Just don't pretend that high sec magically becomes safe if this goes through, because that's ridiculous. There are still lots of ways to be a high sec predator, and some of those ways still involve inflitrating a corp under false pretenses. Also, don't pretend that there is any rhyme or reason to corporation settings or defaults, because if you have any familiarity with them you know that they're useless at best and desperately in need of a total overhaul. I don't expect that this will be the one and only change to high sec, either. There's a lot that could be improved. (And, just FYI, I'm not a huge fan of CONCORD. I wouldn't bat an eye if CCP came up with something less ham-fisted--dare I say, more emergent.) Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
Haedonism Bot Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 1462	Posted - 2014.10.30 16:57:45 - [155] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: I try to see both sides of an argument, honest I do. That this 'buffs hisec' and makes the game safer? Yeah I see that. Thing is it does so by removing a stupid loophole. Can one of the opposition explain to me WHY it makes sense that I can shoot a guy in my corp but not a stranger? Why concord will react to one incident and not the other? With dual mechanics we now have ways to 'test a tank' ignoring completely sisi server for the moment. So why did the awox mechanic make sense to you? I understand it made Eve 'dangerous' and allowed a certain type of gameplay but at the bottom of it . . . is there a logic to that rule? m Brother, this is a fantasy role-playing game, the rules don't need to have logic - they just need to allow opportunities for fun content, which AWOXing mechanics certainly always have. But if you must have an RP justification for every single goddamn game mechanic, it's easy enough to cook one up. How about this? In YC235754, CONCORD issued a notification to the empires that due to inflation in the price of PLEX, their budget could no longer support responses to intra-corporate capsuleer aggression. All capsuleer corporations were advised to provide for their own internal security." Mechanic logically justified. Happy now? CODE. is recruiting highsec PvPers for wardecs www.everevolutioanryfront.blogspot.com
Mike Azariah DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited 1764	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:00:43 - [156] - Quote Haedonism Bot wrote: Brother, this is a fantasy role-playing game, the rules don't need to have logic - they just need to allow opportunities for fun content, which AWOXing mechanics certainly always have. But if you must have an RP justification for every single goddamn game mechanic, it's easy enough to cook one up. How about this? In YC235754, CONCORD issued a notification to the empires that due to inflation in the price of PLEX, their budget could no longer support responses to intra-corporate capsuleer aggression. All capsuleer corporations were advised to provide for their own internal security." Mechanic logically justified. Happy now? Actually that is pretty good. But it is still a dumb loophole, for those of you who haven't read the relevant section you might notice Fozzie did hold out the poossibility of it being a toggle-abble function. Quote: CCP Fozzie - Yes. We have put a lot of thought into this such as flags that people can turn on and off. m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8823	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:03:54 - [157] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: [quote=Mike Azariah] Forgive me if I don't believe you, while you and yours celebrate the death of my playstyle. It's not just yours that's under threat. It's the same for those of us who take pride in being able to accomplish something in game against clever (and ruthless) resistence. Personally, I don't need CCP's help to not get awoxed (the only time I was awoxxed was in null and it was my own damn fault, I was ratting with a vindicator and a tengu but wanted my second monitor for something and logged off the tengu...that could have more easily killed the stealth bombers that awoxxed me lol). Or ganked, or scammed. I can do these things for myself and I resent CCP basically treating folks like me like children that need protecting just because a small vocal minority whines all the time.
Dersen Lowery Drinking in Station 1241	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:05:16 - [158] - Quote Haedonism Bot wrote: How about this? In YC235754, CONCORD issued a notification to the empires that due to inflation in the price of PLEX, their budget could no longer support responses to intra-corporate capsuleer aggression. All capsuleer corporations were advised to provide for their own internal security." Mechanic logically justified. Happy now? You can fluff anything. It's still confusing. I'd prefer CONCORD disappearing altogether to your proposed change. At least then there wouldn't be this weird state change where joining a group of people magically teleported you outside the law (or into it). The rules would be clear and consistent: in this space, these are the rules of engagement. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10401	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:05:27 - [159] - Quote I spit on your "flags that you can turn on and off". That is purely consensual PvP. And removing a real avenue to inflict damage to replace it with such a thing is distasteful at best. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Seven Koskanaiken The Minutemen The Bastion 1362	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:05:47 - [160] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Ships blowing up always benifit the game. People produce ships, if ships didn't explode nothing any of us do in EVE would worth anything. And now the awoxxers have to lose a catalyst to concord once in a while. The sky is surely falling! Typical. The Big Blocs in fleets of catalysts SRP'd from trillions of renter income will still be able to pew in high sec, meanwhile the plucky Little Guys (TM) lose out again. Why won't anyone think of the Little Guys (TM).

Gaan Cathal Angry Mustellid The Periphery 19	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:05:53 - [161] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: Out of curiosity, what makes you think that the above are the real reasons new players quit? Have you stats? Exit polls? You know, the things CCP does to see why people leave? All I personally know is that when I came into EVE, I joined a mission running corp and were told all these things that were untrue about lw and null. If it wasn't for CCP introducing Faction Warfare, I'd have quit because based on bad information I was too afraid to venture outside of high sec. The Vetbears in NPC corp channels thing is a real issue, but I'm dammned if I can think of an implementable solution that doesn't break something. Kaarous Aldurald wrote: I spit on your "flags that you can turn on and off". That is purely consensual PvP. And removing a real avenue to inflict damage to replace it with such a thing is distasteful at best. It's also nothing to do with AWOXing and I have no idea why it was mentioned in this thread. It was raised as a possible solution to the use of the no-Concordokken-in-corp thing for pvp practice etc. Entierly irrelevant to the ongoing conversation.
Anslo Scope Works 20003	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:09:28 - [162] - Quote It makes my job easier. Good change. [center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10401	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:10:14 - [163] - Quote Gaan Cathal wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: Out of curiosity, what makes you think that the above are the real reasons new players quit? Have you stats? Exit polls? You know, the things CCP does to see why people leave? All I personally know is that when I came into EVE, I joined a mission running corp and were told all these things that were untrue about lw and null. If it wasn't for CCP introducing Faction Warfare, I'd have quit because based on bad information I was too afraid to venture outside of high sec. The Vetbears in NPC corp channels thing is a real issue, but I'm dammned if I can think of an implementable solution that doesn't break something. NPC corps should have extremely punitive mechanics if your character is older than 60 days. 35% tax rate to all transactions, inability to run level 3 and 4 missions, and you cannot join fleets. Once you move to an NPC corp, you cannot create a new player corporation for 7 days, although you may join one. All of which is exempted from Faction Warfare corps. Leaves new players alone, smashes those exploting the increased safety. Also highly incentivizes player corps in comparison, makes it something worth fighting for, something worth keeping instead of just glorified chat channels. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2439	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:11:55 - [164] - Quote Bronson Hughes wrote: PROS: 1. Easier player corp management (less time working, more time playing). 2. Player corps would still be vulnerable to corp thieves (so some work is still necessary). 3. Potentially more players in player corps (i.e. more wardec targets). 4. Potentially more players in the game overall (i.e. more targets, period). CONS: 1. No more Safaris. I can't possibly imagine how some lulzmails generated in a Safari could outweigh the pros of removing AWOXxing. And I say this as a general non-carebear who enjoys creating content. ^This is the way I see it tbh. Yes it's unfortunate that awoxers get thrown under the bus, but if player retention goes up by even 2-3%, it's probably worth it. I don't have statistics on the reasons for why people leave when they do, ccp does. They probably think a mild increase in retention is worth the loss to awoxers, given that other criminal elements of eve (ganking, scamming, corp theft, etc.) are still intact. Eve is still the darkest grittiest mmo out there with or without awoxing.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1344	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:14:34 - [165] - Quote Haedonism Bot wrote: How about this? In YC235754, CONCORD issued a notification to the empires that due to inflation in the price of PLEX, their budget could no longer support responses to intra-corporate capsuleer aggression. All capsuleer corporations were advised to provide for their own internal security." The pilot licence you extend to be allowed to fly in EVE is "paid" TO CONCORD. Not sure how the price at which the commodity of something paid to them rising somehow affect them...
Marsha Mallow 1631	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:15:05 - [166] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: I try to see both sides of an argument, honest I do. That this 'buffs hisec' and makes the game safer? Yeah I see that. Thing is it does so by removing a stupid loophole. Can one of the opposition explain to me WHY it makes sense that I can shoot a guy in my corp but not a stranger? Why concord will react to one incident and not the other? With dual mechanics we now have ways to 'test a tank' ignoring completely sisi server for the moment. So why did the awox mechanic make sense to you? I understand it made Eve 'dangerous' and allowed a certain type of gameplay but at the bottom of it . . . is there a logic to that rule? m 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? DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
Valkin Mordirc 385	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:16:43 - [167] - Quote Quote: Manually turning duel requests on doesn't seem so much of a hardship, certainly it's easy enough that "tank testing and pvp practice" aren't a legitimate argument against the in-corp Concordokken change, If I want to disable or enable my duel request, I have to press escape and go into the setting menu. Which Removes me completely from my ship and knowning what going on around me. If you are Wardec and could have multiple people jump you at any given time, would you honestly want that? Of course I could do it docked. But regardless, this is a the removal of content. It was accidental content, who cares? I like the facts I can be awoxed stolen from, spied on. It adds to the game. If CCP wants to dumb it down, fine. But I want them to fix Corp dropping, single corp player rolling corps. I want to them to make it so Corps have a reason to dec each other, rather than Merc groups getting bored and popping a couple people looking for a good fight. Awoxing imo should stay. Fine make it harder. But it's become apart of EVE at this point, if they would have gotten rid of it at the start instead of now, then it wouldn't be an issue. But a game style has emerge from it. And CCP is actively hurting those players. `#DeleteTheWeak`
Nick Starkey Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 83	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:21:06 - [168] - Quote Just to clarify, none of that is a rumour and can be easily verified trough the CSM notes. I for one applaud CCP for going forward with this. It's about time we clear up obscure and inconsistent mechanics from this game, especially when they have such a negative effect the growth of the playerbase. Last time I checked, Highsec was still full of suicide ganks, wardecs and suspect baits everywhere. The tools for ganking and killing other players are all there, only your easy-mode safaris aren't an option anymore. If people in this forum are half as good villians as they claim to be, surely they won't have issues ganking carebears again (never had issues with that myself), unless of course they're bad at this game and need a flawed mechanic to their advantage. ..
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 25	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:21:46 - [169] - Quote Marsha Mallow wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: I try to see both sides of an argument, honest I do. That this 'buffs hisec' and makes the game safer? Yeah I see that. Thing is it does so by removing a stupid loophole. Can one of the opposition explain to me WHY it makes sense that I can shoot a guy in my corp but not a stranger? Why concord will react to one incident and not the other? With dual mechanics we now have ways to 'test a tank' ignoring completely sisi server for the moment. So why did the awox mechanic make sense to you? I understand it made Eve 'dangerous' and allowed a certain type of gameplay but at the bottom of it . . . is there a logic to that rule? m 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? Seems to me the only ones avoiding risk are the ones who awox. And pretty much all of the leet pvp'rs in null. Or at least that is what the null peoples would like everyone to believe.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21309	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:22:54 - [170] - Quote Dersen Lowery wrote: Yes, and that's the problem: The best way to take precautions to ensure that your little PVE corp doesn't become a victim of the latter group is to not recruit people. I agree with you to a certain extent, but it's one that doesn't allow a corp to grow. Due diligence when recruiting new members should be an integral part of the recruitment process, look at how many corps Psychotic Monk has managed to awox, with very obvious awoxing alts, because the recruiters didn't practice due diligence and do the most basic of checks. Personally I won't join a corp that doesn't request a full API, they're taking no steps to protect their corp members and IMHO it's a sign of poor leadership. As I said earlier there are ways to detect potential awoxers, and to balance that there are ways for potential awoxers to avoid detection, eg. using an alt account. Quote: CCP has hard data that says that new players who get into a corp quickly stick around a lot longer, which should really not surprise anyone who plays this game. EVE is and has always been primarily about players dealing with other players. Totally. Quote: The issue is not that AWOXing is going away. It is not going away, full stop. It may require more social engineering now, which is good! It might be more difficult, and more rewarding, gameplay for those inclined toward it. That remains to be seen, nothing is concrete yet, it'll be interesting to see how it plays out. Quote: This change is good to the extent that it accomplishes the following: 1) makes corps more comfortable recruiting newbies; 2) makes newbies more comfortable creating corps (why shouldn't you have a shot at learning by doing?); 3) streamlines and makes consistent the rules of engagement in high sec, which is where most newbies are going to learn the game; 4) makes the rules of membership in a social group more intuitive to new players. Once again I agree to a certain extent, corps should be comfortable with recruiting newbies, but not so comfortable that they have a lax recruitment process. I'm in the process of joining a corp with a fairly new alt, full API was requested on top of having an existing corp member vouch for me. To me that shows the corp cares about who joins them, and is taking steps to protect themselves, and their members. Not necessarily a good idea, it often ends in the blind leading the blind because the corp leadership has absolutely no idea what they're doing. If someone is going to recruit newbies they should be in a position to teach those newbies things like "don't shoot at the flashy guy who just robbed your wreck", not to mine or mission during a war etc. Telling newbies not to talk in local or to dock up does those newbies no favours. That's fair comment, some of the RoE can be a tad obscure. Agreed, the rules of membership should be clear, however a decent corp should also make clear that those rules aren't applicable to those outside the corp, and teach newbies how to deal with it. Quote: Remember, EVE has a terrible retention rate. This is a real problem, and they need to solve it. This is one step in the direction of a solution. I don't expect that AWOXing or predatory gameplay in high sec will go away any time soon. Why would it? Some see it as the start of a slippery slope in which Eve ends up as a shadow of its former self, only time will tell. "Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar Nil mortifi sine lucre.

Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10401	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:24:11 - [171] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Seems to me the only ones avoiding risk are the ones who awox. No, they're embracing risk. They are alone, against an entire corporation. It's the fault of their "victims" for not shooting back when they have free reign to do so. The only cowardice here is from their side, not from the side that happily straps on guns and gets into shooting range. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Eugene Kerner TunDraGon Cynosural Field Theory. 1405	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:25:29 - [172] - Quote Bad change for high sec is bad... on the other hand-I am a bottom-feeder and live in low sec...so it does not concern me directly. It cuts out a whole playstyle though...does CCP have the plan to generate a mitigate that? TunDraGon is recruiting! "Also, your boobs [:o] " -á CCP Eterne, 2012 "When in doubt...make a di++k joke."-áRobin Williams - RIP
Some Rando University of Caille Gallente Federation 1220	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:30:55 - [173] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: CCP needs to decide what kind of game is wants t make and who it wants to market it too, because if the answer to that is "market it to people so weak that they won't fight back or learn cleaver ways to evade when you screw with them", then EVE isn't dying, it's already dead lol. EVE is dying~ Seems they've made their decision; high-sec will be an unassailable bastion of terrible PvE content where wallets can increment safely and the rest of the game can burn. From the sounds of it null-sec alliances will have even greater incentive to continue making their money in high-sec, instead of where they live, while low-sec as a whole will continue being a wasteland. It's a wonder anyone still tries to keep space in null-sec... Jenn aSide wrote: At this point i don't think any of that will happen. I don't think the current CCP has the will of the true original company, the one that said "we're making this unique game about freedom in the coldness of space, a sci-fi ultima online, screw it if you don't like it". Yeah, it's a much different game than when I started in early 2011 (even). Some of the new changes have been welcome, but overall it's just getting harder and harder to mess with people in high-sec. If ganking ever gets removed then we'll know EVE is dead. Still on the fence over this one (definitely leaning towards "bad idea", though), but it really needs a balancing element added. CCP has no sense of humour.
Doc Fury Furious Enterprises 6992	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:31:00 - [174] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Doc Fury wrote: Maybe there needs to be a consensus on what awoxing means exactly? It's defined as individual, active betrayal of one's ostensible corporation. Active, as in not spying. It can encompass corp theft, but was originally used to describe the activity of providing warp ins for hostile players(which can be easily done with cloaked ships instead), and is presently used primarily to describe the act of infiltrating a corporation with the intent to attack them from within. Removing this particular interaction reduces the concept of awoxing to have the functional effect of only permitting corp theft. Thereby functionally removing the concept instead. I would argue from direct experience that it is possible to actively betray a corp via spying. Even as a spy you have to interact with other members of the corp and/or alliance, and can potentially (and quite easily as it turns out) direct their actions toward your goals without suspicion, much like a parasite attacks a host without completely killing them so it is not detected until too late. You are in no way just functionally limited to corp theft unless you are not very creative. This is going to kill a particular type of pew-pew play-style certainly, but it's not the end of awoxing as we know it as presently defined. A pervasive mantra chanted here is that people won't leave NPC corps, this works a bit toward that goal. This change will make infiltration easier. That's a buff IMHO. Gÿ+ The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the ho's and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' and I'll look down, and whisper 'Hodor'.
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2440	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:37:01 - [175] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: I've come to realize that goons were doing it right, quickly ejecting their new players from high sec before they could become brainwashed lol. I now encourage new players to get the hell out of high sec as soon as possible, and avoid pve only high sec corps if they don't stay with my group. I'm genuinely curious what you think of this article. Specifically this bit: Quote: Once you get out into the wider world, our new players need to join a social group. Except that hisec corporations are skittish about letting 'new players' join because of hisec awoxing: griefers such as my own space-tribe joining a corporation and then murderzoning the membership through a loophole in Concord enforcement - you can join a corp and attack anyone in your own corporation, even in hisec. Here's another sacred cow to slaughter: hisec awoxing is absolutely stupid from a business and retention perspective as it disincentivizes players from reaching out to genuine confused newbies. The dueling mechanic completely removes the 'need' for corp members to shoot one another outside of Concord enforcement. Player interaction in eve is paramount. Ideally (imo) new players would get that interaction in low/null, but that isn't the case more often than not. Taken in that light, encouraging more veteran player interaction with new characters in hisec is fundamentally a good thing.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 25	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:40:19 - [176] - Quote The funny thing about all the QQ. The OP didn't say anything about removing awox. Now they just have to deal with Concord........the whole risk thing they have been avoiding. At the end of the day, who cares if you lose an easily replaceable desi to Concord. Surely the reward of tears is worth it.
Gaan Cathal Angry Mustellid The Periphery 19	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:45:58 - [177] - Quote Valkin Mordirc wrote: But regardless, this is a the removal of content. It was accidental content, who cares? I like the facts I can be awoxed stolen from, spied on. It adds to the game. If CCP wants to dumb it down, fine. But I want them to fix Corp dropping, single corp player rolling corps. I want to them to make it so Corps have a reason to dec each other, rather than Merc groups getting bored and popping a couple people looking for a good fight. Awoxing imo should stay. Fine make it harder. But it's become apart of EVE at this point, if they would have gotten rid of it at the start instead of now, then it wouldn't be an issue. But a game style has emerge from it. And CCP is actively hurting those players. AWOXing isn't going away, Concord-free kills in Highsec outside of Wardecs/Criminal-tags are going away. AWOXing is bigger than that. You can still be stolen from, spied upon, be AWOXed (in the origional sense) and so forth. Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Dersen Lowery wrote: The issue is not that AWOXing is going away. It is not going away, full stop. It may require more social engineering now, which is good! It might be more difficult, and more rewarding, gameplay for those inclined toward it. That remains to be seen, nothing is concrete yet, it'll be interesting to see how it plays out. [....] With reference to the topic of awoxing and predatory gameplay and any changes to them; some see it as the start of a slippery slope in which Eve ends up as a shadow of its former self, only time will tell. I dunno how much 'remains to be seen' - the only aspect of AWOXing that's being removed is Concord-free killing. AWOXing in it's original form, corp theft, spying, etc remain completely unaffected by this. Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Syn Shi wrote: Seems to me the only ones avoiding risk are the ones who awox. It's the fault of their "victims" for not shooting back when they have free reign to do so. The only cowardice here is from their side, not from the side that happily straps on guns and gets into shooting range. That's disingenuous, everyone is well aware that a ship fit for PVE with even marginal efficiency has lost a fight against a PVP fit the second the point lands. One thing that I do think might be worth tagging onto the change when it does land, is extension of Concord arrival timers in mission pockets. Call it a simulation of Concord having to get to the gate then through it rather than making a direct warp if you need an ingame justification. What it does in practice is extend the time-before-ship-loss for someone ganking a missioner. Freighter/hauler/miner ganking seems to me to be in a reasonable place right now.
Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10403	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:46:20 - [178] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: The funny thing about all the QQ. The OP didn't say anything about removing awox. Now they just have to deal with Concord........the whole risk thing they have been avoiding. At the end of the day, who cares if you lose an easily replaceable desi to Concord. Surely the reward of tears is worth it. Suicide ganking already exists. I don't have to be in someone's corp to do that. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 6565	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:47:51 - [179] - Quote Awoxers, like suicide gankers, tend to be the not-so-bright players that want easy mode, risk free game play. While I see nothing wrong with having a mechanic that allows room for the stupid to have a place in EVE, there needs to be consequences for their actions (A basic tenet of this game). Ganking has those consequences and fulfills the requirements of balanced gameplay. Awoxing, as it stands now, does not. I'm fine with the proposed changes. Mr Epeen There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
Marsha Mallow 1636	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:50:32 - [180] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Seems to me the only ones avoiding risk are the ones who awox. There's a lot of snobbery associated with highsec PVP. It comes across as a mixture of envy from those in low/null (lots of supposedly easy targets who can't fight back, such dishounoure yada yada) and victim mentality from people who are genuinely outraged that they are being interfered with. There's this attitude that wardeccers, mercs, gankers, awoxers are crap at PVP and genuinely twisted individuals. The dedicated highsec pvpers I know are really pretty good - and it's not as easy as it appears. It's a bit of a simplistic argument to say they take no risks, especially given a lot of them are either soloers or alts with mains in supposedly 'elite' groups. Don't forget they often target corps with a number of members who could fight back (but would rather screech in local about harassment). If you grab a ship and go fight them, most of the people I encountered were really pleased (and gave loads of tips). Syn Shi wrote: And pretty much all of the leet pvp'rs in null. Or at least that is what the null peoples would like everyone to believe. Syn Shi wrote: The funny thing about all the QQ. The OP didn't say anything about removing awox. Now they just have to deal with Concord........the whole risk thing they have been avoiding. At the end of the day, who cares if you lose an easily replaceable desi to Concord. Surely the reward of tears is worth it. You're mixing up suicide ganking with awoxing. Highsec ganks use desis in large numbers because they're cheap, have high raw DPS and can get a couple of volleys off before being Concorded. Awoxers bypass Concord but go to the trouble of joining a corp to find targets - but they could decide to try kill a corpie in an Ibis if they feel like it. Don't forget not all internal corp kills are due to infiltration. Sometimes corpies fall out, then flip out and shoot each other. Which is absolutely hilarious tbh. DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!

Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10403	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:51:11 - [181] - Quote Hey Mike, since you're so fixated on "makes sense" in regards to CONCORD ignoring inter corporate violence. Tell me how it "makes sense" that if they can't be asked to show up in a mission pocket to shoot the NPC actual pirates, that they can just appear by magic if a player shoots at another player. Please tell me how that "makes sense" and isn't exactly the kind of arbitrary thing you're claiming to crusade against. If they won't show up to shoot the rats, I think they shouldn't show up at all. "Makes sense", right? Or we can admit to ourselves that absolutely nothing about the Infallible Magic Space Police makes sense, and just talk about game mechanics without hiding behind non logic false flags. Because if you want it to "make sense", they should not exist in the first place, let alone have unstoppable weapons. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2441	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:54:38 - [182] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Hey Mike, since you're so fixated on "makes sense" in regards to CONCORD ignoring inter corporate violence. Tell me how it "makes sense" that if they can't be asked to show up in a mission pocket to shoot the NPC actual pirates, that they can just appear by magic if a player shoots at another player. Please tell me how that "makes sense" and isn't exactly the kind of arbitrary thing you're claiming to crusade against. If they won't show up to shoot the rats, I think they shouldn't show up at all. "Makes sense", right? Or we can admit to ourselves that absolutely nothing about the Infallible Magic Space Police makes sense, and just talk about game mechanics without hiding behind non logic false flags. Because if you want it to "make sense", they should not exist in the first place, let alone have unstoppable weapons. NPC pirates are not considered a threat by concord.
Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10403	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:55:25 - [183] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Hey Mike, since you're so fixated on "makes sense" in regards to CONCORD ignoring inter corporate violence. Tell me how it "makes sense" that if they can't be asked to show up in a mission pocket to shoot the NPC actual pirates, that they can just appear by magic if a player shoots at another player. Please tell me how that "makes sense" and isn't exactly the kind of arbitrary thing you're claiming to crusade against. If they won't show up to shoot the rats, I think they shouldn't show up at all. "Makes sense", right? Or we can admit to ourselves that absolutely nothing about the Infallible Magic Space Police makes sense, and just talk about game mechanics without hiding behind non logic false flags. Because if you want it to "make sense", they should not exist in the first place, let alone have unstoppable weapons. NPC pirates are not considered a threat by concord. Is that why there's a tutorial mission with precisely that? Along with a few other missions or arcs. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1344	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:55:51 - [184] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Hey Mike, since you're so fixated on "makes sense" in regards to CONCORD ignoring inter corporate violence. Tell me how it "makes sense" that if they can't be asked to show up in a mission pocket to shoot the NPC actual pirates, that they can just appear by magic if a player shoots at another player. Please tell me how that "makes sense" and isn't exactly the kind of arbitrary thing you're claiming to crusade against. If they won't show up to shoot the rats, I think they shouldn't show up at all. "Makes sense", right? Or we can admit to ourselves that absolutely nothing about the Infallible Magic Space Police makes sense, and just talk about game mechanics without hiding behind non logic false flags. Because if you want it to "make sense", they should not exist in the first place, let alone have unstoppable weapons. Pretty sure it was never CONCORD's mandate to shoot at guristas and other such pirate group. I'm pretty sure they only have a word to say in affairs between capsulers such a corporation/alliance war declarations, illegal attack in high security space, ...
Indahmawar Fazmarai 3164	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:57:00 - [185] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: I try to see both sides of an argument, honest I do. That this 'buffs hisec' and makes the game safer? Yeah I see that. Thing is it does so by removing a stupid loophole. Can one of the opposition explain to me WHY it makes sense that I can shoot a guy in my corp but not a stranger? Why concord will react to one incident and not the other? With dual mechanics we now have ways to 'test a tank' ignoring completely sisi server for the moment. So why did the awox mechanic make sense to you? I understand it made Eve 'dangerous' and allowed a certain type of gameplay but at the bottom of it . . . is there a logic to that rule? m Point is: this mechanic is bad for CCP's bottom line. Thus it's gonna be shot in the neck once everybody who could be harmed by it was harmed in the last 10 years. So then my doubt is, where are the noobs who will benefit from this? Why should they bother with EVE now just because of little tiny changes to obscure stuff like this? The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! Ingame chat channel: The Greater Fool Bar
Mike Azariah DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited 1766	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:57:43 - [186] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Hey Mike, since you're so fixated on "makes sense" in regards to CONCORD ignoring inter corporate violence. Tell me how it "makes sense" that if they can't be asked to show up in a mission pocket to shoot the NPC actual pirates, that they can just appear by magic if a player shoots at another player. Please tell me how that "makes sense" and isn't exactly the kind of arbitrary thing you're claiming to crusade against. If they won't show up to shoot the rats, I think they shouldn't show up at all. "Makes sense", right? Or we can admit to ourselves that absolutely nothing about the Infallible Magic Space Police makes sense, and just talk about game mechanics without hiding behind non logic false flags. Because if you want it to "make sense", they should not exist in the first place, let alone have unstoppable weapons. Concord has hired the Capsiuleer running the mission to handle the threat. They then allow him/her to succeed or fail on thier own merits. But they DO interfere with capsuleer/capsuleer violence unless the appropriate fees have been paid (wardec) makes sense to me m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10403	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:58:38 - [187] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Hey Mike, since you're so fixated on "makes sense" in regards to CONCORD ignoring inter corporate violence. Tell me how it "makes sense" that if they can't be asked to show up in a mission pocket to shoot the NPC actual pirates, that they can just appear by magic if a player shoots at another player. Please tell me how that "makes sense" and isn't exactly the kind of arbitrary thing you're claiming to crusade against. If they won't show up to shoot the rats, I think they shouldn't show up at all. "Makes sense", right? Or we can admit to ourselves that absolutely nothing about the Infallible Magic Space Police makes sense, and just talk about game mechanics without hiding behind non logic false flags. Because if you want it to "make sense", they should not exist in the first place, let alone have unstoppable weapons. Pretty sure it was never CONCORD's mandate to shoot at guristas and other such pirate group. I'm pretty sure they only have a word to say in affairs between capsulers such a corporation/alliance war declarations, illegal attack in high security space, ... See above. Ever do the Angel Arc? You even hunt down and kill a CONCORD deputy. Sure seems like they are concerned with the NPCs. It's pretty "inconsistent" for them to even shoot players at all if they can't deal with the actual pirates. Since "inconsistent" is also something the carebears seem so concerned with. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10403	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:00:52 - [188] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Hey Mike, since you're so fixated on "makes sense" in regards to CONCORD ignoring inter corporate violence. Tell me how it "makes sense" that if they can't be asked to show up in a mission pocket to shoot the NPC actual pirates, that they can just appear by magic if a player shoots at another player. Please tell me how that "makes sense" and isn't exactly the kind of arbitrary thing you're claiming to crusade against. If they won't show up to shoot the rats, I think they shouldn't show up at all. "Makes sense", right? Or we can admit to ourselves that absolutely nothing about the Infallible Magic Space Police makes sense, and just talk about game mechanics without hiding behind non logic false flags. Because if you want it to "make sense", they should not exist in the first place, let alone have unstoppable weapons. Concord has hired the Capsiuleer running the mission to handle the threat. They then allow him/her to succeed or fail on thier own merits. But they DO interfere with capsuleer/capsuleer violence unless the appropriate fees have been paid (wardec) makes sense to me m CONCORD is not the ones paying mission runners. They are almost exclusively one of the four factions. So you're ignoring an inconsistency when it's in your favor. Okay, just wanted confirmation of that. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2925	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:01:59 - [189] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Hey Mike, since you're so fixated on "makes sense" in regards to CONCORD ignoring inter corporate violence. Tell me how it "makes sense" that if they can't be asked to show up in a mission pocket to shoot the NPC actual pirates, that they can just appear by magic if a player shoots at another player. Please tell me how that "makes sense" and isn't exactly the kind of arbitrary thing you're claiming to crusade against. If they won't show up to shoot the rats, I think they shouldn't show up at all. "Makes sense", right? Or we can admit to ourselves that absolutely nothing about the Infallible Magic Space Police makes sense, and just talk about game mechanics without hiding behind non logic false flags. Because if you want it to "make sense", they should not exist in the first place, let alone have unstoppable weapons. Concord has hired the Capsiuleer running the mission to handle the threat. They then allow him/her to succeed or fail on thier own merits. But they DO interfere with capsuleer/capsuleer violence unless the appropriate fees have been paid (wardec) makes sense to me m What about rats in belts that concord doesn't pay anyone to deal with? This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Mike Azariah DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited 1766	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:03:35 - [190] - Quote Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes -walt witman personally I had issue when Concord popped me when I was running an incursion and ignored the Sansha. Yeah, It doesn't all make sense but that does not preclude me from liking it when it does. m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9

Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10404	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:06:58 - [191] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Yeah, It doesn't all make sense but that does not preclude me from liking it when it does. It does preclude you from pointing that finger at others. So let's knock off the "makes sense" bullshit, and talk about it on it's own merits, or lack thereof. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1344	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:09:21 - [192] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Hey Mike, since you're so fixated on "makes sense" in regards to CONCORD ignoring inter corporate violence. Tell me how it "makes sense" that if they can't be asked to show up in a mission pocket to shoot the NPC actual pirates, that they can just appear by magic if a player shoots at another player. Please tell me how that "makes sense" and isn't exactly the kind of arbitrary thing you're claiming to crusade against. If they won't show up to shoot the rats, I think they shouldn't show up at all. "Makes sense", right? Or we can admit to ourselves that absolutely nothing about the Infallible Magic Space Police makes sense, and just talk about game mechanics without hiding behind non logic false flags. Because if you want it to "make sense", they should not exist in the first place, let alone have unstoppable weapons. Pretty sure it was never CONCORD's mandate to shoot at guristas and other such pirate group. I'm pretty sure they only have a word to say in affairs between capsulers such a corporation/alliance war declarations, illegal attack in high security space, ... See above. Ever do the Angel Arc? You even hunt down and kill a CONCORD deputy. Sure seems like they are concerned with the NPCs. It's pretty "inconsistent" for them to even shoot players at all if they can't deal with the actual pirates. Since "inconsistent" is also something the carebears seem so concerned with. If the angel arc mark you kill a concord deputy, it means the angels want to kill concord, not that concord want to devote effort to kill pirates. If anything they seem rather happy to throw official currency the capsulers' way to kill them instead. You can make a living out of killing pirates from various organisation but don't mess around with other pilot licences holders. Your right to make money off CONCORD via bounties is tied to limitation. You can't attack a fellow capsuler in high security space unless some procedures were followed. Said procedure differ depending where you are committing the infraction.
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2441	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:10:07 - [193] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: Yeah, It doesn't all make sense but that does not preclude me from liking it when it does. It does preclude you from pointing that finger at others. So let's knock off the "makes sense" bullshit, and talk about it on it's own merits, or lack thereof. It is a major inconsistency that we can shoot corp mates w/o concord intervention, but not alliance mates. The proposed changes remedy that inconsistency.
Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10404	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:11:37 - [194] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: Yeah, It doesn't all make sense but that does not preclude me from liking it when it does. It does preclude you from pointing that finger at others. So let's knock off the "makes sense" bullshit, and talk about it on it's own merits, or lack thereof. It is a major inconsistency that we can shoot corp mates w/o concord intervention, but not alliance mates. The proposed changes remedy that inconsistency. Personally, I am surprised that alliance bookmarks are still ignored. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21312	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:12:00 - [195] - Quote Gaan Cathal wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Dersen Lowery wrote: The issue is not that AWOXing is going away. It is not going away, full stop. It may require more social engineering now, which is good! It might be more difficult, and more rewarding, gameplay for those inclined toward it. That remains to be seen, nothing is concrete yet, it'll be interesting to see how it plays out. [....] With reference to the topic of awoxing and predatory gameplay and any changes to them; some see it as the start of a slippery slope in which Eve ends up as a shadow of its former self, only time will tell. I dunno how much 'remains to be seen' - the only aspect of AWOXing that's being removed is Concord-free killing. AWOXing in it's original form, corp theft, spying, etc remain completely unaffected by this. As far as I'm aware awoxing in its original form was used to do precisely what the proposed changes are removing, make corpmates explode (Sources TMC, Jester's Trek and Eve-Search). Now it includes any activities such as spying and corp theft. Quote: One thing that I do think might be worth tagging onto the change when it does land, is extension of Concord arrival timers in mission pockets. Call it a simulation of Concord having to get to the gate then through it rather than making a direct warp if you need an ingame justification. What it does in practice is extend the time-before-ship-loss for someone ganking a missioner. Freighter/hauler/miner ganking seems to me to be in a reasonable place right now and would be unaffected by this. I don't have a problem with this, it introduces something new to compensate for losing something old. I doubt you'll find many supporters amongst the carebear crowd though. "Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Rhivre TarNec Invisible Exchequer 806	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:12:25 - [196] - Quote So if these changes come in, when doing PvP practice with newbies, corps should take them to lowsec.....right? Fluffy Bunny Pic!
Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10404	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:12:32 - [197] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: If the angel arc mark you kill a concord deputy, it means the angels want to kill concord, not that concord want to devote effort to kill pirates. One wonders why CONCORD is in Curse, then. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Paynus Maiassus Capital Munitions 154	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:14:59 - [198] - Quote Xuixien wrote: Persifonne wrote: When will hisec become pvp free (except for duels and wardecs). Anyone activating weapons on player ship that you arent wardecced to, isnt flashy red or in a duel with will get concorded. Only pvp in lowsec null and wh. This day is coming. It is closer than we think. I'm ready to unsub my accounts basically any time at this point. No point in staying subbed... once EVE goes themepark it'll go the way of all the other themepark MMOs. In it's place some other small, niche, dark game will pop up to satisfy people who actually enjoy hard games without having their hands held. AWOXING has nothing to do with Eve being hard or player skill. It's an exploit. Doesn't make sense from a lore perspective that the police will come to stop crime in a highly policed area except when the crime is a betrayal of a friend. AWOXERs need to get a real job. Do something hard in Eve. There's plenty to do. Eve is a hard game. AWOXING isn't one of them.
Some Rando University of Caille Gallente Federation 1221	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:16:55 - [199] - Quote Paynus Maiassus wrote: AWOXERs need to get a real job. Do something hard in Eve. ~~EVE~~ Mining is hard. CCP has no sense of humour.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1344	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:17:29 - [200] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: Yeah, It doesn't all make sense but that does not preclude me from liking it when it does. It does preclude you from pointing that finger at others. So let's knock off the "makes sense" bullshit, and talk about it on it's own merits, or lack thereof. Sure as long as you discuss it from the point of view of those who have/had to take the decision. Put yourself in CCP's shoes and imagine that you actually have the stats of who is leaving. Now, since we can't really work from what we know because we don't have the stats for real, I will ask you to make sure you form an opinion from both possibilities, One from a scenario where awoxing does not cost subs and one from a scenario where it does. You have to monetize your work and you know your are extremely averse to trying the cash shop option too much after the epic rage the player showed the last time you tried it. I'll even cut your job a bit and grant you that if it does not hurt subs, there is absolutely no reasons to change this so you only really have to think about what you might do if it did. Both option might be true in reality but we don't know which scenario is actually being played right now.

Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10404	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:18:38 - [201] - Quote Paynus Maiassus wrote: Xuixien wrote: Persifonne wrote: When will hisec become pvp free (except for duels and wardecs). Anyone activating weapons on player ship that you arent wardecced to, isnt flashy red or in a duel with will get concorded. Only pvp in lowsec null and wh. This day is coming. It is closer than we think. I'm ready to unsub my accounts basically any time at this point. No point in staying subbed... once EVE goes themepark it'll go the way of all the other themepark MMOs. In it's place some other small, niche, dark game will pop up to satisfy people who actually enjoy hard games without having their hands held. AWOXING has nothing to do with Eve being hard or player skill. It's an exploit. Doesn't make sense from a lore perspective that the police will come to stop crime in a highly policed area except when the crime is a betrayal of a friend. AWOXERs need to get a real job. Do something hard in Eve. There's plenty to do. Eve is a hard game. AWOXING isn't one of them. Dec dodging has nothing do with EVE being hard, or player skill. It's an exploit. It doesn't make sense from a lore perspective that a declared war suddenly goes away by paying 2 million isk if they reform under the same name as five minutes ago. Dec dodgers need to go to NPC corps with the rest of the cowards. There's plenty to do in a player corp, dec dodging isn't one of them. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Paynus Maiassus Capital Munitions 155	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:20:59 - [202] - Quote Rhivre wrote: So if these changes come in, when doing PvP practice with newbies, corps should take them to lowsec.....right? 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.
Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10404	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:23:27 - [203] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: I'll even cut your job a bit and grant you that if it does not hurt subs, there is absolutely no reasons to change this so you only really have to think about what you might do if it did. Both option might be true in reality but we don't know which scenario is actually being played right now. It doesn't cost subs. But apparently we are so devoid of ways to actually create incentives to play the game that we are chasing after imaginary deterents. Each and every reason given for why "it hurts new players" is handily debunked, starting with the "it makes people afraid to recruit" horseshit. It does nothing of the sort. The fact that awoxing happens at all shows that clearly, people are getting into corps. I got into nine last month, without a problem. So clearly, people are recruiting. It is not even hard to get into a corp. There is zero impediment to social interaction caused by awoxing. Furthermore, CCP should not be concerned with the kind of people who "level their Raven and then quit", because they'd be quitting anyway. This game will never attract AND keep such people, they treat it like it's a Facebook game. Getting them into player corps or not will not save their subs, they are intrinsically playing the game wrong and that is not going to change. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Gaan Cathal Angry Mustellid The Periphery 21	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:24:25 - [204] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: As far as I'm aware awoxing in its original form was used to do precisely what the proposed changes are removing, make corpmates explode without NPC intervention (Sources TMC, Jester's Trek and Eve-Search). Now it includes any activities such as spying and corp theft. It involved the infiltration of corps with the goal of making ships explode, not necessarily via the direct application of the AWOXer's guns. The main way certainly used to be via the AWOXer providing a warpin to a fleet hostile to the AWOXee. Ship-exploding AWOXing currently has two forms: A) Warping in a hostile fleet B) Shooting someone without Concord intervention Post change it has two forms: A) Warping in a hostile fleet B) Shooting someone with Concord intervention Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Quote: One thing that I do think might be worth tagging onto the change when it does land, is extension of Concord arrival timers in mission pockets. Call it a simulation of Concord having to get to the gate then through it rather than making a direct warp if you need an ingame justification. What it does in practice is extend the time-before-ship-loss for someone ganking a missioner. I don't have a problem with this, and missioning is my primary income source. It introduces something new to compensate for losing something old. I doubt you'll find many supporters amongst the carebear crowd though. Quote: Freighter/hauler/miner ganking seems to me to be in a reasonable place right now and would be unaffected by this. Agreed, but once again you'll get dissent from the carebear crowd about any form of highsec shenanigans being in a reasonable place. This is exactly why I think it should come in with the Concordokken fix. If the two things are parceled as one update there will but much less kickback. The Concordokken delay is just a "part of the package" as opposed to a standalone nerf to suvivability, in terms of perception.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 25	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:24:52 - [205] - Quote Paynus Maiassus wrote: Rhivre wrote: So if these changes come in, when doing PvP practice with newbies, corps should take them to lowsec.....right? 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. Dude, just take that common sense and reason back to where you came from. None of that is needed here. We just want to grief and gank under the guise that we are creating content. (and we don't want to risk anything)
Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10404	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:27:27 - [206] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: We just want to grief and gank under the guise that we are creating content. (and we don't want to risk anything) Yeah, the Guiding Hand Social Club totally wasn't one of the single largest generators of long term subs in the history of the game. It's just "griefing" that stops CCP from attracting the kind of people who just want to watch Family Guy with one hand down their pants while they mine endlessly in highsec. Oh, if only we could have less of the former and more of the latter! "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1346	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:30:36 - [207] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: If the angel arc mark you kill a concord deputy, it means the angels want to kill concord, not that concord want to devote effort to kill pirates. One wonders why CONCORD is in Curse, then. I would need to read the flavor text of the arc to know if there was ever a reason given for CONCORD to be there. Scouting operation before they hire capsulers to do the dirty work there? I really don't know man. All I know is they very rarely shoot at pirate faction but seem to hold as really important to punish capsulers when they cross the lines they set around the pilot licence. Maybe it's all a ploy to play on us by paying us to ill armada after armada of the pirate's ship while they have backroom contracts with the pirates leaders to supply them ships and other stuff. We don't really know how much ISK a PLEX is worth for concord. We only know how much it's worth for a capsuler and it keeps rising anyway. :tinfoil:
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1346	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:33:00 - [208] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: I'll even cut your job a bit and grant you that if it does not hurt subs, there is absolutely no reasons to change this so you only really have to think about what you might do if it did. Both option might be true in reality but we don't know which scenario is actually being played right now. It doesn't cost subs. I will take your words for it as soon as you provide a proof of it. You seem to have access to CCP's account history data so it should not be hard for you to provide fact about how it does not cost subs.
Paynus Maiassus Capital Munitions 155	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:33:31 - [209] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Paynus Maiassus wrote: Xuixien wrote: Persifonne wrote: When will hisec become pvp free (except for duels and wardecs). Anyone activating weapons on player ship that you arent wardecced to, isnt flashy red or in a duel with will get concorded. Only pvp in lowsec null and wh. This day is coming. It is closer than we think. I'm ready to unsub my accounts basically any time at this point. No point in staying subbed... once EVE goes themepark it'll go the way of all the other themepark MMOs. In it's place some other small, niche, dark game will pop up to satisfy people who actually enjoy hard games without having their hands held. AWOXING has nothing to do with Eve being hard or player skill. It's an exploit. Doesn't make sense from a lore perspective that the police will come to stop crime in a highly policed area except when the crime is a betrayal of a friend. AWOXERs need to get a real job. Do something hard in Eve. There's plenty to do. Eve is a hard game. AWOXING isn't one of them. Dec dodging has nothing do with EVE being hard, or player skill. It's an exploit. It doesn't make sense from a lore perspective that a declared war suddenly goes away by paying 2 million isk if they reform under the same name as five minutes ago. Dec dodgers need to go to NPC corps with the rest of the cowards. There's plenty to do in a player corp, dec dodging isn't one of them. Well, that may be something that needs to be addressed. It has nothing to do with AWOXING though. And it's less of an exploit than AWOXING. If Germany declares war on America and every single American runs to Canada, Germany will need to declare war on Canada. I'm not saying dec dodging isn't en exploit. Only that it is slightly less unashamedly ridiculous as the idea of freely murdering corp mates. But sure, if you want it addressed, start a thread, talk to the CSM, get something going. This thread isn't about that though.
Dersen Lowery Drinking in Station 1241	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:34:00 - [210] - Quote Thanks for the toothsome reply. Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Due diligence when recruiting new members should be an integral part of the recruitment process, look at how many corps Psychotic Monk has managed to awox, with very obvious awoxing alts, because the recruiters didn't practice due diligence and do the most basic of checks. Personally I won't join a corp that doesn't request a full API, they're taking no steps to protect their corp members and IMHO it's a sign of poor leadership. As I said earlier there are ways to detect potential awoxers, and to balance that there are ways for potential awoxers to avoid detection, eg. using an alt account. Quick question: how do you know what an API is, and how do you provide a full one? Where did you learn that? Not anywhere in game! How do you balance that with the opposite concern, that the joining player doesn't entirely trust the corp he's joining and, for whatever reason, wants to maintain a certain degree of privacy at least initially? I mean, if you reduce corporate recruiting to a choice between making every potential recruit strip for a full colonoscopy and losing everything to some alt with a glint in his eye, isn't that a little broken by itself? Is it any wonder that most of the people who stay in this game are people more like me, who knew exactly which people from which out-of-game community they were going to play with when they came in? If you're someone like me who prefers to learn by doing (it's the only way to make most of the family recipes, for one thing, because LOL measurements) how and where do you learn to run a corp? How tolerant should the game be of mistakes, given that most players learn from mistakes? I'm asking questions because I'm not going to pretend that they all have clear-cut answers, or certainly that I know the answers there are. But they're real questions that CCP has to find answers to. If it's any consolation, CCP just nerfed my previous corp's playstyle beyond the point where we felt it was worth putting up with the hassle, so I have a first-hand understanding of how it feels to have your little part of the game disappear one day. The difference is that once we all recover from burnout we'll probably just find a different little part of the game. Jonah Gravenstein wrote: That remains to be seen, nothing is concrete yet, it'll be interesting to see how it plays out. I'll just say that I have great confidence in the ability of EVE players--certainly including new players!--to be diabolical little bastards, and I mean that in the best way possible. For me, this change is similar to Sugar Kyle's suggestion in the CSM minutes to get rid of sec status loss in low sec if you shoot first. That's another weird little corner of the rules that just doesn't make a lot of sense. If you're in a low security space, in a ship with medium- to long-range weapons, and a brawler lands on grid with you, why should you be penalized for firing before he gets under your guns, which is the tactically sensible thing to do? if no law enforcement is on grid, why should they even notice? Also, if you eliminate that quirk, you eliminate a lot of the peripheral issues that dedicated low sec players have getting into high sec because of greatly reduced sec status, and you obviate the need for workarounds like tags4sec that just make security status even more pointless and arbitrary. I know I'm veering a bit off topic, but it's only to establish that the goal here, to me, is that things should be streamlined and consistent, and whether that process makes one little bit of the game more or less safe, it's a change for the better on balance, especially as far as new players are concerned. Other players provide arbitrarily high levels of complexity already, without some computer's attempts to add more, and we want players interacting with other players. Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Once again I agree to a certain extent, corps should be comfortable with recruiting newbies, but not so comfortable that they have a lax recruitment process. I'm in the process of joining a corp with a fairly new alt, full API was requested on top of having an existing corp member vouch for me. To me that shows the corp cares about who joins them, and is taking steps to protect themselves, and their members. OK, you're a total newbie. You just joined cold because you liked the tagline in the EVE web ad. You don't know anyone. What do you do? Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Player retention is crap, nobody is denying that. Whether or not it's down to current mechanics, or down to people thinking Eve is something other than what it is, is up for debate. The part I've highlighted is a very serious issue with the NPE. But here's the rub: you learn what EVE is from other players. So the sooner you put new players in touch with existing players, the sooner they learn what EVE is, one way or another. The current mechanics place obstacles between new players and existing players. Jonah Gravenstein wrote: With reference to the topic of awoxing and predatory gameplay and any changes to them; some see it as the start of a slippery slope in which Eve ends up as a shadow of its former self, only time will tell. (Yes I am aware that the slippery slope is considered to be a fallacy) Yes, and for good reason. I mean, I could also say that CCP was on a slippery slope to chase PVP corps out of wormholes, because I was in a PVP corp in a wormhole and now I'm not, but I would be full of it. I've picked up Star Trek Online. That's a theme park, and perfectly enjoyable as the set of interactive Star Trek episodes that it is. Looking from that to the stated direction for EVE, which CCP is quite open about... yeah. I just can't see any similarity beyond there being spaceships which are online. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

Reiisha Splint Eye Probabilities Inc. Dawn of Transcendence 676	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:34:50 - [211] - Quote Xuixien wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: If you attack someone in hisec w/o a wardec or duel, expect to lose your ship. Simple. There's no real reason for the corp concord loophole to exist save giving the risk averse easy pew. Why, because you say so? Now we enter another idiotic debate where you say it's risk-free PvP, and in comes people with actual experience to tell you it's not, and you deny facts, logic, and reason and kiss CCP's butt because you want to be safer in HiSec. Because griefing is pvp, yes, of course. Nothing better than to show your skills at shooting completely defenseless targets. So why is it that those people don't go to low or null sec for their pvp fix? Might it be... that it's too dangerous? [center]If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all...[/center]
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2442	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:35:15 - [212] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Furthermore, CCP should not be concerned with the kind of people who "level their Raven and then quit", because they'd be quitting anyway. This game will never attract AND keep such people, they treat it like it's a Facebook game. Yes, but what if they didn't? Retaining even a small portion of the "upgrade your raven types" (~40% of new players as per CCP Rise at FF) could, over a modest time frame,significantly increase the quantity of targets in our sand box. Providing for these worthless souls, whether it be in the form of dojos/arenas, improved missions, reducing awoxing, etc. has the opportunity to vastly enrich the sandbox and is therefore a worthwhile pursuit.
Gaan Cathal Angry Mustellid The Periphery 23	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:37:59 - [213] - Quote Paynus Maiassus wrote: Well, that may be something that needs to be addressed. It has nothing to do with AWOXING though. And it's less of an exploit than AWOXING. If Germany declares war on America and every single American runs to Canada, Germany will need to declare war on Canada. I'm not saying dec dodging isn't en exploit. Only that it is slightly less unashamedly ridiculous as the idea of freely murdering corp mates. But sure, if you want it addressed, start a thread, talk to the CSM, get something going. This thread isn't about that though. AWOXing is not, and never has been, an exploit. CCP intentionally made Concord not respond to intra-corp combat. They are now planning to change that behaviour in order to make the rules of highsec more intuitive and remove exceptions that are not immediately apparent or regarded as logical. That does not make the current behaviour any less intended. AWOXing is not, has not been, will not be an exploit.
Sol Project Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 49	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:38:19 - [214] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Sol Project wrote: If CCP really believes this will help player retention, then this game is doomed. Tell me, you CSM person, what are they doing against the real reasons that make new players quit? .) Player run New player corps which do not provide gameplay for their new players, or completely one sided gameplay. .) Vets in rookie corps who make people mine or run missions, which equals to playing solo or not at all, although CCP themselves said that players who become social are more likely to stay. .) Vets in rookie corps who lie about lowsec and the attitude of PvPers in general. .) Player run New player corps who do not teach anything and force their members to become targets, instead of making them understand how to survive and defend themselves. I will wait for your response. Out of curiosity, what makes you think that the above are the real reasons new players quit? Have you stats? Exit polls? You know, the things CCP does to see why people leave? But bullet by bullet 'do not provide gameplay' yeah, I agree some folks who came looking for a themepark experience leave when they find this is not it. I do not propose we ever try to become one, either. Sometimes you are just not the right game for the player. Force players to mine or run missions. um, how? Oh they may suggest it for standings or to get some isk while the skill queue ripens but are you talking slave labour? What are they, Amarr? People lie in Eve . . . yup Some corps are bad and don't teach. Yup, others are better at it. I'd like to see an encouragement to the latter class of corps. m If you do not believe my words, I will carefully take your hand, will try not to break it, and show you actual reality. You can ask awoxxers themselves about the huge amount of corps who gather new players and do not care for them or teach them anything of actual value. You can also by yourself spend lots of time in ALL the rookiecorps to find out that there are assholes who do exactly what I am telling you. Tippia can also confirm this to be true and points it out often enough. I take my information simply by playing and talking in the relevant areas, with the people it's about. Something CCP does not seem to do and I doubt you do it either. You people look at "data", thinking it mirrors reality. The more you look at data, the less connected with actual reality you will be. If you think you know better, then please show us relevant data that proves that the issue that absolutely exists is not actually there. I bet that your data does not consider social interactions and the influence of the few on the many. You are welcome to tell me otherwise and show me something that proves that you or CCP actually know why people are leaving this game. So far, it seems that you all suffer from a big questionmark. Do you have any ideas why people do not stay for longer or do you just have data?
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21312	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:39:28 - [215] - Quote Gaan Cathal wrote: It involved the infiltration of corps with the goal of making ships explode, not necessarily via the direct application of the AWOXer's guns. The main way certainly used to be via the AWOXer providing a warpin to a fleet hostile to the AWOXee. Ship-exploding AWOXing currently has two forms: A) Warping in a hostile fleet B) Shooting someone without Concord intervention Post change it has two forms: A) Warping in a hostile fleet B) Shooting someone with Concord intervention I stand corrected, I was aware of the hostile fleet bit but was under the impression that it was mainly shooting your corpmates in the face, thanks for the clarification. It does somewhat remove one of the reasons for infiltrating a corp though, you can do both post change parts without having to. Quote: This is exactly why I think it should come in with the Concordokken fix. If the two things are parceled as one update there will but much less kickback. The Concordokken delay is just a "part of the package" as opposed to a standalone nerf to suvivability, in terms of perception. It may be worth a F&I thread to discuss a compromise like this, it certainly won't get a lot of support from carebears but it may well mollify the people who indulge in highsec hijinks. "Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Paynus Maiassus Capital Munitions 155	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:40:22 - [216] - Quote Gaan Cathal wrote: Paynus Maiassus wrote: Well, that may be something that needs to be addressed. It has nothing to do with AWOXING though. And it's less of an exploit than AWOXING. If Germany declares war on America and every single American runs to Canada, Germany will need to declare war on Canada. I'm not saying dec dodging isn't en exploit. Only that it is slightly less unashamedly ridiculous as the idea of freely murdering corp mates. But sure, if you want it addressed, start a thread, talk to the CSM, get something going. This thread isn't about that though. AWOXing is not, and never has been, an exploit. CCP intentionally made Concord not respond to intra-corp combat. They are now planning to change that behaviour in order to make the rules of highsec more intuitive and remove exceptions that are not immediately apparent or regarded as logical. That does not make the current behaviour any less intended. AWOXing is not, has not been, will not be an exploit. It's an exploit. It's bad for the game. It's absolutely absurd.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1346	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:41:02 - [217] - Quote Gaan Cathal wrote: Paynus Maiassus wrote: Well, that may be something that needs to be addressed. It has nothing to do with AWOXING though. And it's less of an exploit than AWOXING. If Germany declares war on America and every single American runs to Canada, Germany will need to declare war on Canada. I'm not saying dec dodging isn't en exploit. Only that it is slightly less unashamedly ridiculous as the idea of freely murdering corp mates. But sure, if you want it addressed, start a thread, talk to the CSM, get something going. This thread isn't about that though. AWOXing is not, and never has been, an exploit. CCP intentionally made Concord not respond to intra-corp combat. They are now planning to change that behaviour in order to make the rules of highsec more intuitive and remove exceptions that are not immediately apparent or regarded as logical. That does not make the current behaviour any less intended. AWOXing is not, has not been, will not be an exploit. So is corp jumping and NPC corp hugging but people keep labeling those as an exploit. It's almost as if people were labeling stuff they don't like about the game an exploit in the hope CCP will somehow think that way too. It's always fun to read 2 threads at the same time about 2 of those and see both side sling poo at each others by calling the other an exploiter while being wrong all the time.
Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10404	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:41:04 - [218] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: I'll even cut your job a bit and grant you that if it does not hurt subs, there is absolutely no reasons to change this so you only really have to think about what you might do if it did. Both option might be true in reality but we don't know which scenario is actually being played right now. It doesn't cost subs. I will take your words for it as soon as you provide a proof of it. You seem to have access to CCP's account history data so it should not be hard for you to provide fact about how it does not cost subs. Prove that it does. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Sol Project Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 49	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:41:15 - [219] - Quote Also I like to add that your attitude stinks. I am trying to help and you come up with a crappy response. Try to be better. It's about the game and you seem to not understand what's going on at all. Try it.
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2442	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:43:22 - [220] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: I'll even cut your job a bit and grant you that if it does not hurt subs, there is absolutely no reasons to change this so you only really have to think about what you might do if it did. Both option might be true in reality but we don't know which scenario is actually being played right now. It doesn't cost subs. I will take your words for it as soon as you provide a proof of it. You seem to have access to CCP's account history data so it should not be hard for you to provide fact about how it does not cost subs. Prove that it does. He can't prove his point without access to ccp's data anymore than you can prove yours. All we know is that ccp has the data, and they're the ones choosing to make these changes.

Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10405	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:47:53 - [221] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: He can't prove his point without access to ccp's data anymore than you can prove yours. All we know is that ccp has the data, and they're the ones choosing to make these changes. They're not making any change, they're floating ideas in the CSM minutes. One that I am stringently disagreeing with. And as for the "Leveling their Raven" people. Yes, retaining them would be a benefit. But never if that means taking away from the sandbox. Selling the soul of the game for the sake of purely theoretical casual players who already behave in a fashion contrary to the reality of the game is not worth it. Ultima Online died doing exactly that. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Gaan Cathal Angry Mustellid The Periphery 23	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:48:41 - [222] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: So is corp jumping and NPC corp hugging but people keep labeling those as an exploit. It's almost as if people were labeling stuff they don't like about the game an exploit in the hope CCP will somehow think that way too. It's always fun to read 2 threads at the same time about 2 of those and see both side sling poo at each others by calling the other an exploiter while being wrong all the time. Actually IIRC the specific case where a corp disbands and immediately reforms under the same name to avoid a Wardec is a petitionable exploit.
Sol Project Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 52	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:49:10 - [223] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Furthermore, CCP should not be concerned with the kind of people who "level their Raven and then quit", because they'd be quitting anyway. This game will never attract AND keep such people, they treat it like it's a Facebook game. Yes, but what if they didn't? Retaining even a small portion of the "upgrade your raven types" (~40% of new players as per CCP Rise at FF) could, over a modest time frame,significantly increase the quantity of targets in our sand box. Providing for these worthless souls, whether it be in the form of dojos/arenas, improved missions, reducing awoxing, etc. has the opportunity to vastly enrich the sandbox and is therefore a worthwhile pursuit. No. It does not enrich the sandbox. I doubt you ever enriched the sandbox so I understand if you use these words in such an empty manner. The reason why these people leave is because there is a cap to their satisfaction. Eventually, there will be no reason to keep going, because the fake feelings of achievement by shooting stupid NPCs have maxed out and they go find a new game that gives them these fake feelings of achievements. These people do not enrich the sandbox. At best, they are loudmouthing targets. "Enriching the sandbox" means to provide content. Sand. These people you mention do not provide sand at all. They are ants who are being kicked out, because the sandbox is not where they belong.
Marsha Mallow 1638	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:52:40 - [224] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Syn Shi wrote: We just want to grief and gank under the guise that we are creating content. (and we don't want to risk anything) Yeah, the Guiding Hand Social Club totally wasn't one of the single largest generators of long term subs in the history of the game. It's just "griefing" that stops CCP from attracting the kind of people who just want to watch Family Guy with one hand down their pants while they mine endlessly in highsec. Oh, if only we could have less of the former and more of the latter! Linky. For those who don't remember it or weren't playing at the time, check the comments. There was massive press relating to that incident, it's really surprising how many people started playing because of it. DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10405	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:53:30 - [225] - Quote "If you remove awoxing, you will have more targets! ... for the mechanics that don't actually work like wardecs." You lot expect us to swallow that nonsense? "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Josef Djugashvilis 2636	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:54:00 - [226] - Quote If CCP decide to end AWOXING, it will either increase or decrease subs. There again, the effect may be neutral. This is not a signature.
Sol Project Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 52	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:54:44 - [227] - Quote And I like to add that CCPs data most likely does not actually tell them anything of value. Instead of looking at worthless bits and exitpolls, all they would need to do is have actually skilled people play and talk to those it is actually about. Proper social engineering is what is needed. CCPs data has less use than toilet paper.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1346	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:54:59 - [228] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: I'll even cut your job a bit and grant you that if it does not hurt subs, there is absolutely no reasons to change this so you only really have to think about what you might do if it did. Both option might be true in reality but we don't know which scenario is actually being played right now. It doesn't cost subs. I will take your words for it as soon as you provide a proof of it. You seem to have access to CCP's account history data so it should not be hard for you to provide fact about how it does not cost subs. Prove that it does. Oh look, we are both stuck with the same problem where we completely have no data about why subs are leaving. We only know what CCP said about the 40/40/20 ratio but they never said why it happens. They obviously quit for some reason but you, me, Obama and ISIS are all stuck at the same exact point. We don't have the required info to make an actual proof because for all the people we could ask in game why they stayed, we will never know why the one who are gone did leave. We will obviously not convince each others because you firmly believe in your point of view and I openly admit to not knowing what the real deal is but I think CCP might know better than random players. I don't give a damn if you are right or wrong because I can't make the decision for CCP anyway but what I find absolutely stupid is your lack of vision to be willing to at least think that you might be wrong. You absolutely chase away these though as if your point of view was some king of god given truth about the state of CCP's sub numbers so your build your complete point of view on something that no one but the silent one (CCP) can prove or deny. There is a metric ass ton of reason why CCP is losing potential costumer and no one in this discussion really has an answer to this. We are all making guess as to what it might or might not be while CCP is making moves on what I assume is there own analyse of the data they have.
Victoria Ewans Inefficient Canadian Cosmic Conglomerate 0	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:55:06 - [229] - Quote im new to the game... and i find it attractive. But... There is something i dont understand. Given Eve is a dark-harsh-PVP-sandbox MMO oriented game, i do understand that many players are attracted with the idea of being the bad guy, commonly known as: - copr thief - suicide ganker - solo ganker - group gnaker - scammer - liar - manipulator - bait pvper - wardeccer - randsom'er - harasment player Given Eve is a "dangerous" game, everybody need to be on their toes to achieve their personal goal according their desire of the moment. Once that being said, why is everybody complaining about everything in this game? I mean, the bads guys want a free pvp cahotic wolrd everywhere while the carebear want secrutiy everywhere. I was wondering why the hell does bad guy dont, all at the same moment, go back to low/ null sec? this way it will no longer be player empty. They will find the pvp engagement they are lookgin for fighting for their survival. Doing so, the high sec will be a more "secure" place for the carebear so they can do their thing relatively quietfully. Because, this game need carebear as far as my understanding of the game goes. Isnt carebear essential to the market? - I though that the only way to generate ingame ISK was missing running and rat bounty - Who will feed the market with ore if its not the high sec miner? since they are prolly insta-ganked in low sec (without escort). If you add that player in low/null sec arent really intereseted in mining more than pvp. Without all the differents sultilities of the game and assuming its general behavior without going in detail, i though that highsec was essential to the game so new player can learn its way. Later on, more the player feels comfortable with the hostile environnement of the game they can go deeper in the space and reach low/null sec. All this, leads me to a question: why do the bad guys are in highsec and not in lowsec fighting against each other in their cahotic pvp while the highsec produce the new player to feed their endless needs of fresh meat? Its like if the bad guy are carebear themself since they are seeking weaker preys in highsec because they are affraid of more dangerous player roaming out there in low sec? Im sure that bad guys are exactly like care bear: - nobody like loosing a battle, - being killed while not expecting it, - both are playing the game to have fun, none is playing it to not enjoy it This leads me to an other assumption: - If there is an average of 25000-30000 players online at once on the server - they are mainly in high/low sec - null sec is almost empty - the big majority of player are pvp-bad guys oriented * i will assume that 15000 - 20000 player are pvp oriented one * i will assume that 10000 - 15000 player are care bear - the bad guys want to be bad guys, hence handling the player oriented content like the world-wide famously known James-315 - the care bear want to be care bear, mining ans mission running What would be best? 1- all the care bear quiting the game because of this or that, leaving those many pvp player to battle against each other? 2- the pvp-er going to pvp against each other with the bonus of harassing player in highsec? 3- all the pvp'er quitting the game because of this or that? who would create risk and danger? prolly the game would become boring... finally, how relevent is the Awoxing change are in that context? I suppose that - more safety = more care bear getting into the game - more care bear = more pvp target + more new pvp'er in few months Concluded. Now im welcoming your harsh, mean, rude and trolling comments as it is commonly seen on the forums.
Dersen Lowery Drinking in Station 1241	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:00:31 - [230] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Furthermore, CCP should not be concerned with the kind of people who "level their Raven and then quit", because they'd be quitting anyway. This game will never attract AND keep such people, they treat it like it's a Facebook game. Yes, but what if they didn't? Retaining even a small portion of the "upgrade your raven types" (~40% of new players as per CCP Rise at FF) could, over a modest time frame,significantly increase the quantity of targets in our sand box. Providing for these worthless souls, whether it be in the form of dojos/arenas, improved missions, reducing awoxing, etc. has the opportunity to vastly enrich the sandbox and is therefore a worthwhile pursuit. Worthless? OK, let's review the gameplay enabled and enhanced by the Raven-leveling mission runner. Every ship with meta equipment in the game; A great quantity of faction items in the game, and all COSMOS items; Combat scanning; Mission invasion; Ninja salvaging and looting; Arbitrage; Station trading and market PVP generally, both from loot and from items bought with LP; Ganking at gates; Industry, because mission runners do in fact lose ships. Not bad for worthless. The guy with the bling Raven running SoE missions got me and my scanning alt the SoE launcher and probes that I've used to scan down any number of people, places and things in wormhole space. Some other guys, possibly in FW got me the Caldari Navy and Federation Navy Antimatter that I cheerfully fired at many of the same targets. The fact is that between loot, LP stores, travel, the missions themselves, and the ships involved, PVE in high sec facilitates more interaction with more players in more ways than PVE anywhere else in the game, even if the person running the PVE is a hermit in a vanity corp who's never even heard of TeamSpeak. High sec PVE players spend a lot of time in ships, in space, which is good. Obviously, it would be even better if the Raven-levelers were not merely defaulted into that play style by the mission-focused NPE--the retention numbers are clear that it's not a popular pastime, though it obviously has its adherents, and that's fine. It would be great if the Raven-levelers could easily switch gears and explore other areas of the game when they got bored or ran out of slots to put purple things. That's why this change is good. That's why I love Mangala Solaris' idea of giving roaming fleets some support mechanics. There need to be more, and more accessible, and more intuitive, ways for players to connect to other players, because players are what this game is finally about. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2442	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:02:34 - [231] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: But never if that means taking away from the sandbox. Selling the soul of the game for the sake of purely theoretical casual players who already behave in a fashion contrary to the reality of the game is not worth it. Awoxing is no more "the soul of the game" than jumping 50 supers to gank a bumped titan 100 lightyears away. Both are a simple consequence of mechanics, and both can (and will) be removed in a likely fashion. [quote=Kaarous Aldurald]"If you remove awoxing, you will have more targets! ... for the mechanics that don't actually work like wardecs." You lot expect us to swallow that nonsense? And things like scamming, ganking, corp theft, etc. But no, wardecs. Totally.... Also, Syn Shi made a very good point. They aren't removing awoxing. You can still find and gank high value targets via infiltration. They just added a consequence for doing so in hisec. Things should have consequences, yes?
Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10406	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:02:51 - [232] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: There is a metric ass ton of reason why CCP is losing potential costumer and no one in this discussion really has an answer to this. We are all making guess as to what it might or might not be while CCP is making moves on what I assume is there own analyse of the data they have. I don't have to assume anything, or guess. It can be easily inferred that not everyone will enjoy a sandbox game in the long term. Those people are not only inevitable losses, but of no concern for anything. It can also be easily inferred that people who "Level their Raven", that meaning trying to play this game like it was World of Warcraft, are not suitable for the sandbox. Hence my statement. Anything that is the "cause" of these people leaving is of no real consequence, they WILL quit anyway. But you're telling me that another month of their flash in the pan pretensions that this isn't a multiplayer game is worth the loss of my seven years of playing, the last five of which with 3 accounts at least. Because the price of their subbing for maybe one more month before they realize they are playing the wrong game and quit is that my playstyle is removed and I unsub everything I might have had for the next few years, permanently. Me, and everyone like me. Yeah, totally worth it. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Skydell Bad Girl Posse Somethin Awfull Forums 636	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:04:33 - [233] - Quote The only way to stop AWOX is to assign each module group with a criminal activation. Done through Corp and Alliance settings in an ideal scenario. If CCP need to establish presets, they can use the full, partial and anything goes settings we have now to define Corp settings. It's possible to do this. and yes it will force civility on to anyone joining corps but would still allow them to act like barbarians if the general theme is agreed upon.
Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10406	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:05:08 - [234] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Also, Syn Shi made a very good point. They aren't removing awoxing. You can still find and gank high value targets via infiltration. No, that's just suicide ganking. That existed before, and I can do 100% it without being in their corp beforehand. Also, as a largely solo player, my choice of targets is sharply limited by the unreasonable restrictions on this playstyle. While on the other hand, wardecs are toothless. Stop with the disingenuous nonsense already. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2442	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:08:37 - [235] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Also, Syn Shi made a very good point. They aren't removing awoxing. You can still find and gank high value targets via infiltration. No, that's just suicide ganking. That existed before, and I can do 100% it without being in their corp beforehand. Also, as a largely solo player, my choice of targets is sharply limited by the unreasonable restrictions on this playstyle. While on the other hand, wardecs are toothless. Stop with the disingenuous nonsense already. Convince your target to take their raven or w/e into a wormhole with you. Use some goddam guile. Adapt. Both sides are being equally disingenuous in this thread.
Mike Azariah DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited 1767	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:09:17 - [236] - Quote Sol Project wrote: Do you have any ideas why people do not stay for longer or do you just have data? Isn't any list of reasons I present 'data'? Sadly, IF I do know the stats/data from sessions with CCP NDA would preclude me from giving them to you so we are left with the choice that a) CCP is randomly making changes with no reasoning behind them hoping that out of the chaos something will happen that makes the game better OR (b) they do have some reason for this change. The only group I do feel sorry for is the corp free-for-all events m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10408	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:11:12 - [237] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Convince your target to take their raven or w/e into a wormhole with you. You're ****ing kidding me. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Anne Dieu-le-veut Natl Assn for the Advancement of Criminal People 149	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:12:26 - [238] - Quote Gaan Cathal wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: So is corp jumping and NPC corp hugging but people keep labeling those as an exploit. It's almost as if people were labeling stuff they don't like about the game an exploit in the hope CCP will somehow think that way too. It's always fun to read 2 threads at the same time about 2 of those and see both side sling poo at each others by calling the other an exploiter while being wrong all the time. Actually IIRC the specific case where a corp disbands and immediately reforms under the same name to avoid a Wardec is a petitionable exploit. Nope. Carebears do it all the time. James315 does it hoping carebears will petition hoping to get it declared an exploit.
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2442	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:14:57 - [239] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Convince your target to take their raven or w/e into a wormhole with you. You're ****ing kidding me. You're in their corp, yes? You've gained their trust, yes? Start running wh ops and spread a little loot around. And then, kill a target when the opportune moment arises. Wouldn't be the first time this happened. Use some social engineering, or accept the consequence of shooting something in hisec. Dealer's choice. Bottom line is you can adapt or quit. If you choose the latter, dibs on your stuff.
Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10408	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:17:39 - [240] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Convince your target to take their raven or w/e into a wormhole with you. You're ****ing kidding me. You're in their corp, yes? You've gained their trust, yes? Start running wh ops and spread a little loot around. And then, kill a target when the opportune moment arises. Wouldn't be the first time this happened. Use some social engineering, or accept the consequence of shooting something in hisec. Dealer's choice. Bottom line is you can adapt or quit. If you choose the latter, dibs on your stuff. So... you actually think that PvP should require jumping through that many hoops, just to get the slightest chance to kill somebody? I just want to make sure you actually believe what you're telling me here, because I can barely believe it myself. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.

Josef Djugashvilis 2638	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:17:52 - [241] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Also, Syn Shi made a very good point. They aren't removing awoxing. You can still find and gank high value targets via infiltration. No, that's just suicide ganking. That existed before, and I can do 100% it without being in their corp beforehand. Also, as a largely solo player, my choice of targets is sharply limited by the unreasonable restrictions on this playstyle. While on the other hand, wardecs are toothless. Stop with the disingenuous nonsense already. [edit: I am a solo player largely due to time constraints from my irl job. That's why this pisses me off so much, because as such a player, awoxing is the ONE way that I can inflict meaningful loss on people who would otherwise suffer exactly zero losses. Why should they get to be immune? Why is their sub worth more than mine? Why should their petty peace of mind merit the removal of my playstyle? If I may take the liberty of of paraphrasing the delightfully always angry Kaarous: - It's all about me and what I want. This is not a signature.
John Ratcliffe Sarumans Hand 281	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:19:51 - [242] - Quote Marsha Mallow wrote: Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: "Ali adds that some people stay because they were ganked." Amen Ali. Amen. +1. Missions were boring, mining was boring, but being ganked made me upgrade from a trial. Veers Belvar wrote: There were 3 main reasons that have deterred me from joining Highsec corps - 1. Awoxxing 2. Wardeccs 3. Theft Even if CCP knocks off reason 1, I still think 2 and 3 are a pretty big deterrent to joining corps, and a good reason for many to stay in NPC/1 man corps. None of those put me off, if anything they added new tiers of gameplay. But I'm in a corp with the folk who wardecced my old one nearly 6 years ago, one of whom still gleefully likes to remind me how I tried to fight him once in a ship with no mods fitted >.> Looking at that list, even if all of those things were addressed you'll probably be able to think of some more. There is a clear need to improve the NPE and retention rates, but wrapping rookies in additional layers does nothing but delay the inevitable tantrum when they realise they can't control every aspect of their interraction with others. Honestly, dumbing down the non-consensual elements of gameplay won't make the risk-averse babbies suddenly turn into sociable players. They just want to farm in instance syle themepark areas, and I don't see why the rest of us should tolerate it. It's disgusting. If CCP want to address the core issue that the majority of highsec residents are gibbering lunatics Remove NPC corps Remove Concord Remove Highsec Stick rookies in a starter system and don't let them out until they've killed 10 other rookies Remove all forms of PVE and make all materials come from combat drops from other players. Get rid of passive skilltraining. I want lootable SP too. What a load of stupid ideas. You are clearly trolling. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Dave stark 7084	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:20:14 - [243] - Quote i assume the tl;dr is that it's easier to add concord to corp on corp violence, rather than fix the issue that repping corp on corp violence doesn't trigger suspect flags?
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2925	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:21:21 - [244] - Quote Xuixien wrote: Persifonne wrote: When will hisec become pvp free (except for duels and wardecs). Anyone activating weapons on player ship that you arent wardecced to, isnt flashy red or in a duel with will get concorded. Only pvp in lowsec null and wh. This day is coming. It is closer than we think. I'm ready to unsub my accounts basically any time at this point. No point in staying subbed... once EVE goes themepark it'll go the way of all the other themepark MMOs. In it's place some other small, niche, dark game will pop up to satisfy people who actually enjoy hard games without having their hands held. Dark souls the mmo. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21312	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:21:48 - [245] - Quote Dersen Lowery wrote: Thanks for the toothsome reply. You're welcome. "Quick question: how do you know what an API is, and how do you provide a full one? Where did you learn that? [Not anywhere in game! " Back when I was a wee nubbin I applied to join a corp, I didn't know what an API was so I asked about the what, how and why. The recruiter explained it in great detail. "How do you balance that with the opposite concern, that the joining player doesn't entirely trust the corp he's joining and, for whatever reason, wants to maintain a certain degree of privacy at least initially? I can see where you're coming from but trust works both ways, and in a game like Eve trust is a valuable commodity. I think of an API as a R+¬sum+¬ or CV. Would you refuse to give a potential employer a copy of those because you're worried about privacy? "I mean, if you reduce corporate recruiting to a choice between making every potential recruit strip for a full colonoscopy and losing everything to some alt with a glint in his eye, isn't that a little broken by itself?" In a world where shooting your competitors in the face is an acceptable business practice I would say no, and Eve is one of those worlds. "Is it any wonder that most of the people who stay in this game are people more like me, who knew exactly which people from which out-of-game community they were going to play with when they came in?"That's a hard one to answer. Certainly there are a lot of players who come from outside communities, but there's just as many that don't and still stay, I'm one of them. "If you're someone like me who prefers to learn by doing how and where do you learn to run a corp? " I feel that anybody who is running a corp that is looking to recruit others should at least have an understanding of game mechanics before they consider recruiting those who do not. In short learn the game first, then progress to running a corp. "How tolerant should the game be of mistakes, given that most players learn from mistakes?" I could argue the toss on the latter part of that statement , there's many that refuse to learn by their mistakes and expect CCP to wrap them in cotton wool instead. "I'm asking questions because I'm not going to pretend that they all have clear-cut answers, or certainly that I know the answers there are. But they're real questions that CCP has to find answers to." Agreed, on all points. "I'll just say that I have great confidence in the ability of EVE players--certainly including new players!--to be diabolical little bastards, and I mean that in the best way possible." So do I "OK, you're a total newbie. You just joined cold because you liked the tagline in the EVE web ad. You don't know anyone. What do you do?" Ask, while there are many asshats in the NPC corps who will tell newbies that "gankers are evil", "lowsec is evil" "you should mine or mission" etc; there are just as many who will encourage newbies to explore ALL of the possibilities open to them and to find something they enjoy. CCP could certainly do a better job of pointing newbies to decent information sources, both in and out of game. It comes to something when CCP staff use the Eve Uni Wiki over their own (which is hilariously outdated) "The part I've highlighted is a very serious issue with the NPE" Indeed it is, I think the NPE should make it very very clear that Eve is an extremely competitive and cut throat game, where losing your ship and stuff at the hands of others is a very common occurrence. They should also make it just as clear that highsec is not a safe zone, that Concord do not protect you, and that you are responsible for your own safety. "But here's the rub: you learn what EVE is from other players. So the sooner you put new players in touch with existing players, the sooner they learn what EVE is, one way or another." Agreed, the "corporation lite" idea that's been floating around wouldn't be a bad way to instigate this. One thing that needs to be done though is to discourage older players from discouraging newbies from exploring ALL of the possibilities, that in itself is griefing IMHO. "The current mechanics place obstacles between new players and existing players." They do, and they don't. It's hard to explain why though. "Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar Nil mortifi sine lucre.
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2444	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:25:12 - [246] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Convince your target to take their raven or w/e into a wormhole with you. You're ****ing kidding me. You're in their corp, yes? You've gained their trust, yes? Start running wh ops and spread a little loot around. And then, kill a target when the opportune moment arises. Wouldn't be the first time this happened. Use some social engineering, or accept the consequence of shooting something in hisec. Dealer's choice. Bottom line is you can adapt or quit. If you choose the latter, dibs on your stuff. So... you actually think that PvP should require jumping through that many hoops, just to get the slightest chance to kill somebody? I just want to make sure you actually believe what you're telling me here, because I can barely believe it myself. You actually think pvp should require nothing more than joining some daft fool's corp? I just want to make sure you actually believe what you're telling me here, because I can barely believe it myself.
Indahmawar Fazmarai 3164	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:25:40 - [247] - Quote As a "Raven leveler" I would just love that CCP gave me tools to play EVE my way. FAI, I would gladly sell and buy NPC services to and from players via LP and status. Those NPC services could affect other players (so "Raven levelers" could become "enablers") and would allow witty people to twist the game in different unforeseen directions (becoming "instigators"), without adding to the already endless list of "blow player stuff" activities. The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! Ingame chat channel: The Greater Fool Bar
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 1513	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:26:55 - [248] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: Yeah, It doesn't all make sense but that does not preclude me from liking it when it does. It does preclude you from pointing that finger at others. So let's knock off the "makes sense" bullshit, and talk about it on it's own merits, or lack thereof. I wish there was an EvE 'constitution' that was immutable from change by the CSM carebears of the day, and also guided CCP devs... Line 1 (IMHO) would read: "CCP shall implement no changes that reduce player conflict or content generation. If a proposed change decreases player conflict, it will be rejected. If it increases player conflict, it will be embraced" (Followed by the religious variant...Commandment #1...) "THOU SHALT PROTECT THE SANDBOX FROM THE CAREBEAR INFIDELS, LEST YE BE CAST INTO LAKES OF FIRE AND GNAWED ON BY KILLER RABBITS WITH BIG SHARP POINTY TEETH". tldr; I don't want WoW in space, implemented in slow continual paper-cuts here and there. CSM, CCP, protect the damned sandbox. Thank you for your attention. F Would you like to know more?
Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10408	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:28:27 - [249] - Quote Josef Djugashvilis wrote: If I may take the liberty of of paraphrasing the delightfully always angry Kaarous: - It's all about me and what I want. Call me when they suggest the complete deletion of how you play the game.; "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10408	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:29:37 - [250] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: You actually think pvp should require nothing more than joining some daft fool's corp? I just want to make sure you actually believe what you're telling me here, because I can barely believe it myself. If you think that's all that awoxing entails, then you're a fool. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.

PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2445	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:30:54 - [251] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: You actually think pvp should require nothing more than joining some daft fool's corp? I just want to make sure you actually believe what you're telling me here, because I can barely believe it myself. If you think that's all that awoxing entails, then you're a fool. No, but it is the only aspect of awoxing that is modified by the proposed change.
Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10408	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:32:59 - [252] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: You actually think pvp should require nothing more than joining some daft fool's corp? I just want to make sure you actually believe what you're telling me here, because I can barely believe it myself. If you think that's all that awoxing entails, then you're a fool. No, but it is the only aspect of awoxing that is modified by the proposed change. No, I can still get into the their corps. Being able to do anything in any way after that is what is proposed to be removed. Hell, even with your asinine "lure them into a wormhole" suggestion, I can do that without being in their corp. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Marsha Mallow 1639	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:33:28 - [253] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Furthermore, CCP should not be concerned with the kind of people who "level their Raven and then quit", because they'd be quitting anyway. This game will never attract AND keep such people, they treat it like it's a Facebook game. Yes, but what if they didn't? Retaining even a small portion of the "upgrade your raven types" (~40% of new players as per CCP Rise at FF) could, over a modest time frame,significantly increase the quantity of targets in our sand box. Providing for these worthless souls, whether it be in the form of dojos/arenas, improved missions, reducing awoxing, etc. has the opportunity to vastly enrich the sandbox and is therefore a worthwhile pursuit. First the Mittens quote, now you're paraphrasing Gevlon. These people don't want a vastly enriched sandbox. They want highsec NPC corp titans and supercarriers to ponce about in. And end boss content. And gear. Seriously, these creatures deserve to be ganked, awoxed and slapped about until they either flounce off or see sense. Can I just point out that the King of the Nerds wrote that piece you keep linking critiquing CCP's NPE (which is indeed crap) but offered solutions which are really not that significant. The amusing bits were the jabs at CCP (Iceland is cold and dark), management make 'boneheaded' decisions (I thought that was the purpose of management, everywhere?) oh and 'gamers tend to make for awful businessmen'. That's a real shocker. I'll take the slightly inept but nerdtastic CCP over EA any day of the week, tyvm. Some of us play Eve because it's run by gamers for gamers, rather than a mainstream commercial FTP (take my wallet). If we're seeing the edges of a desperate trend here to retain subs at the expense of the spirit and integrity of the IP, it'll backfire badly. DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 6567	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:34:56 - [254] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: "THOU SHALT PROTECT THE SANDBOX FROM THE CAREBEAR INFIDELS, LEST YE BE CAST INTO LAKES OF FIRE AND GNAWED ON BY KILLER RABBITS WITH BIG SHARP POINTY TEETH". Phoebe. 'nuff said. Mr Epeen There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2928	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:38:14 - [255] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes -walt witman personally I had issue when Concord popped me when I was running an incursion and ignored the Sansha. Yeah, It doesn't all make sense but that does not preclude me from liking it when it does. m The issue with concord is that it exists in the first place. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 25	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:40:21 - [256] - Quote La Nariz wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes -walt witman personally I had issue when Concord popped me when I was running an incursion and ignored the Sansha. Yeah, It doesn't all make sense but that does not preclude me from liking it when it does. m The issue with concord is that it exists in the first place. I don't know about you but I think Goons have done a better job at removing pvp from the game than ccp or carebears have. Just look at Null. Translated for Goons: F1
Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10409	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:41:42 - [257] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: I don't know about you but I think Goons have done a better job at removing pvp from the game than ccp or carebears have. You not so good at the thinks. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2445	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:42:45 - [258] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: You actually think pvp should require nothing more than joining some daft fool's corp? I just want to make sure you actually believe what you're telling me here, because I can barely believe it myself. Kaarous Aldurald wrote: No, I can still get into the their corps. Being able to do anything in any way after that is what is proposed to be removed. So, to be clear, what you're saying is you think that getting into somebody's corp is all you should have to do to be able to pvp some dudes.
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 6567	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:42:46 - [259] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: La Nariz wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes -walt witman personally I had issue when Concord popped me when I was running an incursion and ignored the Sansha. Yeah, It doesn't all make sense but that does not preclude me from liking it when it does. m The issue with concord is that it exists in the first place. I don't know about you but I think Goons have done a better job at removing pvp from the game than ccp or carebears have. Just look at Null. Most Goons are carebears. Just like the rest of null. Mr Epeen There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8833	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:42:57 - [260] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Furthermore, CCP should not be concerned with the kind of people who "level their Raven and then quit", because they'd be quitting anyway. This game will never attract AND keep such people, they treat it like it's a Facebook game. Yes, but what if they didn't? Retaining even a small portion of the "upgrade your raven types" (~40% of new players as per CCP Rise at FF) could, over a modest time frame,significantly increase the quantity of targets in our sand box. Providing for these worthless souls, whether it be in the form of dojos/arenas, improved missions, reducing awoxing, etc. has the opportunity to vastly enrich the sandbox and is therefore a worthwhile pursuit. That's naive pie in the sky thinking. What they would contribute is -nothing- while taking up cpu cycles that could have been devoted to peolle who actually do contriubte. EVERY game that has done as you suggested suffered, every developer who thought like you paid for it. it's why their are so few games like EVe and even fewer that survive longer than 4 years. Worthless people are worthless no matter how much you cater to them. And non-worthless people don't NEED a game developer to help them along as they will find a way to do that for themelves so long as the games fundemental aspects are sound. What will happen is what is already happening with these last 5 years off development: CCP will make the game safer, the flood of people who they want to 'retain' won't stay (because no amount of appeasement or safety of NPE improvements will make EVE a game they want to play). Meanwhile the peole who actually like EVE and contribute to it's virtual society (both evil guys and the 'good guys' who revel in eluding them) will tire of seeing CCP screw up key aspects of this niche genre game in an effort to lure in more mainstream people who don't belong here in the 1st place.

La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2928	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:43:38 - [261] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: La Nariz wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes -walt witman personally I had issue when Concord popped me when I was running an incursion and ignored the Sansha. Yeah, It doesn't all make sense but that does not preclude me from liking it when it does. m The issue with concord is that it exists in the first place. I don't know about you but I think Goons have done a better job at removing pvp from the game than ccp or carebears have. Just look at Null. Translated for Goons: F1 :ccp: neglected it and we found the best ways to take advantage of mechanics. It took two parties to embrace the buttlord accord to so make sure you include pl/nc. In your terrible uninformed opinions. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Unsuccessful At Everything The Troll Bridge 17440	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:45:30 - [262] - Quote La Nariz wrote: The issue with concord is that it exists in the first place. This. You can also take the word "concord" and replace it with "Highsec", "Insurance" , "Titans" or "Safety" and it still makes perfect sense. *Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?*
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2928	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:45:45 - [263] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: You actually think pvp should require nothing more than joining some daft fool's corp? I just want to make sure you actually believe what you're telling me here, because I can barely believe it myself. Kaarous Aldurald wrote: No, I can still get into the their corps. Being able to do anything in any way after that is what is proposed to be removed. So, to be clear, what you're saying is you think that getting into somebody's corp is all you should have to do to be able to pvp some dudes? Api exists and they could take 2 minutes to check to see if "ikillblues420" has killed corpmates instead of having :ccp: do it for them. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Krusty the Klown University of Caille Gallente Federation 8	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:46:23 - [264] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: I am a solo player largely due to time constraints from my irl job. That's why this pisses me off so much, because as such a player, awoxing is the ONE way that I can inflict meaningful loss on people who would otherwise suffer exactly zero losses. Why should they get to be immune? Why is their sub worth more than mine? Why should their petty peace of mind merit the removal of my playstyle? I'm genuinely curious but how would someone inflict meaningful losses to you? If I understand correctly that should be able to happen to anyone and everyone. The problem is, that the people are well aware what an awoxer can do and might have even experienced one themselves but cannot understand any of the risks involved. An awoxer is just seen as a guy who joins a corp until everyone is off the guard and shoots anyone with a valuable ship. Usually this is even done with an alt so it can be seen as there is no risk involved. Maybe you could explain the process a little?
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2445	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:48:13 - [265] - Quote La Nariz wrote: Api exists and they could take 2 minutes to check to see if "ikillblues420" has killed corpmates instead of having :ccp: do it for them. So what you're saying is a new player with a blank history, like that of an alt, should be deemed an unacceptable risk to many hisec social groups?
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2928	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:48:27 - [266] - Quote Krusty the Klown wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: I am a solo player largely due to time constraints from my irl job. That's why this pisses me off so much, because as such a player, awoxing is the ONE way that I can inflict meaningful loss on people who would otherwise suffer exactly zero losses. Why should they get to be immune? Why is their sub worth more than mine? Why should their petty peace of mind merit the removal of my playstyle? I'm genuinely curious but how would someone inflict meaningful losses to you? If I understand correctly that should be able to happen to anyone and everyone. The problem is, that the people are well aware what an awoxer can do and might have even experienced one themselves but cannot understand any of the risks involved. An awoxer is just seen as a guy who joins a corp until everyone is off the guard and shoots anyone with a valuable ship. Usually this is even done with an alt so it can be seen as there is no risk involved. Maybe you could explain the process a little? By killing me while I am awoxing them, they aren't helpless and can fit guns to any ship with hard points. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2928	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:51:33 - [267] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: La Nariz wrote: Api exists and they could take 2 minutes to check to see if "ikillblues420" has killed corpmates instead of having :ccp: do it for them. So what you're saying is a new player with a blank history, like that of an alt, should be deemed an unacceptable risk to many hisec social groups? A new player wouldn't be able to fit anything to hurt you, zero risk. Their xenophobia is their own problem and yes it hurts newbies so maybe ccp aught to fix that instead of destroying potential for content. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2445	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:52:05 - [268] - Quote La Nariz wrote: Krusty the Klown wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: I am a solo player largely due to time constraints from my irl job. That's why this pisses me off so much, because as such a player, awoxing is the ONE way that I can inflict meaningful loss on people who would otherwise suffer exactly zero losses. Why should they get to be immune? Why is their sub worth more than mine? Why should their petty peace of mind merit the removal of my playstyle? I'm genuinely curious but how would someone inflict meaningful losses to you? If I understand correctly that should be able to happen to anyone and everyone. The problem is, that the people are well aware what an awoxer can do and might have even experienced one themselves but cannot understand any of the risks involved. An awoxer is just seen as a guy who joins a corp until everyone is off the guard and shoots anyone with a valuable ship. Usually this is even done with an alt so it can be seen as there is no risk involved. Maybe you could explain the process a little? By killing me while I am awoxing them, they aren't helpless and can fit guns to any ship with hard points. Remind me, what do you tell new bros about ratting with neuts in local, something about pve fits not doing doing something or other too well in pvp....?
Krusty the Klown University of Caille Gallente Federation 8	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:55:01 - [269] - Quote La Nariz wrote: By killing me while I am awoxing them, they aren't helpless and can fit guns to any ship with hard points. What if we assume you aren't completely incompetent and attack your target while he's in a mission ship / in the middle of mining where you are likely to have enough time to kill your target before reinforcements appear?
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2928	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:55:35 - [270] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: La Nariz wrote: Krusty the Klown wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: I am a solo player largely due to time constraints from my irl job. That's why this pisses me off so much, because as such a player, awoxing is the ONE way that I can inflict meaningful loss on people who would otherwise suffer exactly zero losses. Why should they get to be immune? Why is their sub worth more than mine? Why should their petty peace of mind merit the removal of my playstyle? I'm genuinely curious but how would someone inflict meaningful losses to you? If I understand correctly that should be able to happen to anyone and everyone. The problem is, that the people are well aware what an awoxer can do and might have even experienced one themselves but cannot understand any of the risks involved. An awoxer is just seen as a guy who joins a corp until everyone is off the guard and shoots anyone with a valuable ship. Usually this is even done with an alt so it can be seen as there is no risk involved. Maybe you could explain the process a little? By killing me while I am awoxing them, they aren't helpless and can fit guns to any ship with hard points. Remind me, what do you tell new bros about ratting with neuts in local, something about pve fits not doing doing something or other too well in pvp....? They are newbees not newbros, reddit scum, I tell them to fleet up. In case you still can't tell or don't understand, numbers matter. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133

Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10415	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:56:36 - [271] - Quote Krusty the Klown wrote: I'm genuinely curious but how would someone inflict meaningful losses to you? You do realize they can shoot back, right? That's how. My awox boat is a blinged out Gnosis, if anyone were to kill it, it's a significant loss. Quote: The problem is, that the people are well aware what an awoxer can do and might have even experienced one themselves but cannot understand any of the risks involved. That's their problem. Not mine. It shouldn't necessitate the removal of my playstyle because they can't use Google. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2930	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:57:13 - [272] - Quote Krusty the Klown wrote: La Nariz wrote: By killing me while I am awoxing them, they aren't helpless and can fit guns to any ship with hard points. What if we assume you aren't completely incompetent and attack your target while he's in a mission ship / in the middle of mining where you are likely to have enough time to kill your target before reinforcements appear? If they are afk, oh well shouldn't have been afk. It's kill me, fleet up and kill me, re ship and kill me or some combination of that. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4352	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:58:49 - [273] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Excellent News! I've always thought this would be a good idea to get changed. Sure, there are players who enjoy joining corps and ganking a bunch of people and they won't be able to do that anymore. The thing is that's a small group of people and they undoubtedly like a good many other methods of ganking people in EVE. The upside to the change would be that newer players wanting to become part of the social groups which make EVE what it is will be able to do so with a far greater ease, and without undocking their first ever battleship, getting blown up by their "friends" for no reason beyond "the lulz" and quitting. YAY, newbies can join a corp in a game where it's increasingly unlikely that anything really interesting or noteworthy will ever happen. This is the exact opposite of what EVE should be doing. Playing EVE should keep a player on edge, not making him feel comfortable. The last thing CCP should be doing is making it easier for a player who would have quit had he been confronted with an unpleasant reality. CCP should be trying to find ways to intice more emotionally stable and tough minded players into the game, not catering to the lowest common denominator like almost all other MMOs do. Apparently many members of the community, members of the CSM and the devs disagree with you. I get why people want "tough minded" players, but you have to face the reality that most games need to work into that. You can't just throw them in head first, watch them die horribly multiple times while you laugh and crap on them, then expect them to just suddenly "get it". Right now you either join and join a group and "get it" right away, or you get cast of to the abyss of solo carebear play for eternity. There's far too much of the latter occurring, so something needs to change to encourage player interaction. And yes, that will come in the form of softening the beginning part of the game. Get over it. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10415	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:59:04 - [274] - Quote Hells Bells, there are usually thirty times as many of them as there are of me. If that's not risk, I don't know what is. Their failure to capitalize on this is not my fault either. But somehow it's presented as though it were, or that their ignorance should merit them being shielded against my ever showing up ever again. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 435	Posted - 2014.10.30 20:00:18 - [275] - Quote Maybe one day people will stop trying to tell other people how to have fun. And that goes to both camps, jesus it's like fighting toddlers.
Dersen Lowery Drinking in Station 1242	Posted - 2014.10.30 20:02:00 - [276] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: I think of an API as a R+¬sum+¬ or CV. Would you refuse to give a potential employer a copy of those because you're worried about privacy? Resumes and CVs are extremely highly edited documents, to the point where a number of prominent individuals have falsified information on them to get jobs and succeeded. That's much more along the lines of what I'm thinking about than a full API check. The context depends, too: corps in sov nullsec are always going to be more paranoid than high sec corps, and that's fine. The problem is that the most immediately newbie-accessible corps are also incredibly paranoid. (What if you could start out in lowsec? Null?) Jonah Gravenstein wrote: "If you're someone like me who prefers to learn by doing how and where do you learn to run a corp? " I feel that anybody who is running a corp that is looking to recruit others should at least have an understanding of game mechanics before they consider recruiting those who do not. In short learn the game first, then progress to running a corp. "How tolerant should the game be of mistakes, given that most players learn from mistakes?" I could argue the toss on the latter part of that statement , there's many that refuse to learn by their mistakes and expect CCP to wrap them in cotton wool instead. To point 1: Although I benefited from that myself in the particular case of EVE, I still get far more enjoyment out of a game from learning by failure than I do from learning by tutelage. I really understand a system when you've explored every success and every failure condition yourself, whereas I'm only likely to know what works if someone tells me, not why it works or what happens if it doesn't. I obstinately refused to join the corp I knew I was going to join until I'd gotten all the way through the tutorial, because I didn't want anyone to tell me what to do or not do. Now, if I'm in a fleet and other people are depending on me doing the right thing, then sure, I'll take instruction. But it's much less fun for me than throwing myself into the deep end and then figuring out how to swim. In other words, I don't want vets to wrap me in cotton wool, either. ;-) To point 2: CCP wants newbies to join player corps within 10 days of fetching their first rookie ship, because the numbers say that those people stick around (and again, no surprise there). They've identified the reluctance of high sec corps to recruit them as a problem. Relieving some of the pressure that makes them reluctant to recruit is an obvious thing, although the problem won't entirely go away until the corp interface is replaced by something far less maddening. Fixing the NPE to make the actual nature of the game more clear--maybe it could even explain the basics of setting up a corp!--would take care of a lot of the problem as well. The last two people I ushered into EVE were excited about getting into the skullduggery and the PVP and the intrigue. They still didn't make it past the trial. Cotton wool wouldn't have helped them; I don't think it solves anything in the general case either (see my complaint with the NPE not communicating the nature of the game well). Jonah Gravenstein wrote: [If you're a newbie who knows nobody you can] Ask, while there are many asshats in the NPC corps who will tell newbies that "gankers are evil", "lowsec is evil" "you should mine or mission" etc; there are just as many who will encourage newbies to explore ALL of the possibilities open to them and to find something they enjoy. CCP could certainly do a better job of pointing newbies to decent information sources, both in and out of game. It comes to something when CCP staff use the Eve Uni Wiki over their own (which is hilariously outdated) Both are true, although the first is not anything you can count on. I got a great deal of useful information from a long time low sec resident who was chilling in one of the newbie corps handing out good advice, but that was luck as much as it was anything else. Maybe you're really lucky and you roll Gallente and choose the Center for Advanced Studies as part of your background? Part of the problem of relying on basic information that's crowd-sourced in real time is that the information is only as good as the loudest, or at least the most diligent, members of whatever crowd you happen to log into. I was fortunate; not everyone is. In fact, judging by the numbers, very few are. Jonah Gravenstein wrote: I think the NPE should make it very very clear that Eve is an extremely competitive and cut throat game, where losing your ship and stuff at the hands of others is a very common occurrence. They should also make it just as clear that highsec is not a safe zone, that Concord do not protect you, and that you are responsible for your own safety. Agreed, the "corporation lite" idea that's been floating around wouldn't be a bad way to instigate this. One thing that needs to be done though is to discourage older players from discouraging newbies from exploring ALL of the possibilities, that in itself is griefing IMHO. "The current mechanics place obstacles between new players and existing players." They do, and they don't. It's hard to explain why though. Point 1: They could also, you know, at least mention D-scan, so that you are introduced to one of the primary means of ensuring your own safety... Point 2: Yes (though it's not griefing by EVE's narrow definition), and there are a lot of possible approaches to that. Getting newbies out of NPC corps and into player corps is one, but I think CCP could and should do more. Point 3: One of the nice things about CCP's new schedule is that if this change doesn't accomplish its intended goal, it can be rolled back a few weeks later. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
Josef Djugashvilis 2638	Posted - 2014.10.30 20:03:31 - [277] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Josef Djugashvilis wrote: If I may take the liberty of of paraphrasing the delightfully always angry Kaarous: - It's all about me and what I want. Call me when they suggest the complete deletion of how you play the game.; The game has changed in oh so many ways since I started (early 2007) I just roll my eyes at some of the changes, the awful changes to exploration a year or so ago, then adapt and move on. Should awoxing be pretty much removed from the game, I am sure you will also. This is not a signature.
MatrixSkye Mk2 Republic University Minmatar Republic 872	Posted - 2014.10.30 20:09:47 - [278] - Quote So much speculation going on here. So much blaming play styles. So much hate and resentment. In other words, the usual. CCP is making decisions based on facts that are simply not (explicitly) available to us. I think of all people that have posted here, only one has a reasonably good idea as to what really is going on, and that is Mike Azariah. But he is not able to say for obvious reasons. But there are some signs, the most obvious being that player retention may be on a steady decline. That CCP is making these tough choices comes at no surprise to me at all. There is only so many times we can tell potential new players to "go back to WOW" before we start feeling the consequences ourselves. And I suspect that's the point we are at right now. Like I said, the signs are already there. Successfully doinitwrongGäó since 2006.
Aqriue Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 701	Posted - 2014.10.30 20:14:48 - [279] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: NPC corps should have extremely punitive mechanics if your character is older than 60 days. 35% tax rate to all transactions, inability to run level 3 and 4 missions, and you cannot join fleets. Once you move to an NPC corp, you cannot create a new player corporation for 7 days, although you may join one. All of which is exempted from Faction Warfare corps. Leaves new players alone, smashes those exploting the increased safety. Also highly incentivizes player corps in comparison, makes it something worth fighting for, something worth keeping instead of just glorified chat channels. And in return, non-faction (player corps) cannot run level 1 or 2 missions, all standing is set to zero except travel purposes unless you are negative 1 or less (same faction militia for same empire is a "soldier unless blinky red from killing its own citizens, than no protection what so ever), all clones medical and jump are turned off (must use a POS to keep it active and stored, good luck defending your Alamo), you are taxed for every jump gate in .5 or higher, you pay a significantly higher income tax on market transactions, you cannot use NPC station services without paying a rental fee, research costs more (cause you got that POS to reduce), Ad nauseam etc. etc. to infinity I could go on. Yup, this logic goes both ways. Why should the highsec empire factions support you, from a role play perspective forced through a game choice? The entire threadnaught is just a whine post how "emergent gameplay" of risk-free pew pew (CONCORD doesn't protect, it punishes....its a freaking brake mechanic to slow chaos FFS) where you expect someone to fight back in poorly fitted ship you have scrammed and demanded a ransom....but where the fck in the EULA or game mechanics says you will honor that ransom? Nothing....there is absolutely nothing that says the space pirate won't be a **....high chance of destroying the target after the ransom and stealing valuable assets from the corp...why punish them even more? Seems you lot do it to the point most don't want to even talk to people. To bad many of you are in denial that you won't risk losing a cheap BC or a fleet of catalysts (NO PVP IMMUNINITY AT ALL, UNLESS DOCKED** AND NOT DRUNK PLAYING THE MARKET...bolded for effect) or god forbid try to infiltrate by being friendly then stealing the assets. It isn't a FPS, you can be a social butt pirate by taking the loot after looking like an ally for a few weeks instead of a quick lay in a day. As for wardecs....FFS, again...gank or GTFO of highsec, if your in highsec you are protected just as much as the carebear you are whining about, they treat you the same until someone is the aggressor for non-wardec combat. If corp creation cost is to low for your eternal whine (lowsec and null, equal no cost), just equal it to creating the cost of a war dec and now you are both slitting your wrist. You cannot force someone into combat and fight back, but you can force yourself on them and beat the crap out of them...get the difference ? Probably not. They do have the choice to leave, but you can always attack them when they expect it and no, the surrender option is a joke....this is EVE we are talking about. Who would believe in that is an idiot, no game mechanic stops you from just ignoring it and crushing them into nothing.
Mag's the united 18113	Posted - 2014.10.30 20:16:41 - [280] - Quote It wouldn't surprise me if it happens. Good luck either way. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8842	Posted - 2014.10.30 20:17:30 - [281] - Quote MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote: So much speculation going on here. So much blaming play styles. So much hate and resentment. In other words, the usual. CCP is making decisions based on facts that are simply not (explicitly) available to us. I think of all people that have posted here, only one has a reasonably good idea as to what really is going on, and that is Mike Azariah. But he is not able to say for obvious reasons. But there are some signs, the most obvious being that player retention may be on a steady decline. That CCP is making these tough choices comes at no surprise to me at all. There is only so many times we can tell potential new players to "go back to WOW" before we start feeling the consequences ourselves. And I suspect that's the point we are at right now. Like I said, the signs are already there. The truth is usually counter-intuitive. What you think sounds reasonable till you start to think that the people who leave are probably the people who don't stick with anything for long, so no amount of coddling would have kept them. As far as information we aren't privy to, we don't need to be. CCP probably has lots of information about lots of things. Can you say that they've never misinterpreted a sitution even though that had loads of information about it (and real time experiance about how players react to certain situations)? Remember, this is the company that got blindsided by our reactions to incarna/microtransactions and the like even though our reactions should have been obvious and predictable. And I swear I won't link this again (in this thread.....) , but this is the company that thought nerfing null sec anoms would lead to more conflict. They are protentially making a similar mistake here.
Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10418	Posted - 2014.10.30 20:18:59 - [282] - Quote Aqriue wrote: gank or GTFO of highsec No. PvP belongs in highsec, plain and simple. There should be no one way to do it, much like you how you disgusting freaklings insist that no one should "force" you to play a certain way. But of course because you're all hypocrites, you are just fine with forcing gameplay on others. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21319	Posted - 2014.10.30 20:20:24 - [283] - Quote @ Dersen Lowery I'm not in a position to respond at the moment, I've plans for the rest of the evening that involve a lady friend, some food, some wine and hopefully some horizontal entertainment I'll respond when I'm more able "Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 2947	Posted - 2014.10.30 20:20:27 - [284] - Quote BTW, although this change is mentioned in the CSM minutes, there has been no Dev post about it, or a blog, or anything. Is it actually still a thing? http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/
Mag's the united 18113	Posted - 2014.10.30 20:20:44 - [285] - Quote Eve is was a cold dark universe. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Haedonism Bot Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 1470	Posted - 2014.10.30 20:32:58 - [286] - Quote Marsha Mallow wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: I try to see both sides of an argument, honest I do. That this 'buffs hisec' and makes the game safer? Yeah I see that. Thing is it does so by removing a stupid loophole. Can one of the opposition explain to me WHY it makes sense that I can shoot a guy in my corp but not a stranger? Why concord will react to one incident and not the other? With dual mechanics we now have ways to 'test a tank' ignoring completely sisi server for the moment. So why did the awox mechanic make sense to you? I understand it made Eve 'dangerous' and allowed a certain type of gameplay but at the bottom of it . . . is there a logic to that rule? m 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? I'm considering subbing several new accounts just to give this post more "likes". Then ragequitting them all when these changes take effect. CODE. is recruiting highsec PvPers for wardecs www.everevolutioanryfront.blogspot.com
MatrixSkye Mk2 Republic University Minmatar Republic 872	Posted - 2014.10.30 20:40:51 - [287] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote: So much speculation going on here. So much blaming play styles. So much hate and resentment. In other words, the usual. CCP is making decisions based on facts that are simply not (explicitly) available to us. I think of all people that have posted here, only one has a reasonably good idea as to what really is going on, and that is Mike Azariah. But he is not able to say for obvious reasons. But there are some signs, the most obvious being that player retention may be on a steady decline. That CCP is making these tough choices comes at no surprise to me at all. There is only so many times we can tell potential new players to "go back to WOW" before we start feeling the consequences ourselves. And I suspect that's the point we are at right now. Like I said, the signs are already there. The truth is usually counter-intuitive. What you think sounds reasonable till you start to think that the people who leave are probably the people who don't stick with anything for long, so no amount of coddling would have kept them. As far as information we aren't privy to, we don't need to be. CCP probably has lots of information about lots of things. Can you say that they've never misinterpreted a sitution even though that had loads of information about it (and real time experiance about how players react to certain situations)? Remember, this is the company that got blindsided by our reactions to incarna/microtransactions and the like even though our reactions should have been obvious and predictable. And I swear I won't link this again (in this thread.....) , but this is the company that thought nerfing null sec anoms would lead to more conflict. They are protentially making a similar mistake here. They have records of the exit interview surveys and petitions. They probably have a good idea as to why players abandon ship. There is a huge majority out there that doesn't visit the forums and screams when it feels wronged. I believe CCP is in a better position at making this decision than we are, since they have a better understanding of why players don't stick around. Successfully doinitwrongGäó since 2006.
Dave Stark 7084	Posted - 2014.10.30 20:45:06 - [288] - Quote y'all are aware that ecm will get you out of any high sec awox situation. right? there have been many occasions when a perfect awox has been foiled by a single jam.
MatrixSkye Mk2 Republic University Minmatar Republic 872	Posted - 2014.10.30 20:47:56 - [289] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: y'all are aware that ecm will get you out of any high sec awox situation. right? there have been many occasions when a perfect awox has been foiled by a single jam. Yeah. But fitting ECM every time you fly out with corp mates doesn't seem too reasonable. But what do I know . Successfully doinitwrongGäó since 2006.
Dave Stark 7085	Posted - 2014.10.30 20:50:35 - [290] - Quote MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote: Dave Stark wrote: y'all are aware that ecm will get you out of any high sec awox situation. right? there have been many occasions when a perfect awox has been foiled by a single jam. Yeah. But fitting ECM every time you fly out with corp mates doesn't seem too reasonable. But what do I know . just keep one in a station where you're living. if an awoxer shows up, just reship, jam him, get everyone off grid, and add him to the new kick queue and after downtime you're awoxer free.

Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10421	Posted - 2014.10.30 20:55:07 - [291] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote: Dave Stark wrote: y'all are aware that ecm will get you out of any high sec awox situation. right? there have been many occasions when a perfect awox has been foiled by a single jam. Yeah. But fitting ECM every time you fly out with corp mates doesn't seem too reasonable. But what do I know . just keep one in a station where you're living. if an awoxer shows up, just reship, jam him, get everyone off grid, and add him to the new kick queue and after downtime you're awoxer free. 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. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Ama Scelesta 74	Posted - 2014.10.30 20:59:25 - [292] - Quote MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote: Dave Stark wrote: y'all are aware that ecm will get you out of any high sec awox situation. right? there have been many occasions when a perfect awox has been foiled by a single jam. Yeah. But fitting ECM every time you fly out with corp mates doesn't seem too reasonable. But what do I know . The problem is that you're being reasonable and therefore might have a hard time following the thinking of diehard defenders of the status quo. It seem that if there is even a theoretical chance to prepare for it, it can't possibly be a problem. At the same time requiring more then zero effort on their part is seen as CCP betraying some fundamental pillar of EVE.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 25	Posted - 2014.10.30 21:00:24 - [293] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Dave Stark wrote: MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote: Dave Stark wrote: y'all are aware that ecm will get you out of any high sec awox situation. right? there have been many occasions when a perfect awox has been foiled by a single jam. Yeah. But fitting ECM every time you fly out with corp mates doesn't seem too reasonable. But what do I know . just keep one in a station where you're living. if an awoxer shows up, just reship, jam him, get everyone off grid, and add him to the new kick queue and after downtime you're awoxer free. 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. The only rumored change...the awoxer will lose their ship. We get it, you are risk averse. You don't want consequences. Who is the carebear again?
Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10421	Posted - 2014.10.30 21:01:50 - [294] - Quote Ama Scelesta wrote: The problem is that you're being reasonable That's not reasonable, it's an absurdity that no one actually suggested. What is being suggested is that you should have to do more than nothing to defend yourself. You would prefer to do nothing, and get 100% effectiveness for your nothing. That tells me all I need to know about you. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Mharius Skjem Opacity Circles 34	Posted - 2014.10.30 21:02:02 - [295] - Quote 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. A recovering btter vet, with a fresh toon and a determination to like everything that CCP does to Eve...
Dave Stark 7085	Posted - 2014.10.30 21:03:12 - [296] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Dave Stark wrote: MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote: Dave Stark wrote: y'all are aware that ecm will get you out of any high sec awox situation. right? there have been many occasions when a perfect awox has been foiled by a single jam. Yeah. But fitting ECM every time you fly out with corp mates doesn't seem too reasonable. But what do I know . just keep one in a station where you're living. if an awoxer shows up, just reship, jam him, get everyone off grid, and add him to the new kick queue and after downtime you're awoxer free. 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. The only rumored change...the awoxer will lose their ship. We get it, you are risk averse. You don't want consequences. Who is the carebear again? said the people who are celebrating the fact that no matter how **** their recruitment standards, there will be 0 consequences for inviting any scrublord to their spaceguild without even as much as a private convo?
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 25	Posted - 2014.10.30 21:06:25 - [297] - Quote Mharius Skjem wrote: 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. Awox will still be possible if the rumor ends up being true. Only change is now you will have consequences. And as many have demonstrated,,,,some of the so called pvp'rs and content creators don't want consequences for themselves.
Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10421	Posted - 2014.10.30 21:09:51 - [298] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: The only rumored change...the awoxer will lose their ship. Which means that awoxing ceases to exist, since what you described is suicide ganking and already exists. Quote: We get it, you are risk averse. You don't want consequences. Of course I do, I'm the one attacking at a thirty to one odds. I don't use neutral logi either, just a cloaking device on a battlecruiser. You're the one who wants 100% of your risk removed. Quote: Who is the carebear again? Still you, you risk averse shitheel. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Dersen Lowery Drinking in Station 1244	Posted - 2014.10.30 21:09:52 - [299] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: @ Dersen Lowery I'm not in a position to respond at the moment, I've plans for the rest of the evening that involve a lady friend, some food, some wine and hopefully some horizontal entertainment I'll respond when I'm more able Sounds good. That's the great thing about forums, they're asynchronous. I'll try to edit my posts down; it's just that this is a really good conversation. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
Dave Stark 7086	Posted - 2014.10.30 21:10:01 - [300] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Awox will still be possible if the rumor ends up being true. do... do you even know what awoxing is?

Mharius Skjem Opacity Circles 34	Posted - 2014.10.30 21:13:13 - [301] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Mharius Skjem wrote: 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. Awox will still be possible if the rumor ends up being true. Only change is now you will have consequences. And as many have demonstrated,,,,some of the so called pvp'rs and content creators don't want consequences for themselves. Tell me more about these consequences... I'm still reading the 146 page pdf (which by the way I love). A recovering btter vet, with a fresh toon and a determination to like everything that CCP does to Eve...
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 25	Posted - 2014.10.30 21:13:35 - [302] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: Syn Shi wrote: Awox will still be possible if the rumor ends up being true. do... do you even know what awoxing is? According to this thread the ability to kill anyone in a corp I join with no consequence to myself.
Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10421	Posted - 2014.10.30 21:17:09 - [303] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Dave Stark wrote: Syn Shi wrote: Awox will still be possible if the rumor ends up being true. do... do you even know what awoxing is? According to this thread the ability to kill anyone in a corp I join with no consequence to myself. There are plenty of potential consequences, provided the corp you are screwing with has any balls. That's what a sandbox is, player actions should provoke player responses. If you don't respond, it's your fault. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Dave Stark 7086	Posted - 2014.10.30 21:21:20 - [304] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Dave Stark wrote: Syn Shi wrote: Awox will still be possible if the rumor ends up being true. do... do you even know what awoxing is? According to this thread the ability to kill anyone in a corp I join with no consequence to myself. that's a no, then?
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 25	Posted - 2014.10.30 21:21:31 - [305] - Quote Mharius Skjem wrote: Syn Shi wrote: Mharius Skjem wrote: 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. Awox will still be possible if the rumor ends up being true. Only change is now you will have consequences. And as many have demonstrated,,,,some of the so called pvp'rs and content creators don't want consequences for themselves. Tell me more about these consequences... I'm still reading the 146 page pdf (which by the way I love). You are reading the wrong stuffs. "There seems to be a strong suggestion that you will soon no longer be able to "legally" shoot corpmates, and the implication seems to be that shooting corpmates will be a criminal act in highsec that will be met with CONCORD retribution." The only ones saying awoxing is going to disappear are the ones who don't like the fact that the only baseless thing that was mentioned was that now Concord would step in. Which translates into someone not wanting to awox anymore because they will lose their ship as well.
Dave Stark 7086	Posted - 2014.10.30 21:23:56 - [306] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Mharius Skjem wrote: Syn Shi wrote: Mharius Skjem wrote: 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. Awox will still be possible if the rumor ends up being true. Only change is now you will have consequences. And as many have demonstrated,,,,some of the so called pvp'rs and content creators don't want consequences for themselves. Tell me more about these consequences... I'm still reading the 146 page pdf (which by the way I love). You are reading the wrong stuffs. "There seems to be a strong suggestion that you will soon no longer be able to "legally" shoot corpmates, and the implication seems to be that shooting corpmates will be a criminal act in highsec that will be met with CONCORD retribution." The only ones saying awoxing is going to disappear are the ones who don't like the fact that the only baseless thing that was mentioned was that now Concord would step in. Which translates into someone not wanting to awox anymore because they will lose their ship as well. 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".
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2446	Posted - 2014.10.30 21:24:00 - [307] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Syn Shi wrote: The only rumored change...the awoxer will lose their ship. Which means that awoxing ceases to exist, since what you described is suicide ganking and already exists. So what you're saying is, if ship loss occurs (as in most forms of pvp), it stops being awoxing? I don't have much against awoxers, save for the fact that eve might be more successful without their particular mechanic, but you aren't making a good case for yourself here. TBH I always though awoxing was attacking a corpmate. Everything that came after that was a consequence of the awox attempt.
Unezka Turigahl Det Som Engang Var 389	Posted - 2014.10.30 21:24:11 - [308] - Quote Terrible mechanic/loophole is removed. Good riddance. But yeah... I'm not sure how much of an impact this will have on NPC-Corp membership because war-decs are likely the #1 reason for people staying in those corps. Maybe it will help a little. Because war-decs at least make a little more sense to people I think, and give you 24 hours of warning. Getting freely blown up by a corpmate in hisec feels more like BS/loophole/exploit.
Dave Stark 7086	Posted - 2014.10.30 21:25:17 - [309] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Syn Shi wrote: The only rumored change...the awoxer will lose their ship. Which means that awoxing ceases to exist, since what you described is suicide ganking and already exists. So what you're saying is, if ship loss occurs (as in most forms of pvp), it stops being awoxing? I don't have much against awoxers, save for the fact that eve might be more successful without their particular mechanic, but you aren't making a good case for yourself here. TBH I always though awoxing was attacking a corpmate. Everything that came after that was a consequence of the awox attempt. if you want to stop people awoxing with such impunity, fix the broken neutral logi mechanics.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 117	Posted - 2014.10.30 21:26:11 - [310] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Dave Stark wrote: Syn Shi wrote: Awox will still be possible if the rumor ends up being true. do... do you even know what awoxing is? According to this thread the ability to kill anyone in a corp I join with no consequence to myself. There are plenty of consequences to awxoing. Most obviously that you have made enemies of however many people there are in the corporation you just awoxed who presumably are now gunning for you. Consequences are suppose to flow from other players in this game, not NPCs. Awoxing is a conflict driver and thus has provided much content and stories over the years. I am sure people remember every detail of an awox even years later, long after they have completely forgotten about that "sweet L4 mission" that they ran just before the awoxer attacked. Also, this hasn't been linked yet: http://www.minerbumping.com/2014/10/ccp-decides-to-ban-all-awoxingsafaris.html

Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 25	Posted - 2014.10.30 21:28:57 - [311] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: Syn Shi wrote: Mharius Skjem wrote: Syn Shi wrote: Mharius Skjem wrote: 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. Awox will still be possible if the rumor ends up being true. Only change is now you will have consequences. And as many have demonstrated,,,,some of the so called pvp'rs and content creators don't want consequences for themselves. Tell me more about these consequences... I'm still reading the 146 page pdf (which by the way I love). You are reading the wrong stuffs. "There seems to be a strong suggestion that you will soon no longer be able to "legally" shoot corpmates, and the implication seems to be that shooting corpmates will be a criminal act in highsec that will be met with CONCORD retribution." The only ones saying awoxing is going to disappear are the ones who don't like the fact that the only baseless thing that was mentioned was that now Concord would step in. Which translates into someone not wanting to awox anymore because they will lose their ship as well. 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". The awox will still happen. Only change would be that you lose your ship a well. If you make the choice to no longer awox due to losing your ship I can only conclude you don;t like losing your ship. As that would be the only change. And if that awox is important to your corp, have them replace the ship...after all...its for the betterment of the corp.
Dersen Lowery Drinking in Station 1244	Posted - 2014.10.30 21:29:33 - [312] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: y'all are aware that ecm will get you out of any high sec awox situation. right? there have been many occasions when a perfect awox has been foiled by a single jam. Sure, if you have some familiarity with it online at the time who can run back and grab it in time to stop the attack. Since it's almost completely useless against rats, the odds are probably not good that most members of any given high sec PVE corp have even trained Electronic Warfare, never mind the amplification skills. There's no reason to use a dedicated jamming boat in PVE, so the odds that one would just be lying around are slim. Unless they do incursions, they might not even have logi. I trained it because my corp had veterans who had flown in PVP fleets for years. Not everyone does. I'm willing to bet that most AWOXs succeed to the extent they do not just because of good timing by the AWOXer (striking when a mission boat is up against max DPS in a mission) but because people who have never PVP'd can and do freeze up when they're suddenly confronted with it and do dumb and uncoordinated things that get them popped. That's another problem: PVE has become so utterly unlike PVP, and rats so completely unlike capsuleer ships, that people end up specializing into completely different areas. It's bad enough that most PVE rewards solo work, whereas most PVP rewards fleet work, so the odds aren't bad that the corp members are lacking the RL or even in-game skills to form an effective fleet, with roles and support. I'm not particularly interested in blaming or fault-finding; this seems to me to a solvable problem. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
Dave Stark 7086	Posted - 2014.10.30 21:30:07 - [313] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: The awox will still happen. Only change would be that you lose your ship a well. If you make the choice to no longer awox due to losing your ship I can only conclude you don;t like losing your ship. As that would be the only change. And if that awox is important to your corp, have them replace the ship...after all...its for the betterment of the corp. no, the awox doesn't happen. we've been through this.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4355	Posted - 2014.10.30 21:30:22 - [314] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: All I personally know is that when I came into EVE, I joined a mission running corp and were told all these things that were untrue about lw and null. If it wasn't for CCP introducing Faction Warfare, I'd have quit because based on bad information I was too afraid to venture outside of high sec. My experience is not unique. I've trained more than a few guys back when I was in Atlas and IT and then Raiden who would say "man, can't belvie I didn't do this sooner". I've come to realize that goons were doing it right, quickly ejecting their new players from high sec before they could become brainwashed lol. I now encourage new players to get the hell out of high sec as soon as possible, and avoid pve only high sec corps if they don't stay with my group. Wait, so you joined EVE, would have quit, but CCP made a change making it easier for you to get into player interactive content, which encouraged you to stay. That's exactly what this suggestion is to do too. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 117	Posted - 2014.10.30 21:32:15 - [315] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Syn Shi wrote: The only rumored change...the awoxer will lose their ship. Which means that awoxing ceases to exist, since what you described is suicide ganking and already exists. So what you're saying is, if ship loss occurs (as in most forms of pvp), it stops being awoxing? I don't have much against awoxers, save for the fact that eve might be more successful without their particular mechanic, but you aren't making a good case for yourself here. TBH I always though awoxing was attacking a corpmate. Everything that came after that was a consequence of the awox attempt. No, what he is saying if ship loss occurs due to CONCORD involvement, it is effectively suicide ganking. I guess you could call it awoxing too, but I can commit the same action (shooting of a target) with the same consequences (CONCORDing of my ship) without being in the corporation. Thus the awoxing part is irrelevant and it is just suicide ganking. So yes, you are effectively removing awoxing by adding a CONCORD response to corp-on-corp violence. It isn't a nerf, it is complete removal.
Dave Stark 7086	Posted - 2014.10.30 21:32:51 - [316] - Quote Dersen Lowery wrote: Dave Stark wrote: y'all are aware that ecm will get you out of any high sec awox situation. right? there have been many occasions when a perfect awox has been foiled by a single jam. Sure, if you have some familiarity with it online at the time who can run back and grab it in time to stop the attack. Since it's almost completely useless against rats, the odds are probably not good that most members of any given high sec PVE corp have even trained Electronic Warfare, never mind the amplification skills. There's no reason to use a dedicated jamming boat in PVE, so the odds that one would just be lying around are slim. Unless they do incursions, they might not even have logi. I trained it because my corp had veterans who had flown in PVP fleets for years. Not everyone does. I'm willing to bet that most AWOXs succeed to the extent they do not just because of good timing by the AWOXer (striking when a mission boat is up against max DPS in a mission) but because people who have never PVP'd can and do freeze up when they're suddenly confronted with it and do dumb and uncoordinated things that get them popped. That's another problem: PVE has become so utterly unlike PVP, and rats so completely unlike capsuleer ships, that people end up specializing into completely different areas. It's bad enough that most PVE rewards solo work, whereas most PVP rewards fleet work, so the odds aren't bad that the corp members are lacking the RL or even in-game skills to form an effective fleet, with roles and support. I'm not particularly interested in blaming or fault-finding; this seems to me to a solvable problem. 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.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 25	Posted - 2014.10.30 21:45:34 - [317] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: Dersen Lowery wrote: Dave Stark wrote: y'all are aware that ecm will get you out of any high sec awox situation. right? there have been many occasions when a perfect awox has been foiled by a single jam. Sure, if you have some familiarity with it online at the time who can run back and grab it in time to stop the attack. Since it's almost completely useless against rats, the odds are probably not good that most members of any given high sec PVE corp have even trained Electronic Warfare, never mind the amplification skills. There's no reason to use a dedicated jamming boat in PVE, so the odds that one would just be lying around are slim. Unless they do incursions, they might not even have logi. I trained it because my corp had veterans who had flown in PVP fleets for years. Not everyone does. I'm willing to bet that most AWOXs succeed to the extent they do not just because of good timing by the AWOXer (striking when a mission boat is up against max DPS in a mission) but because people who have never PVP'd can and do freeze up when they're suddenly confronted with it and do dumb and uncoordinated things that get them popped. That's another problem: PVE has become so utterly unlike PVP, and rats so completely unlike capsuleer ships, that people end up specializing into completely different areas. It's bad enough that most PVE rewards solo work, whereas most PVP rewards fleet work, so the odds aren't bad that the corp members are lacking the RL or even in-game skills to form an effective fleet, with roles and support. I'm not particularly interested in blaming or fault-finding; this seems to me to a solvable problem. 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. So what you are saying is, if you are going to lose a ship.........you will choose to stop awoxing. That's kinda lame. But hey, if that is the path you choose....more power to you. Any other activities you choose not to do because you will lose a ship?
Bronson Hughes The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration 654	Posted - 2014.10.30 21:45:43 - [318] - Quote I see lots of people complaining about the possible removal of AWOXxing and how it will have such a huge impact on content creation. Well, let's take a look at some data. https://zkillboard.com/kills/awox/ The vast majority of the list are kills in nullsec or wormhole space, involving groups like RvB who constantly shoot at each other on purpose, or folks trying to swipe a bounty off of a fellow suicide ganker. Sure, there's a few genuine AWOX kills here and there...but most of them are just fluff. Why all the hubbub over a bunch of fluff? CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking. Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook. I want to create content, not become content.
Sion Kumitomo GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 171	Posted - 2014.10.30 21:46:17 - [319] - Quote The continued misuse of the word 'awox' in this thread has me in quite a state. Check your history, almost all of you are wrong. This change would literally only effect hisec. Seriously. That's it. Want to shoot your mates in low/null/wh? Go nuts. There is otherwise no impact anywhere else with this. That is, unless your entire gameplay style is centered on abusing people who don't understand counterintuitive gameplay mechanics in EVE's 'safest' systems, in which case I'm sure this will impact you, and I'm so very sorry you're unable to take on real challenges and lack the imagination to think of other ways to hurt people. Basically, you're dumb if you think that anyone who knows what real risk means is going to hop on some terrible hyberbolic bandwagon defending your right to beat up the proverbial new kid and take their lunch money. Or to put it another way, HTFU yourselves you bunch of whiners.
Dave Stark 7086	Posted - 2014.10.30 21:51:33 - [320] - Quote Sion Kumitomo wrote: That is, unless your entire gameplay style is centered on abusing people who don't understand counterintuitive gameplay mechanics in EVE's 'safest' systems, so when's the ETA on banning scams? when's the ETA on banning mission baiting? you are banning those too, i assume, since they're also centered on the same things.

John E Normus New Order Logistics CODE. 241	Posted - 2014.10.30 21:54:45 - [321] - Quote Sion Kumitomo wrote: The continued misuse of the word 'awox' in this thread has me in quite a state. Check your history, almost all of you are wrong. This change would literally only effect hisec. Seriously. That's it. Want to shoot your mates in low/null/wh? Go nuts. There is otherwise no impact anywhere else with this. That is, unless your entire gameplay style is centered on abusing people who don't understand counterintuitive gameplay mechanics in EVE's 'safest' systems, in which case I'm sure this will impact you, and I'm so very sorry you're unable to take on real challenges and lack the imagination to think of other ways to hurt people. Basically, you're dumb if you think that anyone who knows what real risk means is going to hop on some terrible hyberbolic bandwagon defending your right to beat up the proverbial new kid and take their lunch money. Or to put it another way, HTFU yourselves you bunch of whiners. A goon typed this. hahahahahahahaha Between Ignorance and Wisdom
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 393	Posted - 2014.10.30 21:54:52 - [322] - Quote Now the boring Highsec death end PvE and miner corp can finally recruit and trap new players without the fear of destruction. Well done CCP! As many have said before it will have no effect on any other type of corp. the Code ALWAYS wins
Dave Stark 7089	Posted - 2014.10.30 21:56:41 - [323] - Quote on the bright side, now i can just invite a bunch of new players to a corp tell them mining is great, and bore them in to quitting while making isk from their hard work by purchasing their ore at prices a fraction of that of jita prices. and i won't even have to bother making a second corp to protect my orca pilot any more. silver linings and all that.
Sion Kumitomo GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 175	Posted - 2014.10.30 21:58:04 - [324] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: Sion Kumitomo wrote: That is, unless your entire gameplay style is centered on abusing people who don't understand counterintuitive gameplay mechanics in EVE's 'safest' systems, so when's the ETA on banning scams? when's the ETA on banning mission baiting? you are banning those too, i assume, since they're also centered on the same things. If you straw man any harder you might soon be joined by a tin man and a cowardly lion.
Dave Stark 7089	Posted - 2014.10.30 21:58:41 - [325] - Quote Sion Kumitomo wrote: Dave Stark wrote: Sion Kumitomo wrote: That is, unless your entire gameplay style is centered on abusing people who don't understand counterintuitive gameplay mechanics in EVE's 'safest' systems, so when's the ETA on banning scams? when's the ETA on banning mission baiting? you are banning those too, i assume, since they're also centered on the same things. If you straw man any harder you might soon be joined by a tin man and a cowardly lion. so then that's not the reason for the change? if so, why bother mentioning it. it's entirely off topic.
Dave Leadland Honor and Ethics Keiretsu Kapital 4	Posted - 2014.10.30 22:01:54 - [326] - Quote CCP should disband whole CMS and stop doing that whole CMS. I don't doubt that your intentions are good, but do not take away feature from EVE what has been there from beginning of EVE. Stop pampering!
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 25	Posted - 2014.10.30 22:03:12 - [327] - Quote Oh snap. This thread done.
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2447	Posted - 2014.10.30 22:04:05 - [328] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: if you want to stop people awoxing with such impunity, fix the broken neutral logi mechanics. Sure, that'd be great. Won't fix the problem of new players finding a home though.
Dersen Lowery Drinking in Station 1245	Posted - 2014.10.30 22:05:24 - [329] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: 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? No, I'm saying that "just use ECM!" is flip for a number of reasons related to PVE being stale and half-assed. This takes out one relatively easy kind of nonconsensual PVP in one area of space in response to what CCP believes is a less-than-ideal insularity that is keeping new players out of corps, and therefore out of the #1 most effective retention mechanism that CCP knows about. Whether it works, and how well, are TBD, but given EVE's abysmal retention rate, and the rate that many people who do upgrade from trial do so to get into a pure PVE track before they eventually lose interest and leave, I can't blame them for trying. The day CCP starts talking about prohibiting villainous behavior in the EULA, you can rage about theme parks. This is just CCP trying to fix a brilliant but broken game, which means changing things that have been left alone for years and years, which means knocking some people out of their long-adopted play styles. But it's not like they're making it impossible to be the bad guy in high security space. It's not even as if every change will make it harder to be the bad guy. CCP Seagull said she wanted EVE to be more about people outwitting people, and less about people taking advantage of mechanics. So, as Kaarous Aldurald has repeatedly said, you can still trick unwitting people into danger and kill them, just not in this one specific way anymore. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 209	Posted - 2014.10.30 22:06:25 - [330] - Quote I guess my question is that given that: 1. Wardeccs and 2. Theft Still exist in highsec corps, will this actually spur anyone to join one? I know that with those present the change still won't be enough to get me to leave my 1-man corp. I would think this change needs to be part of a more fundamental adjustment to highsec mechanics to have the desired impact.

Dave Stark 7090	Posted - 2014.10.30 22:08:07 - [331] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Dave Stark wrote: if you want to stop people awoxing with such impunity, fix the broken neutral logi mechanics. Sure, that'd be great. Won't fix the problem of new players finding a home though. awoxing isn't the issue with new players finding a home anyway. if player corps weren't ** to begin with, it'd go more of a way to helping new players find homes. look at high sec corps - since awoxing only affects those corps - what can they offer people? close to nothing. the lack of reason to want to be in a high sec corp is a bigger barrier for players finding a decent one than awoxing ever has, or ever will, be. player corps need to be able to offer people a reason to join them, removing awoxing doesn't do that. high sec player corps are still going to be **, and pointless, and largely irrelevant.
Mharius Skjem Opacity Circles 34	Posted - 2014.10.30 22:10:10 - [332] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Mharius Skjem wrote: Syn Shi wrote: Mharius Skjem wrote: 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. Awox will still be possible if the rumor ends up being true. Only change is now you will have consequences. And as many have demonstrated,,,,some of the so called pvp'rs and content creators don't want consequences for themselves. Tell me more about these consequences... I'm still reading the 146 page pdf (which by the way I love). You are reading the wrong stuffs. "There seems to be a strong suggestion that you will soon no longer be able to "legally" shoot corpmates, and the implication seems to be that shooting corpmates will be a criminal act in highsec that will be met with CONCORD retribution." The only ones saying awoxing is going to disappear are the ones who don't like the fact that the only baseless thing that was mentioned was that now Concord would step in. Which translates into someone not wanting to awox anymore because they will lose their ship as well. Then it's a sad change. Eve is at it's most beautiful and enticing when she is at her most brutal... If we keep going like this then soon there wont be any risk at all left in highsec and that is not what eve is about. A concord response is not warranted here. Does this mean that training ops for corps now have to take place in low sec or null and that if I engage my corp-mates whilst training I will lose security status as well as my ship? If so it's going to break a huge chunk of the game. A recovering btter vet, with a fresh toon and a determination to like everything that CCP does to Eve...
Dave Stark 7090	Posted - 2014.10.30 22:11:10 - [333] - Quote Mharius Skjem wrote: Syn Shi wrote: Mharius Skjem wrote: Syn Shi wrote: Mharius Skjem wrote: 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. Awox will still be possible if the rumor ends up being true. Only change is now you will have consequences. And as many have demonstrated,,,,some of the so called pvp'rs and content creators don't want consequences for themselves. Tell me more about these consequences... I'm still reading the 146 page pdf (which by the way I love). You are reading the wrong stuffs. "There seems to be a strong suggestion that you will soon no longer be able to "legally" shoot corpmates, and the implication seems to be that shooting corpmates will be a criminal act in highsec that will be met with CONCORD retribution." The only ones saying awoxing is going to disappear are the ones who don't like the fact that the only baseless thing that was mentioned was that now Concord would step in. Which translates into someone not wanting to awox anymore because they will lose their ship as well. Then it's a sad change. Eve is at it's most beautiful and enticing when she is at her most brutal... If we keep going like this then soon there wont be any risk at all left in highsec and that is not what eve is about. A concord response is not warranted here. Does this mean that training ops for corps now have to take place in low sec or null and that if I engage my corp-mates whilst training I will lose security status as well as my ship? If so it's going to break a huge chunk of the game. i think fozzie wants you to use the dueling mechanic instead.
Sion Kumitomo GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 177	Posted - 2014.10.30 22:12:48 - [334] - Quote Mharius Skjem wrote: Syn Shi wrote: Mharius Skjem wrote: Syn Shi wrote: Mharius Skjem wrote: 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. Awox will still be possible if the rumor ends up being true. Only change is now you will have consequences. And as many have demonstrated,,,,some of the so called pvp'rs and content creators don't want consequences for themselves. Tell me more about these consequences... I'm still reading the 146 page pdf (which by the way I love). You are reading the wrong stuffs. "There seems to be a strong suggestion that you will soon no longer be able to "legally" shoot corpmates, and the implication seems to be that shooting corpmates will be a criminal act in highsec that will be met with CONCORD retribution." The only ones saying awoxing is going to disappear are the ones who don't like the fact that the only baseless thing that was mentioned was that now Concord would step in. Which translates into someone not wanting to awox anymore because they will lose their ship as well. Then it's a sad change. Eve is at it's most beautiful and enticing when she is at her most brutal... If we keep going like this then soon there wont be any risk at all left in highsec and that is not what eve is about. A concord response is not warranted here. Does this mean that training ops for corps now have to take place in low sec or null and that if I engage my corp-mates whilst training I will lose security status as well as my ship? If so it's going to break a huge chunk of the game. Hey look, it's a slippery slope fallacy.
Mharius Skjem Opacity Circles 34	Posted - 2014.10.30 22:13:06 - [335] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: i think fozzie wants you to use the dueling mechanic instead. I'd forgotten we had a duelling mechanic or shall we just do our training in the new fangled instances or 'dojos' that have recently made their way on to the test server. A recovering btter vet, with a fresh toon and a determination to like everything that CCP does to Eve...
Dave Stark 7090	Posted - 2014.10.30 22:15:18 - [336] - Quote Sion Kumitomo wrote: Hey look, it's a slippery slope fallacy. 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.
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 393	Posted - 2014.10.30 22:17:34 - [337] - Quote Sion Kumitomo wrote: This change would literally only effect hisec. Seriously. That's it. Want to shoot your mates in low/null/wh? Go nuts. There is otherwise no impact anywhere else with this. You seriously think that increasing the chance that players end up in a risk averse Highsec PvE/miner corp (which by your argument is the winner of this change) instead of a low/null/wh corp (which is not impacted by the change as you say) is a good thing? It's so obvious how this will backfire. the Code ALWAYS wins
Sion Kumitomo GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 182	Posted - 2014.10.30 22:22:29 - [338] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: Sion Kumitomo wrote: Hey look, it's a slippery slope fallacy. 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. There's like 16 pages about how this is a hisec buff. Are you sure it's a nerf? Or are we at the point of the discussion where we're just throwing things out and hoping something resonates?
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 25	Posted - 2014.10.30 22:23:30 - [339] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: Sion Kumitomo wrote: Hey look, it's a slippery slope fallacy. 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. You can still awox. The only change is now you will have to decide are the tears worth the value of my ship. For you...looks like the answer is you aren't ready to lose your ship. No tears for you.
Cancel Align NOW Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 157	Posted - 2014.10.30 22:29:31 - [340] - Quote 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?

Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10422	Posted - 2014.10.30 22:32:35 - [341] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: You can still awox. Stop lying. All that remains if this is changed is the same suicide ganking we've pretty much always had. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Steve Ronuken Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM 4105	Posted - 2014.10.30 22:33:08 - [342] - Quote I keep seeing people thinking that Logi creates aggression which will get you Concorded. The only time you'll be concorded for Logi, is if you rep someone with a criminal flag, in high sec. Woo! CSM 9! Fuzzwork Enterprises Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Tisiphone Dira New Order Logistics CODE. 0	Posted - 2014.10.30 22:34:43 - [343] - Quote Sion Kumitomo wrote: There's like 16 pages about how this is a hisec buff. Are you sure it's a nerf? Or are we at the point of the discussion where we're just throwing things out and hoping something resonates? You know fine well that it is a 'buff'' to safety, and a 'nerf' to aggression, fun and emergent content, depending on your perspective. If you are a clueless carebear sitting there in your barge, this is a buff to your safety. Not that you'll know about this for another month or so, it's not like those people have corp-mates or are engaged with chatting with people. And if they do have friends, well then they've already managed to overcome this 'issue' and don't need this change then. If however you are a rascally scoundrel who is 'being the villain' , or simply somebody who cares about the future of this game and the direction it is heading, then it is yet another nerf in a long series of nerfs. The privateers were killed off, can-flipping is nearly dead and now you are gunning for the awoxers. This change doesn't directly affect me, I've not awoxed anybody, and wasn't planning to for a while. It's still a horrible change, and is quite heavy handed. It will destroy a play-style in a large section of the game, as surely as removing all asteroids from high-sec would.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 25	Posted - 2014.10.30 22:35:28 - [344] - Quote Cancel Align NOW wrote: 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? Can be done in null or low sec. But that would involve you leaving the safety of hi-sec. Safety of hi-sec...........really. You want to be able to practice to shoot someone in safety. Really.
Dave Stark 7097	Posted - 2014.10.30 22:36:58 - [345] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Dave Stark wrote: Sion Kumitomo wrote: Hey look, it's a slippery slope fallacy. 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. You can still awox. The only change is now you will have to decide are the tears worth the value of my ship. For you...looks like the answer is you aren't ready to lose your ship. No tears for you. that's not awoxing, that's suicide ganking. Steve Ronuken wrote: I keep seeing people thinking that Logi creates aggression which will get you Concorded. The only time you'll be concorded for Logi, is if you rep someone with a criminal flag, in high sec. repping awoxers incurs nothing, and that's what's so broken about the whole thing. Sion Kumitomo wrote: There's like 16 pages about how this is a hisec buff. Are you sure it's a nerf? Or are we at the point of the discussion where we're just throwing things out and hoping something resonates? depends what side of the fence you're on. i'm personally not on the side of the drooling mouth breathers who can't do basic recruitment checks. shrug anyway, that's all from me tonight. bed is calling.
Treo 'Ssard Hangar 55 43	Posted - 2014.10.30 22:48:45 - [346] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Can one of the opposition explain to me WHY it makes sense that I can shoot a guy in my corp but not a stranger? Why concord will react to one incident and not the other? Because, in the case of corp mates, you made a decision to associate with them, where as you don't necessarily have that discretion when coming across strangers. If you make a decision to associate with someone in a formal manner (joining / forming a corp), CONCORD won't interfere when and if corp mates start blasting each other. Mind you, I have not taken position on this matter; I'm merely suggesting a rationale (flimsy as it may be). That being said, I find there have been good ideas and suggestions in this thread. Two of them I particularly enjoyed: 1) a prohibitive tax in NPC corps 2) removing the ability to dodge wardecs (having a wardec follow an individual for an amount of time - a week, perhaps - seems to have some traction) Something I'd like to see, if this comes to be, is an option for a corporation to set an "unsafe" mode: corp mates can shoot at each other without outside parties (CONCORD) interfering. Rationale: "fleet training exercices with live ammunition". Could this be used for vile purposes ?? Obviously. EVE is cold and unforgiving (so says PR). It does give a means for HIGH-SEC corps' to gain some added security (without being 100% safe, as that must never happen), while allowing those who choose so to forego this added security. Just musing out loud here.
Cancel Align NOW Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 157	Posted - 2014.10.30 22:52:08 - [347] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Cancel Align NOW wrote: 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? Can be done in null or low sec. But that would involve you leaving the safety of hi-sec. Safety of hi-sec...........really. You want to be able to practice to shoot someone in safety. Really. And the one being called carebear is the one being shot........really people. 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?
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 210	Posted - 2014.10.30 22:55:02 - [348] - Quote Treo 'Ssard wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: Can one of the opposition explain to me WHY it makes sense that I can shoot a guy in my corp but not a stranger? Why concord will react to one incident and not the other? Because, in the case of corp mates, you made a decision to associate with them, where as you don't necessarily have that discretion when coming across strangers. If you make a decision to associate with someone in a formal manner (joining / forming a corp), CONCORD won't interfere when and if corp mates start blasting each other. Mind you, I have not taken position on this matter; I'm merely suggesting a rationale (flimsy as it may be). That being said, I find there have been good ideas and suggestions in this thread. Two of them I particularly enjoyed: 1) a prohibitive tax in NPC corps 2) removing the ability to dodge wardecs (having a wardec follow an individual for an amount of time - a week, perhaps - seems to have some traction) Something I'd like to see, if this comes to be, is an option for a corporation to set an "unsafe" mode: corp mates can shoot at each other without outside parties (CONCORD) interfering. Rationale: "fleet training exercices with live ammunition". Could this be used for vile purposes ?? Obviously. EVE is cold and unforgiving (so says PR). It does give a means for HIGH-SEC corps' to gain some added security (without being 100% safe, as that must never happen), while allowing those who choose so to forego this added security. Just musing out loud here. The problem with your ideas can be seen clearly from the CSM notes - mainly that a significant portion of the playerbase plays this game as a soloplayer PvE highsec game. Trying to force them out of NPC Corps and into wars, awoxxes, etc.... just won't work, they will quit the game far before being forced into unwanted social interactions. What CCP would like to do is make people actually WANT to join corps and play the game in multiplayer fashion - not because life is unbearable in NPC corp land, but because life can actually be fun in highsec corp land. Now I have no idea if this will work, and if the solo PvE players are even amenable to any kind of pressure or incentives to leave NPC corpland without quitting the game, but the idea is at least an interesting one.
Zepher Helen Hawat ULTRAMAR SECURITIES 5	Posted - 2014.10.30 22:56:34 - [349] - Quote This is getting silly. You know what... nerf all of hi-sec. Make it as safe as the carebear wants. Issue pillows... but reduce the amount of ISK that can be made there. Simple. You can play and fly in complete safety, but your gains will be small. Want to be mega rich? Then you need to take some risk and move to null or low... want those other ores? You need to leave hi-sec.. in fact the only mineral you should be able to get in hi-sec is trit. No ratting in hi-sec... cause hi-sec is safe, there are no rats. All missions can be "delivery boy", or "make me a spoon", or something... for the appropriate reward. It's a very simple solution that I'm sure will keep everyone happy. The carebear gets to "do his/her thing" in complete safety and silence, since they are not losing ships or pods, they don't need that much in ISK rewards, and those that want the rough and tumble, and go for the big rewards for the risk involved, get the big pay outs and action for leaving Hi-sec. Make it happen CCP so we can get on with the game and you guys can spend time creating interesting stuff instead of more nerfs.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 25	Posted - 2014.10.30 22:58:01 - [350] - Quote Cancel Align NOW wrote: Syn Shi wrote: Cancel Align NOW wrote: 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? Can be done in null or low sec. But that would involve you leaving the safety of hi-sec. Safety of hi-sec...........really. You want to be able to practice to shoot someone in safety. Really. And the one being called carebear is the one being shot........really people. 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? You can still awox. You will just lose a ship if they made the change. There is nothing more to this topic. Why are you against losing your ship if you awox?

Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10422	Posted - 2014.10.30 23:00:03 - [351] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: You can still awox. No, you can't. It would be suicide ganking instead, which already exists. Enough of your lies. If lies and lore bullshit are all the carebear community can dredge up to justify this, you are even more pathetic than I thought you were. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Steve Ronuken Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM 4105	Posted - 2014.10.30 23:03:54 - [352] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: Steve Ronuken wrote: I keep seeing people thinking that Logi creates aggression which will get you Concorded. The only time you'll be concorded for Logi, is if you rep someone with a criminal flag, in high sec. repping awoxers incurs nothing, and that's what's so broken about the whole thing. That I know (now. I'd missed that you didn't get an LE for attacking a corp mate) But I'm seeing people who think that they won't be able to rep corp mates, or structures, without being concorded. Woo! CSM 9! Fuzzwork Enterprises Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Cancel Align NOW Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 157	Posted - 2014.10.30 23:05:10 - [353] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Cancel Align NOW wrote: Syn Shi wrote: Cancel Align NOW wrote: 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? Can be done in null or low sec. But that would involve you leaving the safety of hi-sec. Safety of hi-sec...........really. You want to be able to practice to shoot someone in safety. Really. And the one being called carebear is the one being shot........really people. 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? You can still awox. You will just lose a ship if they made the change. There is nothing more to this topic. Why are you against losing your ship if you awox? New players make mistakes. A 3 month old playing in a falcon for the first time with his corp buddies doesn't need to lose it cause he doesn't know the implications of his actions. I am not against awoxers receiving equitable consequences with other flagged criminals. I am all for helping new players learn as many aspects of Eve as possible in their own time frame not being forced to play the way everyone else does in a sand box.
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 394	Posted - 2014.10.30 23:05:56 - [354] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: You can still awox. You will just lose a ship if they made the change. There is nothing more to this topic. Why are you against losing your ship if you awox? 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. the Code ALWAYS wins
Some Rando University of Caille Gallente Federation 1224	Posted - 2014.10.30 23:07:22 - [355] - Quote Zepher Helen Hawat wrote: You know what... nerf all of hi-sec. Make it as safe as the carebear wants. Issue pillows... but reduce the amount of ISK that can be made there. Simple. This is basically the solution to all of EVE's problems. CCP has no sense of humour.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 211	Posted - 2014.10.30 23:10:16 - [356] - Quote Some Rando wrote: Zepher Helen Hawat wrote: You know what... nerf all of hi-sec. Make it as safe as the carebear wants. Issue pillows... but reduce the amount of ISK that can be made there. Simple. This is basically the solution to all of EVE's problems. Presuming that people who rat or mine in the ultra safe blue donut, Deklein for example, or in renterland, somehow "deserve" higher rewards than people in highsec because they are "exposed" to more risk.
Jawls Rohn Neon Incorporated 404 Alliance Not Found 2	Posted - 2014.10.30 23:13:55 - [357] - Quote (Not based in hi sec, never been awoxxed) This is a good change, it's a dumb mechanic.
Cancel Align NOW Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 157	Posted - 2014.10.30 23:15:06 - [358] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Some Rando wrote: Zepher Helen Hawat wrote: You know what... nerf all of hi-sec. Make it as safe as the carebear wants. Issue pillows... but reduce the amount of ISK that can be made there. Simple. This is basically the solution to all of EVE's problems. Presuming that people who rat or mine in the ultra safe blue donut, Deklein for example, or in renterland, somehow "deserve" higher rewards than people in highsec because they are "exposed" to more risk. Thread derailing attempt spotted. They are though. Anyone can choose to shoot anyone at any time with out interference from game mechanics.
Marsha Mallow 1645	Posted - 2014.10.30 23:15:43 - [359] - Quote Sion Kumitomo wrote: The continued misuse of the word 'awox' in this thread has me in quite a state. Check your history, almost all of you are wrong. We know where it came from, but it's been adopted more broadly. Check your history. Corp ganking predates the awox term, they've just become interchangable. Sion Kumitomo wrote: This change would literally only effect hisec. Seriously. That's it. Want to shoot your mates in low/null/wh? Go nuts. There is otherwise no impact anywhere else with this. Fair enough, highsec clearly means nothing to you. You pull your recruits directly into null and assimilate them into the scrub-machine. But that's not the only path to a more engaged playstyle. These conflicts in highsec give players with the right attitude the chance to jump in. Where's the emphasis on promoting that attitude of engagement and competition by creating more devices for conflict? The squealers are likely just looking for a reason to unsub anyway rather than admit they just don't get the the game, so what's the point of introducing these frankly stupid illusions of safety? That goddamn ENABLE SAFETY button, lmao. Seriously. Next there'll be a series of popup warnings you have to click through asking if you feel emotionally ready to undock (are you sure? no really? need a hug? it's dark out there....). It's a far cry from Aura sniggering 'Silly Pilot' in your ear isn't it? PARTIAL SAFETY engaged, wtf. Sion Kumitomo wrote: That is, unless your entire gameplay style is centered on abusing people who don't understand counterintuitive gameplay mechanics in EVE's 'safest' systems, in which case I'm sure this will impact you, and I'm so very sorry you're unable to take on real challenges and lack the imagination to think of other ways to hurt people. Basically, you're dumb if you think that anyone who knows what real risk means is going to hop on some terrible hyberbolic bandwagon defending your right to beat up the proverbial new kid and take their lunch money. Or to put it another way, HTFU yourselves you bunch of whiners. Some of us came here to play with the baddies. The underlined passage of bullshit above could be applied to wardecs btw. Or recruitment scams :) This is how my early corp responded to months of continual wardecs in Highsec whilst building up the corp to go to null. We're not all criers. I'm aware it will be modded, but that kill (of a highsec griefer who did nothing but gob off in local and dodge fights) gave our corp the impetus to strike out into null. The only person who awoxed in an earlier corp was removed and blacklisted by everyone we knew, then quit playing that alt. The guy who robbed corp hangars and towers was repaid 2 years later when we dec'd his corp and removed his tower. None of these events affected player retention at a corp level - we helped each other out. That's the point of playing in a group, so the whinging about awoxing seems a bit bizarre in the first place unless everyone in Highsec is playing in corps full of wankers who don't help each other out when needed. Removing awoxing won't address the root of the problem. The NPE is poor, rookies are clueless, there's too much information for them to take in solo, and - I really don't like saying this, but it's true - far too many of them are introverted drooling nerds who don't want to engage with other players in the first place. Honestly, it's unbelievable that this needs to be spelled out. People with a brain who want to join a corp accept the risks, and if they lose stuff get over it. Wierd navel gazing farmers don't - because they don't have the self awareness, social skills or intellect to do so. Cushioning them won't do anything to improve retention rates and interraction because they are transient players in the first place without the ability to move beyond that level. Although I suppose as per Gevlon's suggestion CCP could start stroking them purely to extract a few extra month of subs. DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 26	Posted - 2014.10.30 23:16:13 - [360] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: Syn Shi wrote: You can still awox. You will just lose a ship if they made the change. There is nothing more to this topic. Why are you against losing your ship if you awox? 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. Read the first post. Shoot a corp mate...concord shoot you. Read title......awox. Summary. Some don't want to lose their ship when they.....as the title says...corpmate awoxing. Conclusion.....you don't want to lose a ship from shooting a corp mate...or pretending to be that corp mate. Why are you against losing your ship?

Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 390	Posted - 2014.10.30 23:21:00 - [361] - Quote Xuixien wrote: Yay another buff to HiSec!!!! You can't be serious. Corp awoxing is almost exclusively documented as being used to grief new players. Obviously awoxing will still happen it just won't obviously happen in high sec so prominantly. There is nothing stopping you from being a warpin point for suicide gankers. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=348015 T3 OHing subsystem review and rebalance https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=290346 LP faction weapon store costs rebalancing
Cancel Align NOW Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 158	Posted - 2014.10.30 23:24:42 - [362] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Ima Wreckyou wrote: Syn Shi wrote: You can still awox. You will just lose a ship if they made the change. There is nothing more to this topic. Why are you against losing your ship if you awox? 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. Read the first post. Shoot a corp mate...concord shoot you. Read title......awox. Summary. Some don't want to lose their ship when they.....as the title says...corpmate awoxing. Conclusion.....you don't want to lose a ship from shooting a corp mate...or pretending to be that corp mate. Why are you against losing your ship? The best way to test mechanics is via action. I learned how many catalysts will it take to break the tank of my Procurer by having corpmates shoot at it. Why should my corpmates be punished for helping me learn that?
Kaarous Aldurald ROC Deep Space 10425	Posted - 2014.10.30 23:26:16 - [363] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: You can't be serious. Corp awoxing is almost exclusively documented as being used to grief new players. Or to attack people who abuse the dec dodge exploit, in my case. Quote: There is nothing stopping you from being a warpin point for suicide gankers. And there is nothing about that that requires me to be in their corp to do it. Hell I can do that with a ten hour old cloaked alt and a locator agent. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 395	Posted - 2014.10.30 23:32:56 - [364] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Ima Wreckyou wrote: Syn Shi wrote: You can still awox. You will just lose a ship if they made the change. There is nothing more to this topic. Why are you against losing your ship if you awox? 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. Read the first post. Shoot a corp mate...concord shoot you. Read title......awox. Summary. Some don't want to lose their ship when they.....as the title says...corpmate awoxing. Conclusion.....you don't want to lose a ship from shooting a corp mate...or pretending to be that corp mate. Why are you against losing your ship? 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? the Code ALWAYS wins
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 395	Posted - 2014.10.30 23:36:35 - [365] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: You can't be serious. Corp awoxing is almost exclusively documented as being used to grief new players. Obviously awoxing will still happen it just won't obviously happen in high sec so prominantly. You think someone will go through the process of infiltrating a corp just to kill a new player in a Venture or something? They are usually after shinny ships of older players like bling mission ships or Orcas. The "new player" argument is absolutely ridiculous and has no basis in reality. the Code ALWAYS wins
Paranoid Loyd 2459	Posted - 2014.10.30 23:37:16 - [366] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: And that word game is still no argument. It just demonstrates a lack of communication skills. Not to mention a lack of understanding of mechanics and the fundamental differences between the two methods. "PvE in EVE is a trap to turn you into PvP content, don't confuse it for actual gameplay." Lipbite
Some Rando University of Caille Gallente Federation 1226	Posted - 2014.10.30 23:37:55 - [367] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Presuming that people who rat or mine in the ultra safe blue donut, Deklein for example, or in renterland, somehow "deserve" higher rewards than people in highsec because they are "exposed" to more risk. Yeah, pretty much. High-sec PvE is way too rewarding for the investment a carebear puts into their own safety and space (none). CCP has no sense of humour.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 211	Posted - 2014.10.30 23:39:19 - [368] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: Caleb Seremshur wrote: You can't be serious. Corp awoxing is almost exclusively documented as being used to grief new players. Obviously awoxing will still happen it just won't obviously happen in high sec so prominantly. You think someone will go through the process of infiltrating a corp just to kill a new player in a Venture or something? They are usually after shinny ships of older players like bling mission ships or Orcas. The "new player" argument is absolutely ridiculous and has no basis in reality. I can confirm at least one case from my personal knowledge where an FW corp spent hours convincing a fairly new player to join up just so they could blow up his cheap ship, pod him, and then giggle to themselves while they mocked him for being stupid. So yes, some of the awoxxers are doing it for tears and giggles, not for killmails, and their easiest prey is new players unfamiliar with the awoxxing mechanics.
Violet Hurst Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 5	Posted - 2014.10.30 23:42:26 - [369] - Quote Hello Victoria, Victoria Ewans wrote: I was wondering why the hell does bad guy dont, all at the same moment, go back to low/ null sec? this way it will no longer be player empty. They will find the pvp engagement they are lookgin for fighting for their survival. Doing so, the high sec will be a more "secure" place for the carebear so they can do their thing relatively quietfully. This concept is completely solid and has worked for a lot of games worldwide. And it is called: drumroll theme park. When you want to kill NPCs, you go to a pve area. When you want to grow carrots, you go to a carrot farm and if you want to pvp you go to an arena. In a sandbox you basically don't do anything else. But you do all of it at once and at the same place. And this creates new activities: Growing carrots while fending off rabbits, slaying boars while avoiding the highwaymen, stealing the crop from carrot farmers, etc. Now one might ask if these concepts are really mutually exclusive or if you couldn't just have both of them in one game. But if you put little sandboxes and roller coasters next to each other in a game, it technically is a theme park and the little sandboxes just turn into theme park rides themselves. Furthermore the sandboxes will be ignored most of the time, since players will find the specialized rides more suitable for what they primarily want to do. Picking up my example from above: "Lol, i grew 10 carrots on the farm while you only grew 5 in the woods since the rabbits ate 3 and you had to give 2 of them to a highwayman.", "I got 10 fights in the last hour in the pvp arena while you didn't find anyone to fight running around the forrest.", etc. My point is: The absence of a game mechanic (specialized rides) can be a game mechanic itself. Diablo wouldn't have been a better game had you had the ability to save/load your progress everywhere. Super Mario wouldn't have been a better game given the option to fly a combat helicopter. Victoria Ewans wrote: Given Eve is a dark-harsh-PVP-sandbox MMO oriented game The problem here is that this statement gradually turned into a marketing slogan. I don't think that most players here really love the awoxing mechanic that much and want to protect it at any cost (although it is a unique characteristic of the game). It is more so that they see its removal as another step in a long list of steps aimed at falsifying the statement. I can only name some, but others might be able to contribute to it: concord ship insurance no ship insurance payout if you get killed by concord permabans for teamspeak activities dojos [only on the PTS so far] tiercide Victoria Ewans wrote: Now im welcoming your harsh, mean, rude and trolling comments as it is commonly seen on the forums. You're welcome to mine. :-)
John E Normus New Order Logistics CODE. 242	Posted - 2014.10.30 23:46:35 - [370] - Quote Sion Kumitomo wrote: The continued misuse of the word 'awox' in this thread has me in quite a state. Check your history, almost all of you are wrong. This change would literally only effect hisec. Seriously. That's it. Want to shoot your mates in low/null/wh? Go nuts. There is otherwise no impact anywhere else with this. That is, unless your entire gameplay style is centered on abusing people who don't understand counterintuitive gameplay mechanics in EVE's 'safest' systems, in which case I'm sure this will impact you, and I'm so very sorry you're unable to take on real challenges and lack the imagination to think of other ways to hurt people. Basically, you're dumb if you think that anyone who knows what real risk means is going to hop on some terrible hyberbolic bandwagon defending your right to beat up the proverbial new kid and take their lunch money. Or to put it another way, HTFU yourselves you bunch of whiners. A goon typed this. Between Ignorance and Wisdom

Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 395	Posted - 2014.10.30 23:53:44 - [371] - Quote John E Normus wrote: A goon typed this. Yeah, this is very puzzling. I bet he is only in that goon corp to awox the **** out of them. the Code ALWAYS wins
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 26	Posted - 2014.10.30 23:56:19 - [372] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: Syn Shi wrote: Ima Wreckyou wrote: Syn Shi wrote: You can still awox. You will just lose a ship if they made the change. There is nothing more to this topic. Why are you against losing your ship if you awox? 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. Read the first post. Shoot a corp mate...concord shoot you. Read title......awox. Summary. Some don't want to lose their ship when they.....as the title says...corpmate awoxing. Conclusion.....you don't want to lose a ship from shooting a corp mate...or pretending to be that corp mate. Why are you against losing your ship? 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? Then you need to teach your tricks to those above who said they are going to stop. If I was into said activities I would play nice and get them into a nice blingy ship for lvl 5 missions in low...and then let the hammer fall. But that's me. Too bad some don't want to leave the safety of hi-sec to continue their play style.
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10425	Posted - 2014.10.31 00:01:25 - [373] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: a nice blingy ship for lvl 5 missions in low Do you even play this game? No one actually does this, even total newbies. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Masao Kurata Z List 123	Posted - 2014.10.31 00:02:26 - [374] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Lots of crap about everything being the same except for losing your ship. You have CLEARLY never suicide ganked in your life. The main aspect of suicide ganking is not the certainty of the loss of your ship, it is the requirement to kill the the target within 10-25 seconds of opening fire depending on the security level of the system. The difference here is not that the "awoxer" (suicide ganker in your bizarre dialect) loses his ship, it's that he loses his ship and doesn't kill anything.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 26	Posted - 2014.10.31 00:07:44 - [375] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Syn Shi wrote: a nice blingy ship for lvl 5 missions in low Do you even play this game? No one actually does this, even total newbies. Some would see that as a challenge...or others will just wilt to the challenge. And in my brief stint being a F1 monkey I saw a corp who use to run them on the regular. Not sure where you get no one runs them. But you wouldn't know...you aren't willing to leave hi-sec.
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 396	Posted - 2014.10.31 00:08:37 - [376] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Too bad some don't want to leave the safety of hi-sec to continue their play style. So in Highsec everyone can shoot me on sight, local is full of people and the facpo will kill my ship if I stay in one place for a few seconds and don't warp. Please explain why Lowsec should be more dangerous to me? the Code ALWAYS wins
Masao Kurata Z List 123	Posted - 2014.10.31 00:10:19 - [377] - Quote There has been surprisingly little talk about the ACTUAL reason that awoxes are generally not terribly interesting content currently: neutral logi. Neutral logi currently do not receive a suspect flag for repping an awoxer unless the corporation is coincidentally at war. This leads to a situation where yes, the corp could get neutral logi themselves to even things out but that just results in a boring stalemate where nothing explodes. Neutral logi need to always be vulnerable to attack, and the code path to ensure this already exists, it's the one used when the corporation is at war (yes, the ships do not need to be on opposite sides of the war for this to trigger). The situation currently is that a day old alt can get into a corp and get completely free reps, remote ECCM, remote sebos, tracking links and fleet boosts (last one's another issue, just mentioning it). Sure, his targets can too, but this creates a situation where the corporation can't really win. Awoxers generally avoid corps that are at war for precisely this reason. If neutral logi were vulnerable they would be used less, and when they are used they would sometimes die, as would the awoxer. What we need is the serious potential for success stories where the corporation not only protects its members but kills and pods the awoxer and potentially any logi he brought. In short, try to FIX awoxing before just outright removing it. The kick queue is part of this, neutral logi is the other part.
Hengle Teron Just Another Corp XIV 3198	Posted - 2014.10.31 00:26:02 - [378] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Ima Wreckyou wrote: Caleb Seremshur wrote: You can't be serious. Corp awoxing is almost exclusively documented as being used to grief new players. Obviously awoxing will still happen it just won't obviously happen in high sec so prominantly. You think someone will go through the process of infiltrating a corp just to kill a new player in a Venture or something? They are usually after shinny ships of older players like bling mission ships or Orcas. The "new player" argument is absolutely ridiculous and has no basis in reality. I can confirm at least one case from my personal knowledge where an FW corp spent hours convincing a fairly new player to join up just so they could blow up his cheap ship, pod him, and then giggle to themselves while they mocked him for being stupid. So yes, some of the awoxxers are doing it for tears and giggles, not for killmails, and their easiest prey is new players unfamiliar with the awoxxing mechanics. I saw a bird that can't fly... ergo birds don't fly
Nevil Oscillator 44	Posted - 2014.10.31 00:29:47 - [379] - Quote None of you have a valid point, no wonder CCP ignores you One day it will be legal for me to shoot you and then I will just need to get out of this cell. Nevil Oscillator say N O to Space Crime
Aran Hotchkiss Phoibe Enterprises 1	Posted - 2014.10.31 00:51:32 - [380] - Quote I only read the first and 19th (last) page here, but this is what thoughts I've had so far. From what I could tell, (note I didn't read the minutes fully, only going off summaries / what others have read here) this seems to come down to a clash between new player's expecting a nice easy transition into the game (if this doesn't match your characterizations, use a bit of imagination and flexibility) and the capacity for the game to be full-on brutal in it's sandbox fashion, i.e. awoxxers. I'll just piece my thoughts together and type them as I go. Expected benefits are that there will be no more awoxxing or reverse safari-ing - and that's from the perspective of what you'd imagine of a new player. I'd fully imagine there are some people who after being awoxxed or reverse safari'd end up becoming introduced into other areas of the game apart from mining/missioning in a very isolated style way of playing the game. Not to mention awoxxing is also a large part of content for some people. I went and read PsychoticMonk's blog at one stage, not sure what to expect but... damn I found it interesting to read and see a way of playing EvE I've never contemplated. I joined the game on the advice of a friend and wanted to mine - within a week (or however long) I had a procurer, and then I made a beeline for exhumers. One of my earliest memories is mining with said friend and another corp-mate, I hear a 'pew!' noise, notice I've taken shield damage and see I have this odd new timer - the red one from combat with other players. "Evana, did you shoot me?!" "Yep lol! :D" "How?" "Drones!" Not a breath-taking event at all, but it gives me a small smile when I think of it - especially in this context of removing corp-mates being able to shoot eachother. Over the year I've been playing I can remember similar spontaneous moments of shooting eachother, wether it was two of us seeing who had a better interceptor fit or the CEO undocking in a neut-fit scorpion and five of us in frigates trying to break him. For a person used to living in low-sec with only a handful of friendlies and wary of everyone else in local, being able to fly back to hisec once in a blue moon and have a random spar with a corp-mate, wether they're three years old or here for 2 months going "who is this guy and what does he want with me why the hell did he give me 100mil!? oh he's gone agian" Is a refreshing break from the fairly constant vigilance required in lowsec (I've never been to npc/sov null, I'm aware that watching local/intel in low is nothing like null, all I'm doing is talking from experience, don't need to bring me up on this :P) Sure you can use duels to re-create this but...... so much of the entertainment to be had from this isn't so much what you're doing but how you're doing it and who with. If you've just arrived to a snowball fight, you can't really get the sneak-up (and laughs) on anyone if you first have to duel everyone beforehand. Ultimately.... I think the attitude this promotes, compared to the old system, is less 'healthy' for EvE. The best response I'd hope from anyone who loses a ship (in most circumstances I can think of) is pretty much "Oh.... woops. What's one thing I can remember to try and prevent that from happening again" Every ship lost is a learning hat. Every single one. Guess I should mention the concern of people not recruiting for fear of awoxxers / theives I would suggest doing background research - easy for me to say as I've only done a little of it and it is mind numbing. -One response to this would be there shouldn't be length out-of-game processes involved into recruiting. Sure, that might be ideal and is certainly possible in other MMO's, but given the many different vulnerabilties tied to recruiting - they could be a theif, an awoxxer, scoutting for nice wartargets, a spy, the list goes on, it's almost inevitable. Besides, third-party websites / activites take place in many other areas, i.e. dotlan, that d-scan report which I can't remember the name of, static-mapper, eve-central, etc. And... as a recruiter myself (not for very long though) I'd just say man up and do it - take the risk, if you're sensible about it you can limit any potential damage/loss, but I feel it's better to have tried and failed than to have never tried at all. A year a lion, or a hundred years a sheep?

PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2452	Posted - 2014.10.31 01:01:07 - [381] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: John E Normus wrote: A goon typed this. Yeah, this is very puzzling. I bet he is only in that goon corp to awox the ** out of them. This dude with the website will probably awox the lot of them soon enough. The Mittani wrote:** Here's another sacred cow to slaughter: hisec awoxing is absolutely stupid from a business and retention perspective as it disincentivizes players from reaching out to genuine confused newbies.
NightCrawler 85 Phoibe Enterprises 1722	Posted - 2014.10.31 01:01:09 - [382] - Quote Im a carebear and have done recruiting for the past 8 years and when i read about this... idea... I dident know if i should laugh or hit my head in the desk. Recruiting should be risky! People should not do it unless they have an idea about what they are doing, and even then they will, and should screw up once in a while and have their corp members blown up.. Sure this would be a benefit for new players that decide to create their own corp. You know... The kind of corp where the CEO generally has no idea what they are doing, dont understand basic game mechanics, and certainly dont understand how to run an efficient corp in EVE. The kind of corp that falls apart as soon as it has its first corp theft, or war dec, or internal drama, or members backstabbing each other or have the CEO burn out after less then 6 months because they suddenly realize running a corp in EVE is nothing like running a guild in *generic MMO where your a success if you get 10 people to sign a guild charter". But here is the thing, people joining these new corporations that have no clue what they are doing, receive no guidance from their CEO or directors, get burned because of the leaderships mistakes, those people tend to think that every corp in EVE is the same, and (surprise surprise) they quit. I spend most of my time in rookie systems, i talk to a lot of new players, i spend a lot of time here on the forums and yes, i actually do read posts made by new players. Believe it or not but i have yet to see someone quit because they got awoxed, OR because of reverse safari. What i do see, over and over and over again are people who are unhappy because they joined the first corp that spammed local with "Hey join us because were awesome because we put this copy paste advert in every system we jump trough", just to find out that the corp they joined really arent that great after all. But yea, im sure awoxing is a huge part of why people are having a bad experience when joining their first corp So instead of coming up with silly ideas about removing something that for some is a huge part of the game, making it even easier for a new player to create a corporation that will fail and drag its members down (and out of EVE) with them, try to educate your new members about how to actually find a (proper) corp instead! Before anyone says "Do it your self then!". I have actually written a full guide on how to find a corp, and with the help of other players the guide has actually managed to get in a lot of information that helps new players avoid the regular traps they might encounter when joining a corp. If players can do this, im sure that a few CCP employees and CSM could manage to do it and add it into the game so that people could actually find the information. As far as i know the tutorial manages to say "Now go and join the recruitment channel and find friends to play with!". Sure great info... Except the fact that the recruitment channel is one of (if not the) worst places for a recruit to find a decent corp. And of course lets not give them any guidelines on what a corp is, what the risks are, what the benefits are, what a corp can do for them and visa versa. Instead lets make sure that all the recruit knows is that they should join this random thing they dont understand because "you can meet people". Well if you want friends i hear that the NPC corp chats are very active and have a lot of people you can chat with Small hint. A new player will not understand that a corp offers way more then a joint chat channel or reduced taxes. For how this is supposedly making people avoid to recruit people to their corp. I have no clue where thats coming from. If you look at the in-game recruitment tool, the recruitment chat, the recruitment section of these forums, random local chats (pay extra attention to the rookie and starter systems) you will see that there are houndreds of corporations out there, openly recruiting, complete strangers! New players, old players, women, men, young, old, hardcore, laid back. And these are just the ones advertising that they recruit! Claiming that there isent enough corporations openly recruiting is one of the most ridiculous statements i have ever heard from a CCP employee. so thanks for the laugh (If i completely misunderstood what they are trying to say here please correct me, and in the event that i did misunderstand i apologize) CCP Seagull - The equally important problem is the amount of work that smart, experienced, and knowlegable people in Eve do to protect themselves from being harmed by bringing in new people. Why is not every corporation recruiting openly if this is not a problemm? I know that it is also corporation roles and access. But you are smart enough to know what you are getting into but do you not agree this is hindering recruitment? DJ FunkyBacon - Or you get shot and learn it fast. Ali Aras - And some people do survive that. I mean, some people do and some people donGÇÖt. CCP Bettik - It makes people less willing to recruit. We need to admit to that. CCP Fozzie - The smart high secGÇÖs player best option is not to join a corp and not to recruit. Phoibe Enterprises The Eve Reader - Audio Recordings of Eve Chronicles
Remiel Pollard Layman's Terms. Don't Tell Me The Odds 5812	Posted - 2014.10.31 01:06:58 - [383] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: There were 3 main reasons that have deterred me from joining Highsec corps - 1. Awoxxing 2. Wardeccs 3. Theft Even if CCP knocks off reason 1, I still think 2 and 3 are a pretty big deterrent to joining corps, and a good reason for many to stay in NPC/1 man corps. Those things are part and parcel of EVE. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if those things keep you from doing stuff in EVE, then the game is not for you. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie The Conference Elite CODE. 1106	Posted - 2014.10.31 01:11:00 - [384] - Quote Aran Hotchkiss wrote: ... Ultimately.... I think the attitude this promotes, compared to the old system, is less 'healthy' for EvE. The best response I'd hope from anyone who loses a ship (in most circumstances I can think of) is pretty much "Oh.... woops. What's one thing I can remember to try and prevent that from happening again" Every ship lost is a learning hat. Every single one. Guess I should mention the concern of people not recruiting for fear of awoxxers / theives I would suggest doing background research - easy for me to say as I've only done a little of it and it is mind numbing. -One response to this would be there shouldn't be length out-of-game processes involved into recruiting. Sure, that might be ideal and is certainly possible in other MMO's, but given the many different vulnerabilties tied to recruiting - they could be a theif, an awoxxer, scoutting for nice wartargets, a spy, the list goes on, it's almost inevitable. Besides, third-party websites / activites take place in many other areas, i.e. dotlan, that d-scan report which I can't remember the name of, static-mapper, eve-central, etc. And... as a recruiter myself (not for very long though) I'd just say man up and do it - take the risk, if you're sensible about it you can limit any potential damage/loss, but I feel it's better to have tried and failed than to have never tried at all. A year a lion, or a hundred years a sheep? Totally true. DJFunkyBacon mentioned more education, but this isn't even an issue of education about mechanics, or an issue with awoxing. This is an issue of "Don't fly what you can't afford to lose". CCP loses players to awoxing when those players join a corp for the first time and lose a ship. Now, if that ship didn't matter to them, they can get back on the bike and find another corp. If that ship did matter, either for sentimental value or because they spent more than they could afford on it, thats when they leave. I realize that the tutorials cause a player to lose a ship to npc's, but thats not enough. Players need to be put in some form of conflict with other players within their first two hours of play time. I'm not giving a complete solution for this, because honestly I don't have one, but it is completely unacceptable that players can be flying battleships before they have their first unexpected ship loss. CCP, stop driving loyal players away from your game with stupid changes in hopes that you'll get a few more newbies. I fully support expanding the playerbase, but alienating existing players is not the way to do it. -Rhubarb P.S. The queue for kicking people from corp is excellent and needs to go forward. Its a nerf to awoxing, but is far more intuitive than the current system. New player resources: http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Main_Page - General information http://www.evealtruist.com/p/know-your-enemy.html - Learn to PvP http://belligerentundesirables.com/ - Safaris, Awoxes, Ganking and Griefing-á
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 211	Posted - 2014.10.31 01:11:05 - [385] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: There were 3 main reasons that have deterred me from joining Highsec corps - 1. Awoxxing 2. Wardeccs 3. Theft Even if CCP knocks off reason 1, I still think 2 and 3 are a pretty big deterrent to joining corps, and a good reason for many to stay in NPC/1 man corps. Those things are part and parcel of EVE. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if those things keep you from doing stuff in EVE, then the game is not for you. Those things didn't keep me from doing "stuff." They kept me from joining a corp. I was able to accomplish all of my goals while remaining in a 1-man corp....and in my view those things made highsec corps essentially useless and of negative value.
Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 619	Posted - 2014.10.31 01:18:57 - [386] - Quote I unsubbed 5 accounts for now, might unsub the rest soon too. CCP are consistently destroying every single part of this game that keeps me playing. They advertise this game as treacherous and how you have freedom while taking all that away like it doesn't matter. Keep making this game more like wow, just remember that when you do it you kill the niche metagame that it's special for, without that it's nothing. EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode ISD Community Communications Liaisons 3450	Posted - 2014.10.31 01:20:26 - [387] - Quote Removed an off topic post. ISD Dorrim Barstorlode Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 619	Posted - 2014.10.31 01:23:06 - [388] - Quote CCP FoxFour - The idea that this is the only way to cause harm by joining a corporation does not exist. You can join a corporation and still assassinate someone. You can convince them to give you assets. You can convince them to go throu gh a low sec gate. You can convince them to go mission in an expensive ship and suicide gank them. Quote: YOU CAN GET THEM ON TEAMSPEAK AND GET PERMABANNED FOR IT EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Nevil Oscillator 44	Posted - 2014.10.31 01:27:42 - [389] - Quote Yeah that was me but now I'm thinking about a time I was fleeted with a corp mate and I accidentally fired a salvo of something quite unpleasant right into his Noctis. Luckily I managed to switch it off before the second salvo. With Concord jumping in, that could have been even more disastrous to the corp than destroying a Noctis. Nevil Oscillator say N O to Space Crime
Aran Hotchkiss Phoibe Enterprises 3	Posted - 2014.10.31 01:35:19 - [390] - Quote Nevil Oscillator wrote: Yeah that was me but now I'm thinking about a time I was fleeted with a corp mate and I accidentally fired a salvo of something quite unpleasant right into his Noctis. Luckily I managed to switch it off before the second salvo. With Concord jumping in, that could have been even more disastrous to the corp than destroying a Noctis. In all likeli-hood green/yellow settings would've prevented that. Not the same though :/

Harland White Dragonaurs Caldari Armed Forces. 176	Posted - 2014.10.31 01:36:28 - [391] - Quote Xuixien wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: If you attack someone in hisec w/o a wardec or duel, expect to lose your ship. Simple. There's no real reason for the corp concord loophole to exist save giving the risk averse easy pew. Why, because you say so? Now we enter another idiotic debate where you say it's risk-free PvP, and in comes people with actual experience to tell you it's not, and you deny facts, logic, and reason and kiss CCP's butt because you want to be safer in HiSec. You'll live. Get over it. By their fruit you will recognize them.
Remiel Pollard Layman's Terms. Don't Tell Me The Odds 5813	Posted - 2014.10.31 01:38:30 - [392] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: There were 3 main reasons that have deterred me from joining Highsec corps - 1. Awoxxing 2. Wardeccs 3. Theft Even if CCP knocks off reason 1, I still think 2 and 3 are a pretty big deterrent to joining corps, and a good reason for many to stay in NPC/1 man corps. Those things are part and parcel of EVE. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if those things keep you from doing stuff in EVE, then the game is not for you. Those things didn't keep me from doing "stuff." They kept me from joining a corp. I was able to accomplish all of my goals while remaining in a 1-man corp....and in my view those things made highsec corps essentially useless and of negative value. They kept you from being a part of the player driven environment. That is a detriment to EVE and it makes players like you a problem. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
290xanaots Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 24	Posted - 2014.10.31 01:51:32 - [393] - Quote NightCrawler 85 wrote: Your entire post 100% completely on point. I came here to write what I find you have already written. This is a recounting of my encounter with and evisceration of one of these terrible newbie-trap corps. We need these mechanics. Awoxing does net good in the long run.
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10427	Posted - 2014.10.31 02:01:15 - [394] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: They kept you from being a part of the player driven environment. That is a detriment to EVE and it makes players like you a problem. I would point out that anything that keeps him from interacting with other players (especially newbies) is probably a good thing. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Nevil Oscillator 44	Posted - 2014.10.31 02:07:56 - [395] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: They kept you from being a part of the player driven environment. That is a detriment to EVE and it makes players like you a problem. I would point out that anything that keeps him from interacting with other players (especially newbies) is probably a good thing. It is detrimental to Eve not to be part of player owned empires. Nevil Oscillator say N O to Space Crime
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10428	Posted - 2014.10.31 02:10:25 - [396] - Quote Nevil Oscillator wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: They kept you from being a part of the player driven environment. That is a detriment to EVE and it makes players like you a problem. I would point out that anything that keeps him from interacting with other players (especially newbies) is probably a good thing. It is detrimental to Eve not to be part of player owned empires. No, I'm talking about Tears Belvar in particular. Anything that prevents specifically him from being a part of the social dynamic of EVE Online is a great thing. The man has one of the most poisonous, disgusting attitudes seen in recent times. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
beakerax Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 34	Posted - 2014.10.31 02:10:34 - [397] - Quote NightCrawler 85 wrote: But here is the thing, people joining these new corporations that have no clue what they are doing, receive no guidance from their CEO or directors, get burned because of the leaderships mistakes, those people tend to think that every corp in EVE is the same, and (surprise surprise) they quit. I have seen it. If CCP seriously wants to improve new player retention, they need to increase new players' exposure to older players, not try to limit it. Alternatively, consider The Mittani's suggestion and actually employ people to coach new players in safe areas. The old strategy of piling every confused newbie into a channel where they can maybe get a copy-pasted response to their questions from a volunteer (if any are online) is not helping, and encouraging new players to join corps run by ** CEOs is not helping. Remiel Pollard wrote:** They kept you from being a part of the player driven environment. That is a detriment to EVE and it makes players like you a problem. You can do plenty of "stuff" as part of a non-corp community. The stuff you can't do is generally because of game mechanics, and not because you have limited your ability to associate with other players.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 212	Posted - 2014.10.31 02:11:18 - [398] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: There were 3 main reasons that have deterred me from joining Highsec corps - 1. Awoxxing 2. Wardeccs 3. Theft Even if CCP knocks off reason 1, I still think 2 and 3 are a pretty big deterrent to joining corps, and a good reason for many to stay in NPC/1 man corps. Those things are part and parcel of EVE. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if those things keep you from doing stuff in EVE, then the game is not for you. Those things didn't keep me from doing "stuff." They kept me from joining a corp. I was able to accomplish all of my goals while remaining in a 1-man corp....and in my view those things made highsec corps essentially useless and of negative value. They kept you from being a part of the player driven environment. That is a detriment to EVE and it makes players like you a problem. A - I did interact with other players, just not as part of a corp. B - Presumably CCP agrees that deterrents to player involvement in corps is a problem, and that's why they are adjusting the awoxxing mechanics. To the extent that they want to further encourage such interaction they will need to deal with wardeccs and theft.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 212	Posted - 2014.10.31 02:12:39 - [399] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Nevil Oscillator wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: They kept you from being a part of the player driven environment. That is a detriment to EVE and it makes players like you a problem. I would point out that anything that keeps him from interacting with other players (especially newbies) is probably a good thing. It is detrimental to Eve not to be part of player owned empires. No, I'm talking about Tears Belvar in particular. Anything that prevents specifically him from being a part of the social dynamic of EVE Online is a great thing. The man has one of the most poisonous, disgusting attitudes seen in recent times. You sound awful working upped. Maybe time to step back from the screen and relax a bit. I'm sure you can find other ways to contribute to the game besides awoxxing.
Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 619	Posted - 2014.10.31 02:14:41 - [400] - Quote Quote: Yes there is stuff wrong with trying to retain players who are absolutely averse to having their gameplay impacted by other players. What I have to say about this change is summed up in one sentence. CCP are killing their most (soon not anymore) loyal playerbase. EvE-Mail me if you need anything.

PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2456	Posted - 2014.10.31 02:17:16 - [401] - Quote Kaarous, what stops you from joining a low/null corp and awoxing them there? Just a curiosity.
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 6573	Posted - 2014.10.31 02:25:57 - [402] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Kaarous, what stops you from joining a low/null corp and awoxing them there? Just a curiosity. I would guess fear is his problem with that. Mr Epeen There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
Nevil Oscillator 44	Posted - 2014.10.31 02:32:09 - [403] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Kaarous, what stops you from joining a low/null corp and awoxing them there? Just a curiosity. The 'Danger Quick Sand' signs, maybe Awoxing is a rule that a newbie will probably not know about. Nevil Oscillator say N O to Space Crime
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8851	Posted - 2014.10.31 02:32:13 - [404] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: All I personally know is that when I came into EVE, I joined a mission running corp and were told all these things that were untrue about lw and null. If it wasn't for CCP introducing Faction Warfare, I'd have quit because based on bad information I was too afraid to venture outside of high sec. My experience is not unique. I've trained more than a few guys back when I was in Atlas and IT and then Raiden who would say "man, can't belvie I didn't do this sooner". I've come to realize that goons were doing it right, quickly ejecting their new players from high sec before they could become brainwashed lol. I now encourage new players to get the hell out of high sec as soon as possible, and avoid pve only high sec corps if they don't stay with my group. Wait, so you joined EVE, would have quit, but CCP made a change making it easier for you to get into player interactive content, which encouraged you to stay. That's exactly what this suggestion is to do too. The change CCP made was pro-pvp, pro-conflict, pro-destruction (in a game where 'churn' is the fuel of commerce). This idea is the exact opposite, which is exactly why it's bad. The people who basically lied to me (meaning well, but still lying) would be in favor of this change (if any still played). We know what CCP is trying to do, we can also see that they are wrong. We've had years of these "improvements" (making EVE safer and yet the flood of subs from people who were supposed to stay "if only it were safer/had lower barriers" hasn't materialized. How long will CCP and people like you cling to this failed ideology before you admit "hey, i guess making the game safer doesn't work to retain people after all"? Lower barriers simply cheapens an experience, folks like me came to EVE when the barries were higher, making surviving this long an accomplishment with value. Most of the things you seem to advocatewould deny players that sense of accomplishment (ironically hurting player retention).
Nevil Oscillator 44	Posted - 2014.10.31 02:45:35 - [405] - Quote I'm honestly not bothered either way about it. +0 I think I will leave that decision entirely to CCP for them to decide if it is reduceing new players. Nevil Oscillator say N O to Space Crime
Anthar Peva Trident Guard 1	Posted - 2014.10.31 03:22:31 - [406] - Quote ll Kuray ll wrote: I think you take on a different perspective if you pay with real money to play the game. I pay with real money. I would have no issue getting ganked or awoxed. It's more interesting than mining 24/7 and I might get some good discussion with the person about tactics. Krusty the Klown wrote: Xuixien wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: Learn to be inventive with your spying and awoxing. Learn to do it by sucking them into low sec, into duels for 'fit testing'. Adapt. Don't just sit there and cry because CCP are removing an easy mode for you. And awoxing is Easy Mode. No API check will catch a grown from scratch Alt. I'm sorry, who the ** are you to tell anyone to "adapt or die"? You're a sniveling little whingey * who's hiding behind CCP's skirt and chanting for a safer EVE, you loser ***** carebear. You seem highly upset over some internet pixel spaceship rule changes. Why don't you take a break, go for a walk or something, remember it's just a game and come back refreshed? Isn't that.. What carebear killers say to carebears when they whine..?
Val'Dore PlanetCorp InterStellar 892	Posted - 2014.10.31 03:56:47 - [407] - Quote Awoxing is possible because CCP didn't want your own corpmates to trigger CONCORD by being hit accidentally with missiles. Star Jump Drive A new way to traverse the galaxy. I invented Tiericide
Cephelange du'Krevviq Senex Legio 255	Posted - 2014.10.31 04:47:07 - [408] - Quote NightCrawler 85 wrote: I have actually written a full guide on how to find a corp, and with the help of other players the guide has actually managed to get in a lot of information that helps new players avoid the regular traps they might encounter when joining a corp. If players can do this, im sure that a few CCP employees and CSM could manage to do it and add it into the game so that people could actually find the information. Yes, she has, and I've pointed people to it in the Help channel on several occasions. I do not think this is as good an idea as you folks at CCP do. I have never AWOXed (and likely never will), but I defend the right for others to do so. A safer highsec makes for a weaker playerbase. "I am a leaf on the...ah, frak it!"
IIshira School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 1309	Posted - 2014.10.31 05:15:48 - [409] - Quote What needs to be fixed is the "I can jump corps to avoid war" loophole. Wars should at least follow the pilot for the current term of the war. Currently AWOX and suicide ganking are the only two forms of non consensual PVP in highsec that I can think of. If I missed any please let me know. If some have their way Eve will have a PVP flag system much like another popular MMO where you can just turn it off and be safe.
Dave Stark 7098	Posted - 2014.10.31 06:28:29 - [410] - Quote IIshira wrote: What needs to be fixed is the "I can jump corps to avoid war" loophole. Wars should at least follow the pilot for the current term of the war. Currently AWOX and suicide ganking are the only two forms of non consensual PVP in highsec that I can think of. If I missed any please let me know. If some have their way Eve will have a PVP flag system much like another popular MMO where you can just turn it off and be safe. a better fix would be to make corps worth being in, and fighting for, rather than locking people in to them during wardecs.

Princess Scarlett Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2014.10.31 06:43:08 - [411] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: The change CCP made was pro-pvp in a pvp game, pro-conflict in a game about conflcit, pro-destruction inn a game where 'churn' is the fuel of commerce. This idea is the exact opposite, which is exactly why it's bad. With this, fewer people will bother to awox in high sec, making for a more peaceful environment, which is great in real life but sucks in a video game. . EVE Is not a PVP game and never was. check the total kill stats. For every pvp kill there are 400 pve kills. You PvP related illusions and whining do not matter in the big picture. Benjamin Franklin will always win.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1639	Posted - 2014.10.31 06:50:51 - [412] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: a better fix would be to make corps worth being in, and fighting for, rather than locking people in to them during wardecs. Removing awoxing is part of that process. If you don't have to be paranoid of your own corp mates more than of other people, corps start being easier to be in. Right now it's easier to shoot your own corp than other people, that's just silly. If corp theft is much harder with good roles control, no easy awoxing (still suicide ganking etc), and the kick queue they are introducing, it's easier to make it harder to avoid wardecs, and to give corps things worth fighting for.
Princess Scarlett Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2014.10.31 06:51:06 - [413] - Quote Xuixien wrote: Persifonne wrote: When will hisec become pvp free (except for duels and wardecs). Anyone activating weapons on player ship that you arent wardecced to, isnt flashy red or in a duel with will get concorded. Only pvp in lowsec null and wh. This day is coming. It is closer than we think. I'm ready to unsub my accounts basically any time at this point. No point in staying subbed... once EVE goes themepark it'll go the way of all the other themepark MMOs. please send me your assets before you unsub. I will enjoy my highsec more without you. Especially without crazy awox loophole letting you shoot someone without concord intervention.
knobber Jobbler Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 470	Posted - 2014.10.31 06:53:15 - [414] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Personally I think awoxxing never made much sense. How does it really benefit the game? It depends what you're awoxing. It's used in the meta game.
Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1581	Posted - 2014.10.31 07:02:06 - [415] - Quote Princess Scarlett wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: The change CCP made was pro-pvp in a pvp game, pro-conflict in a game about conflcit, pro-destruction inn a game where 'churn' is the fuel of commerce. This idea is the exact opposite, which is exactly why it's bad. With this, fewer people will bother to awox in high sec, making for a more peaceful environment, which is great in real life but sucks in a video game. . EVE Is not a PVP game and never was. check the total kill stats. For every pvp kill there are 400 pve kills. You PvP related illusions and whining do not matter in the big picture. Benjamin Franklin will always win. at any point, aside from being docked and not doing anything, can you avoid the competition that other players create for you? From day one you have felt the effects of other players actions in their constant work to achieve their goals. Its impossible to avoid this competitive interaction. So no. Eve is not a PVE game. Otherwise it would have single player mode.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 118	Posted - 2014.10.31 07:03:27 - [416] - Quote Princess Scarlett wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: The change CCP made was pro-pvp in a pvp game, pro-conflict in a game about conflcit, pro-destruction inn a game where 'churn' is the fuel of commerce. This idea is the exact opposite, which is exactly why it's bad. With this, fewer people will bother to awox in high sec, making for a more peaceful environment, which is great in real life but sucks in a video game. . EVE Is not a PVP game and never was. check the total kill stats. For every pvp kill there are 400 pve kills. You PvP related illusions and whining do not matter in the big picture. Benjamin Franklin will always win. Eve is entirely a PvP game. It is a sandbox where practically everything you do is in direct or indirect competition with other players. Your mined ore reduces the value of my mined ore. Your ISK from bounties reduces the value of everyone's ISK. Direct ship combat between players is only one small part of this complex universe where every player's actions can/do influence everyone else. Eve cannot work if everyone only does PvE all day - destruction of player assets is essential to keep the economy rolling. Why is CCP deciding to remove a rarely used but interesting mechanic that drives conflict, and ends up with the destruction of player ships? It seems to go not only against the marketing of new Eden as a dangerous place, but against the idea of giving more tools to players to drive conflict and make stories that CCP Seagull has been going on about. Are those not welcome in highsec anymore? If so, then just nerf highsec income to the ground and make it 100% safe and get this over with. Let it be a place for newbies.You can't have a functioning sandbox economy with the still very lucrative, but completely safe area like we are approaching with each and every nerf to highsec risk.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 118	Posted - 2014.10.31 07:12:12 - [417] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Dave Stark wrote: a better fix would be to make corps worth being in, and fighting for, rather than locking people in to them during wardecs. Removing awoxing is part of that process. If you don't have to be paranoid of your own corp mates more than of other people, corps start being easier to be in. Right now it's easier to shoot your own corp than other people, that's just silly. If corp theft is much harder with good roles control, no easy awoxing (still suicide ganking etc), and the kick queue they are introducing, it's easier to make it harder to avoid wardecs, and to give corps things worth fighting for. If this is true than I actually support this change. Getting people out of NPC corps and into player corps that can be meaningfully wardecced (that is no longer drop/fold corp) would be a great thing and result in a net increase of conflict for highsec. But from what I am hearing that is not the case. It looks like a misguided "save the newbie" play that will just make highsec more slightly more safe. There is already the corp kick queue coming up which is a nerf to awoxing. Save this change to be part of a package of overhauls to the corporation mechanics that will get players into wardeccable player corps - nerfs/changes to being in NPC corps, better role management to reduce risks from new corp members etc.
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 89	Posted - 2014.10.31 07:13:02 - [418] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Eve is entirely a PvP game. It is a sandbox where practically everything you do is in direct or indirect competition with other players. At least you got that right. Miners compete with other miners, TRADERS compete with other TRADERS without leaving the station. So YES EvE is total PvP. But NO EvE is NOT shooting everone at everyone. That is what will keep EvE far above Elite: A real market with real "demand" and "real" resources. Yoo cry about a minor change in corp managment, but that is nothing. Wanna shoot? go where fights are. lowsec and nullsec. Forum Main
Prince Kobol 2340	Posted - 2014.10.31 07:20:57 - [419] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Syn Shi wrote: a nice blingy ship for lvl 5 missions in low Do you even play this game? No one actually does this, even total newbies. Some would see that as a challenge...or others will just wilt to the challenge. And in my brief stint being a F1 monkey I saw a corp who use to run them on the regular. Not sure where you get no one runs them. But you wouldn't know...you aren't willing to leave hi-sec. I am pretty sure he is not saying people don't run level 5's, what he is saying is that those who do, do not use blingy ships. I run level 5's on a alt and I use a ship that is worth about 500 mil.
Prince Kobol 2340	Posted - 2014.10.31 07:23:42 - [420] - Quote Okay.. lets say CCP remove the ability to awox but new players are still leaving in large numbers and players are still staying in NPC Corps. What next? Reimburses Corp thefts? Removing War Dec's ? Banning Ganking ? I mean are their people who truly believe that stopping the ability to awox is really going to make people stay in HS Corps and not leave Eve?

Prince Kobol 2340	Posted - 2014.10.31 07:25:37 - [421] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Dave Stark wrote: a better fix would be to make corps worth being in, and fighting for, rather than locking people in to them during wardecs. Removing awoxing is part of that process. If you don't have to be paranoid of your own corp mates more than of other people, corps start being easier to be in. Right now it's easier to shoot your own corp than other people, that's just silly. If corp theft is much harder with good roles control, no easy awoxing (still suicide ganking etc), and the kick queue they are introducing, it's easier to make it harder to avoid wardecs, and to give corps things worth fighting for. All things will have no effect because the difference between being in a NPC Corp and a Player Corp HS is minuscule. Until CCP either nerf the crap out of NPC Corps or give real benefits to being in a HS Corp, very little will change.
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 90	Posted - 2014.10.31 07:31:01 - [422] - Quote Prince Kobol wrote: Okay.. lets say CCP remove the ability to awox but new players are still leaving in large numbers and players are still staying in NPC Corps. What next? Reimburses Corp thefts? Removing War Dec's ? Banning Ganking ? I mean are their people who truly believe that stopping the ability to awox is really going to make people stay in HS Corps and not leave Eve? No, removing that is a small thing and the risc for this rather small outcry was taken. Check the devblogs and the release cadence: EvE has moved to No1 place again for CCP, since it is their best money source. At this time CCP might change more thing in shorter time than in the years before. Its not an easy path to follow to keep old customers and get more new customers. Some of the worst griefs will be toned down and other incentives will be created. It is a try to create more "fun" and less "tears". Thats mostly bad for people feeding of "schadenfreude". Forum Main
Ama Scelesta 77	Posted - 2014.10.31 07:45:40 - [423] - Quote Prince Kobol wrote: Okay.. lets say CCP remove the ability to awox but new players are still leaving in large numbers and players are still staying in NPC Corps. What next? Reimburses Corp thefts? Removing War Dec's ? Banning Ganking ? I mean are their people who truly believe that stopping the ability to awox is really going to make people stay in HS Corps and not leave Eve? There is that slippery slope again. I don't think for a moment people will stop leaving just because of a simple change like this. I don't think any change can make people stop leaving entirely. Point would be to make it easier for both the operators of a corp to accept unknowns in their corp and players to feel secure to go in to corps with strangers in increased numbers. A major block on that road is the simple fact, that just joining a corp gives both sides free to engage each other. You should never fully trust your corp mates, but it is too much when simply accepting corp membership puts you in that vulnerable position. This change will improve on the social connections aspect of the game especially between strangers and will be worth doing no matter what. As a bonus, based on available evidence it has the high likelihood of increasing player retention and work toward that end will never stop and never has stopped. Personally I'll get worried when CCP comes out and says openly it is not ok do these things. That is my line in the sand on these matters. Reasonable changes for the improvement of the game, that change the conditions and difficulty of the activity on the other hand are not. This would rank closer to removal of insurance from getting killed by CONCORD Clear buff to highsec and carebearing, but you'd be out of your mind to think it will stop people from joining corps just to cause trouble.
Prince Kobol 2340	Posted - 2014.10.31 07:56:38 - [424] - Quote Ama Scelesta wrote: Prince Kobol wrote: Okay.. lets say CCP remove the ability to awox but new players are still leaving in large numbers and players are still staying in NPC Corps. What next? Reimburses Corp thefts? Removing War Dec's ? Banning Ganking ? I mean are their people who truly believe that stopping the ability to awox is really going to make people stay in HS Corps and not leave Eve? There is that slippery slope again. I don't think for a moment people will stop leaving just because of a simple change like this. I don't think any change can make people stop leaving entirely. Point would be to make it easier for both the operators of a corp to accept unknowns in their corp and players to feel secure to go in to corps with strangers in increased numbers. A major block on that road is the simple fact, that just joining a corp gives both sides free to engage each other. You should never fully trust your corp mates, but it is too much when simply accepting corp membership puts you in that vulnerable position. This change will improve on the social connections aspect of the game especially between strangers and will be worth doing no matter what. As a bonus, based on available evidence it has the high likelihood of increasing player retention and work toward that end will never stop and never has stopped. Personally I'll get worried when CCP comes out and says openly it is not ok do these things. That is my line in the sand on these matters. Reasonable changes for the improvement of the game, that change the conditions and difficulty of the activity on the other hand are not. This would rank closer to removal of insurance from getting killed by CONCORD Clear buff to highsec and carebearing, but you'd be out of your mind to think it will stop people from joining corps just to cause trouble. So we agree that will not stop people leaving, cool. Okay next point, will this small change really make people leave their NPC Corps and join Player Corps? Personally I think it will make very little difference because people will blame War Decs or Corp Thefts, then what?
Dave Stark 7102	Posted - 2014.10.31 08:14:26 - [425] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Dave Stark wrote: a better fix would be to make corps worth being in, and fighting for, rather than locking people in to them during wardecs. Removing awoxing is part of that process. If you don't have to be paranoid of your own corp mates more than of other people, corps start being easier to be in. Right now it's easier to shoot your own corp than other people, that's just silly. If corp theft is much harder with good roles control, no easy awoxing (still suicide ganking etc), and the kick queue they are introducing, it's easier to make it harder to avoid wardecs, and to give corps things worth fighting for. no, removing awoxing isn't part of that process. if you can't do basic checks on your recruits, you shouldn't be running a damn corp to begin with. ** corps are worse than safe corps. because safe corps protect corps, which will ruin players experiences more than being awoxed. we should be encouraging people to play better than to coddle them like ****** toddlers.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4359	Posted - 2014.10.31 08:15:04 - [426] - Quote Arya Regnar wrote: I unsubbed 5 accounts for now, might unsub the rest soon too. CCP are consistently destroying every single part of this game that keeps me playing. They advertise this game as treacherous and how you have freedom while taking all that away like it doesn't matter. Keep making this game more like wow, just remember that when you do it you kill the niche metagame that it's special for, without that it's nothing. Bye then. If the ability to shoot confused noobies without getting concorded is the "single part of this game that keeps [you] playing", then perhaps the game will be better off without you. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Dave Stark 7102	Posted - 2014.10.31 08:17:27 - [427] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: Dave Stark wrote: a better fix would be to make corps worth being in, and fighting for, rather than locking people in to them during wardecs. Removing awoxing is part of that process. If you don't have to be paranoid of your own corp mates more than of other people, corps start being easier to be in. Right now it's easier to shoot your own corp than other people, that's just silly. If corp theft is much harder with good roles control, no easy awoxing (still suicide ganking etc), and the kick queue they are introducing, it's easier to make it harder to avoid wardecs, and to give corps things worth fighting for. If this is true than I actually support this change. Getting people out of NPC corps and into player corps that can be meaningfully wardecced (that is no longer drop/fold corp) would be a great thing and result in a net increase of conflict for highsec. But from what I am hearing that is not the case. It looks like a misguided "save the newbie" play that will just make highsec more slightly more safe. There is already the corp kick queue coming up which is a nerf to awoxing. Save this change to be part of a package of overhauls to the corporation mechanics that will get players into wardeccable player corps - nerfs/changes to being in NPC corps, better role management to reduce risks from new corp members etc. the only thing that will get players out of npc corps, is reasons to be in player corps. people don't sit in npc corps because of awoxers. Let's look at a miner, what do they get in a player corp? wardecced, and a 0% tax rate. (no, you won't get awoxed if your recruitment team isn't a group of drooling mouth breathers) what do they get not being in a player corp? wardec immunity and, oh right, taxes don't affect mining anyway. even if you remove awoxing and make high sec pvp completely impossible miners STILL won't join player corps. there's still no reason to do it.
Herzog Wolfhammer Sigma Special Tactics Group 5597	Posted - 2014.10.31 08:21:48 - [428] - Quote afkalt wrote: Maybe one day people will stop trying to tell other people how to have fun. And that goes to both camps, jesus it's like fighting toddlers. Them toddlers can be dangerous in large numbers. Sometimes you need a fire hose. Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Dave Stark 7102	Posted - 2014.10.31 08:23:40 - [429] - Quote Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: afkalt wrote: Maybe one day people will stop trying to tell other people how to have fun. And that goes to both camps, jesus it's like fighting toddlers. Them toddlers can be dangerous in large numbers. Sometimes you need a fire hose. I'd rather just have a bigger hammer.
Herzog Wolfhammer Sigma Special Tactics Group 5597	Posted - 2014.10.31 08:29:09 - [430] - Quote Prince Kobol wrote: Okay.. lets say CCP remove the ability to awox but new players are still leaving in large numbers and players are still staying in NPC Corps. What next? Reimburses Corp thefts? Removing War Dec's ? Banning Ganking ? I mean are their people who truly believe that stopping the ability to awox is really going to make people stay in HS Corps and not leave Eve? The problem has nothing to do with AWOXing (though restricting it could help a little IMO) or other corporation shenanigans. I know what the problem is but it would be off topic to this thread. And once you see it, it's so stultifying and draining it become hard to log in and Eve becomes like an estranged wife that demands attention and you bask in not giving her any. Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Dave Stark 7103	Posted - 2014.10.31 08:30:55 - [431] - Quote Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Prince Kobol wrote: Okay.. lets say CCP remove the ability to awox but new players are still leaving in large numbers and players are still staying in NPC Corps. What next? Reimburses Corp thefts? Removing War Dec's ? Banning Ganking ? I mean are their people who truly believe that stopping the ability to awox is really going to make people stay in HS Corps and not leave Eve? The problem has nothing to do with AWOXing (though restricting it could help a little IMO) or other corporation shenanigans. I know what the problem is but it would be off topic to this thread. And once you see it, it's so stultifying and draining it become hard to log in and Eve becomes like an estranged wife that demands attention and you bask in not giving her any. awoxing is already being restricted to something you can only do for 24 hours, once pheobe hits. removing it entirely is unecessary, there are already various ways of people to deal with it. should they choose to bother.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4359	Posted - 2014.10.31 08:32:15 - [432] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: The change CCP made was pro-pvp in a pvp game, pro-conflict in a game about conflcit, pro-destruction inn a game where 'churn' is the fuel of commerce. This idea is the exact opposite, which is exactly why it's bad. With this, fewer people will bother to awox in high sec, making for a more peaceful environment, which is great in real life but sucks in a video game. No, what they added was NPC and anoms in lowsec which some people then fought over. This encourages players to move together an interact. Currently corp aggression mechanics push people away, both members and CEOs who legitimately want to help show newbies the ropes. The removal of that will help bring people into corps where they can learn how to actually play EVE with others, not just get ganked and laughed at by some asshat who's too scared to go fight actual combat driven players. Jenn aSide wrote: The people who basically lied to me (meaning well, but still lying) would be in favor of this change (if any still played). We know what CCP is trying to do, we can also see that they are wrong. We've had years of these "improvements" (making EVE safer and yet the flood of subs from people who were supposed to stay "if only it were safer/had lower barriers" hasn't materialized. How long will CCP and people like you cling to this failed ideology before you admit "hey, i guess making the game safer doesn't work to retain people after all"? I guess "forever" would be the answer to this since it's absolute bullcrap. whether you like it or not this will help newbie retention. You can kick and scream about how everyone joining EVE should enter the game as a hardened battle veteran all you want, but it won't change the fact that a lot of people quit because rather than show them how to play eve a lot of the scum in this game prey on them as easy targets and force them out of the game before they get a chance to figure out that they like it. Jenn aSide wrote: Lower barriers simply cheapens an experience, folks like me came to EVE when the barries were higher, making surviving this long an accomplishment with value. Most of the things you seem to advocatewould deny players that sense of accomplishment (ironically hurting player retention). When you joined (and when I joined) the barriers were naturally lower, since there were far less people trying to ruin your day the moment you made a character. I've played from the perspective of a brand new newbie to see what the NPE was like very recently, and it's considerably tougher now than it was when I arrived. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Aran Hotchkiss Phoibe Enterprises 5	Posted - 2014.10.31 08:50:36 - [433] - Quote I claim the right to be unhappy. This isn't a statement of me wanting to be awoxxed. If you believe this will be better for EvE as a whole, all I can say is Enjoy your Brave New World.
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 396	Posted - 2014.10.31 09:55:38 - [434] - Quote So it seams the only argument the carebears can bring to the table is the "new players quit because they lose a ship" argument, which is a non issue like many already mentioned. You don't infiltrate a corp for a week to slay a newbie in a Venture just to get kicked, you do it to get the bling mission ship or the Orca of the idiot CEO who screws over the new players, like this brilliant example shows: http://www.minerbumping.com/2014/05/no-easy-awox-part-1.html Since this is a game, a mechanic like the Safari/Awox does not need to provide some economical benefit or whatsoever, it needs to introduce opportunities for interesting gameplay and that is exactly what it does. Highsec is already safe enough and the corps willing to defend themselves have the tools to do so and are already using them. This change will only benefit the lazy and risk-averse CEO that will teach the new players that low/null/worm is for people with gazillion of SP and isolate them from the bigger sandbox even more, trap them in a world of boredom and probably make them quit exactly because of that forced isolation. This is a game about shooting spaceships. The real issue is not that you lose ships, the real issue is that it is frakin boring if you don't interact with other people and lose/blow-up ships. People start in Highsec, people start the game to fly spaceships and shoot other spaceships. You remove option after option to shoot spaceships in the space people start? And you are still surprised that so many quit? So after this change hits the servers and it becomes apparent to the carebears that this changes nothing, maybe even made it worse and the expected big influx of new players wasn't a reality, will the change be reversed? Or will the carebears like many times before just cry for the next change to make Highsec safer to rescue the "new players" from the part of the game that would actually made it interesting and worthwhile playing? the Code ALWAYS wins
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 90	Posted - 2014.10.31 10:10:18 - [435] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: So it seams the only argument the carebears can bring There is the major codie problem: Everyone with different oppinons is a carebear. Another problem is, that they close their eyes when other arguments come and go into denial. Ima Wreckyou wrote: This is a game about shooting spaceships. WRONG! EvE is PvP in the Heart, but its also miner vs miner and trader vs trader. They are already all interaction. The trade alone is far more interesting than trade in Elite ever can be. Its all about concurrent traders and a real market with offer and demand. EvE is NOT all about shooting spaceships. Ima Wreckyou wrote: The real issue is The real issue is you. You find trading, mining and everything else boring. You want shoot ships? Go losec-nullsec! I tell you what you really insist on: easy kills and "schadenfreude" Forum Main
Lloyd Roses Blue-Fire 733	Posted - 2014.10.31 10:13:56 - [436] - Quote We can't shoot corpmate in highsec-space anymore without being fleeted, and nothing was lost. "I honestly thought I was in lowsec"
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10430	Posted - 2014.10.31 10:18:55 - [437] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Kaarous, what stops you from joining a low/null corp and awoxing them there? Just a curiosity. Such corps very often have better opsec. The opportunity is just not there within a suitable timeframe. Not saying it can't be done, because it can. But most people's assumptions of safety in highsec makes it much more likely that one is able to bag a T2 mining ship or a freighter or some such. In particular a freighter is much more likely to pay a ransom. With low/null groups, a completely passive spy or corp thief can often do far more unrelated damage than an awox if one is actively working for "the enemy" whoever that might happen to be. But that really isn't within reach of a typical solo awoxer, is it? "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Huval Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2014.10.31 10:20:46 - [438] - Quote Next it'll be wardecs and corpthefts. This is pathetic.
Sol Project Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 57	Posted - 2014.10.31 10:51:13 - [439] - Quote Lloyd Roses wrote: We can't shoot corpmate in highsec-space anymore without being fleeted, and nothing was lost. What do fleets have to do with this now? And hey, Kaa, nice upgrade to DWA.
Tisiphone Dira New Order Logistics CODE. 4	Posted - 2014.10.31 10:51:31 - [440] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Currently corp aggression mechanics push people away, both members and CEOs who legitimately want to help show newbies the ropes. The removal of that will help bring people into corps where they can learn how to actually play EVE with others, not just get ganked and laughed at by some asshat who's too scared to go fight actual combat driven players. Lucas, Your hypothetical CEO has no business 'showing newbies the ropes', he sounds awful, somebody who themselves needs to be shown the ropes. As others have said: People who want to be social and interact already do. Asocial people who want to mine a rock for hours on end or shoot at red crosses without being bothered won't suddenly think "oh, I'm safe from awoxing now, time for me to find a corp and make lots of friends." They see no benefits and still have all the 'downsides' of theft and wardecs. You know what brought me into this game? The tale of the guiding hand social club heist (and the EIB). When I got bored and was about to quit, you know what kept me engaged? The shenanigans of the New Order. The remove of a mechanic like awoxing just ensures that less content is generated that draws people in and keeps them interested. Nobody has ever joined eve because they heard how engaging the missions are, or how fantastic the mining is. They are awful. I can show a mate the tale of the awox that resulted in the 'code war bride' and get him excited to play. I did not show him how exciting the carebearing is, because it isn't. EVE cannot compete with WoW as a theme-park. The thing EVE has going for it is exactly this type of content. Awoxing and the like are what is keeping this game afloat. If you want more players, buff this type of content (and fix the damn tutorials and NPE), do not nerf it into oblivion. As others have said, this change does nothing to move people into real corporations, all it does is largely destroy a playstyle. Don't give the carebears an unappetizing carrot. Give them the stick. Have npc corp's tax affect everything (take the ore directly from their holds). After a month or so move forcibly people from the 'newbie' npc corp into a 'veteran' npc corp that can be wardeced and has awoxing. Do whatever it takes before resorting to the destruction of a playstyle. Nerf it a bit if you must, but to take such a drastic step as this seems very unwise and contrary to everything EVE (everybody vs everybody) stands for. I truly believe that the best ship in this game is friend-ship. This change will do nothing to help people find a corp and make friends. Fellow capsulers, I invite you to board my friend-ship, it is the only way to defeat the dictator-ship of content destruction that the care-bears and their enablers wish to unleash upon us! We must stand up together and fight for freedom!

Brochan McLeod Frigateer 67	Posted - 2014.10.31 11:07:23 - [441] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: So it seams the only argument the carebears can bring to the table is the "new players quit because they lose a ship" argument, which is a non issue like many already mentioned. You don't infiltrate a corp for a week to slay a newbie in a Venture just to get kicked, you do it to get the bling mission ship or the Orca of the idiot CEO who screws over the new players, like this brilliant example shows: http://www.minerbumping.com/2014/05/no-easy-awox-part-1.html Since this is a game, a mechanic like the Safari/Awox does not need to provide some economical benefit or whatsoever, it needs to introduce opportunities for interesting gameplay and that is exactly what it does. Highsec is already safe enough and the corps willing to defend themselves have the tools to do so and are already using them. This change will only benefit the lazy and risk-averse CEO that will teach the new players that low/null/worm is for people with gazillion of SP and isolate them from the bigger sandbox even more, trap them in a world of boredom and probably make them quit exactly because of that forced isolation. This is a game about shooting spaceships. The real issue is not that you lose ships, the real issue is that it is frakin boring if you don't interact with other people and lose/blow-up ships. People start in Highsec, people start the game to fly spaceships and shoot other spaceships. You remove option after option to shoot spaceships in the space people start? And you are still surprised that so many quit? So after this change hits the servers and it becomes apparent to the carebears that this changes nothing, maybe even made it worse and the expected big influx of new players wasn't a reality, will the change be reversed? Or will the carebears like many times before just cry for the next change to make Highsec safer to rescue the "new players" from the part of the game that would actually made it interesting and worthwhile playing? People can play this game any way they want... i think thats why its called a sandbox. Not everyone is interested in chasing others and pretend they are the cronies of a crazed Sheriff of Nothingham-ish ganker... yelling 'I AM THE LAW'. Personally i was drawn in by the sheer endless possibilities of gathering materials, producing goods and make my own spaceships. PvP is just a thing others do and it ups the tension a bit, making it more interesting for me and the likes of me. I played in 2012 for some time and stopped because i got shot in the face at every turn. In between beeing locked up in a station cos of constant wardecs. I dont blame the CEO of that but rather the games inability to grant a somewhat safe way to do my stuff. I didnt get that so i left. (had a tiny other prob as well but hey...) And now im back... with a different toon and a different plan. Seeing the makers of EvE are finally watering the wine a bit so more folks can enjoy this great game, seems a good developement to me. Even the nicest person's patience has a limit!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4362	Posted - 2014.10.31 11:12:04 - [442] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: So it seams the only argument the carebears can bring to the table is the "new players quit because they lose a ship" argument, which is a non issue like many already mentioned. You don't infiltrate a corp for a week to slay a newbie in a Venture just to get kicked, you do it to get the bling mission ship or the Orca of the idiot CEO who screws over the new players Actually, the argument rational people are putting forward is that having corp aggression as a mechanic is no longer required and serves only to make sure that new players have a much harder time finding corps. The thing is, you are purely talking about this from the "I wouldn't awox a venture" point of view. What you have to remember though is you would awox an orca, so why would a group with an orca at risk recruit someone with little to no history in eve - as noobs will have. What that leads to is the current situation, where decent corps have bars of entry too high for most noobs, and the majority of corps that don't have high bars of entry are either ones that want to harass noobies or ones so clueless they are a negative experience for all of their members. The thing is CCP have stated their reason for this in the minutes as a player retention issue. Since they have the stats, I'd be inclined to accept that as a good reason. I certainly wouldn't be listening to a member of CODE, a group which is notoriously pro-botting and anti-noob. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4362	Posted - 2014.10.31 11:24:12 - [443] - Quote Tisiphone Dira wrote: Lucas, Your hypothetical CEO has no business 'showing newbies the ropes', he sounds awful, somebody who themselves needs to be shown the ropes. You don;t get to make that distinction. Tisiphone Dira wrote: As others have said: People who want to be social and interact already do. Asocial people who want to mine a rock for hours on end or shoot at red crosses without being bothered won't suddenly think "oh, I'm safe from awoxing now, time for me to find a corp and make lots of friends." They see no benefits and still have all the 'downsides' of theft and wardecs. And if the entire world was so black and white, you might have a point. The problem is that there are many people who given the opportunity would become great parts of the EVE community, but they aren't getting that chance because they are currently being treated like crap. Sure, there are people who will always leap in screaming YOLO and do great, there are also people who will never ever get to that point. But the people in the middle that could go either way, they need to be drawn in and engaged, not alienated and abused from day 1. Tisiphone Dira wrote: You know what brought me into this game? The tale of the guiding hand social club heist (and the EIB). When I got bored and was about to quit, you know what kept me engaged? The shenanigans of the New Order. The remove of a mechanic like awoxing just ensures that less content is generated that draws people in and keeps them interested. Nobody has ever joined eve because they heard how engaging the missions are, or how fantastic the mining is. They are awful. I can show a mate the tale of the awox that resulted in the 'code war bride' and get him excited to play. I did not show him how exciting the carebearing is, because it isn't. EVE cannot compete with WoW as a theme-park. The thing EVE has going for it is exactly this type of content. Awoxing and the like are what is keeping this game afloat. If you want more players, buff this type of content (and fix the damn tutorials and NPE), do not nerf it into oblivion. I don't know and neither do I care what drew you in. EVE is a sandbox, it's whatever you want to make of it. If you want to carebear, fine, if you want to go around abusing people, fine. At the end of the day though, CCP need to look at the bottom line, and if people are leaving because they aren't being engaged enough and are being pushed out by the "villains" that are too risk averse for low/null sec, then yes, they need to make it easier to get engaged. And the ability to join corps IS part of the NPE, or at least it should be, but a major problem is that anyone less than a month old is assumed to be an awox alt. Tisiphone Dira wrote: As others have said, this change does nothing to move people into real corporations, all it does is largely destroy a playstyle. Don't give the carebears an unappetizing carrot. Give them the stick. Have npc corp's tax affect everything (take the ore directly from their holds). After a month or so move forcibly people from the 'newbie' npc corp into a 'veteran' npc corp that can be wardeced and has awoxing. Do whatever it takes before resorting to the destruction of a playstyle. Nerf it a bit if you must, but to take such a drastic step as this seems very unwise and contrary to everything EVE (everybody vs everybody) stands for. All this would do is shed even more characters from the game and make a whole heap of people create hundreds of single player corps. And mate, this is not a "drastic" step. This is a tiny little change. all it does is bring players corps into alignment with everything else. You can;t shoot a random in highsec without getting concorded, so why should you be able to shoot your corp members? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 119	Posted - 2014.10.31 11:46:42 - [444] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Ima Wreckyou wrote: So it seams the only argument the carebears can bring to the table is the "new players quit because they lose a ship" argument, which is a non issue like many already mentioned. You don't infiltrate a corp for a week to slay a newbie in a Venture just to get kicked, you do it to get the bling mission ship or the Orca of the idiot CEO who screws over the new players Actually, the argument rational people are putting forward is that having corp aggression as a mechanic is no longer required and serves only to make sure that new players have a much harder time finding corps. The thing is, you are purely talking about this from the "I wouldn't awox a venture" point of view. What you have to remember though is you would awox an orca, so why would a group with an orca at risk recruit someone with little to no history in eve - as noobs will have. What that leads to is the current situation, where decent corps have bars of entry too high for most noobs, and the majority of corps that don't have high bars of entry are either ones that want to harass noobies or ones so clueless they are a negative experience for all of their members. The thing is CCP have stated their reason for this in the minutes as a player retention issue. Since they have the stats, I'd be inclined to accept that as a good reason. I certainly wouldn't be listening to a member of CODE, a group which is notoriously pro-botting and anti-noob. The rational counter-argument those against this change are putting forth is that this change will do nothing to increase either player retention or the rate new players joining corps as awoxing is not the primary reason people don't join corps - that would be wardecs or a general anti-social disposition in general. Further, even if there are a large number of people (which from https://zkillboard.com/kills/awox/ seems unlikely) who quit because of "getting awoxed", it is also possible they might have quit a week later for "being killed during a wardec" or "getting suicide ganked" even if awoxing had been banned. Banning awoxing is also not without cost as it will complicate in-corp sparring and training, and eliminate a storied play-style that has generated many memorable tales of over the long history of Eve. Therefore the only remaining benefit is the reduction of risk to established highsec corps, a change that many who view Eve through the lens of a competitive PvP sandbox game find quite distasteful as the general design of the game requires a balancing of risk vs. reward and the continual destruction of assets. This change makes things more safe and will reduce destruction making it non-desirable from that angle. Couple these changes with more dramatic nerfs to NPC corps (to get people, and especially new players, into player-run corps) and remove wardec dodging and you may then have an easier time selling this changes as overall good for the game. Removing awoxing in isolation just appears as a direct buff to a certain play-style at the expense of another with not only no obvious benefit for the game, and a change that will result in less destruction and less conflict - something that shouldn't be encouraged in a competitive PvP sandbox game.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4366	Posted - 2014.10.31 12:08:24 - [445] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: The rational counter-argument those against this change are putting forth is that this change will do nothing to increase either player retention or the rate new players joining corps as awoxing is not the primary reason people don't join corps - that would be wardecs or a general anti-social disposition in general. Agreed that it may not be the main reason people don't join corps, but it certainly is a reason why people have negative experiences once they join a corp and is a huge contributor to many decent corps having security policies which exclude newer players. Black Pedro wrote: Further, even if there are a large number of people (which from https://zkillboard.com/kills/awox/ seems unlikely) who quit because of "getting awoxed", it is also possible they might have quit a week later for "being killed during a wardec" or "getting suicide ganked" even if awoxing had been banned. Banning awoxing is also not without cost as it will complicate in-corp sparring and training, and eliminate a storied play-style that has generated many memorable tales of over the long history of Eve. Maybe they would, maybe the wouldn't Maybe having the support of other who are in the same situation would prevent them from leaving. I can certainly see why being singled out and ganked by the group of people who are supposed to be your allies is more damaging than you and your allies being attacked by randoms. In-corp sparring and training can still be done with duels and limited engagement timers, and I've not heard of a memorable tale that revolved around corp aggression. Most awox stories that come to mind involve running away with a great deal of stuff, which will be unaffected. Black Pedro wrote: Therefore the only remaining benefit is the reduction of risk to established highsec corps, a change that many who view Eve through the lens of a competitive PvP sandbox game find quite distasteful as the general design of the game requires a balancing of risk vs. reward and the continual destruction of assets. This change makes things more safe and will reduce destruction making it non-desirable from that angle. The risk reduction is negligible. All it means is that to kill a member of a corp you'll have to use the wardec mechanic as it is designed to be used. Nothing will prevent you awoxing the corp by setting up a kill or providing intel, it's purely the act of avoiding concord by being in the corp that would be removed. Black Pedro wrote: Couple these changes with more dramatic nerfs to NPC corps (to get people, and especially new players, into player-run corps) and remove wardec dodging and you may then have an easier time selling this changes as overall good for the game. Removing awoxing in isolation just appears as a direct buff to a certain play-style at the expense of another with not only no obvious benefit for the game, and a change that will result in less destruction and less conflict - something that shouldn't be encouraged in a competitive PvP sandbox game. If NPC corps are nerfed, that will simply create single person player corps. If dec dodging is removed, then wardec groups deccing hundreds of corps at a time will need to be heavily restricted and the price of wardec wills need to increase. At the end of the day this is a game. If you can just wardec someone giving them the options of stop playing or die for less than pocket change and they have no way to avoid that, then the game will fail to engage players on a whole new level. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Balshem Rozenzweig 24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire 74	Posted - 2014.10.31 12:11:45 - [446] - Quote Doc J wrote: People have the right to play the game in the safe manner they wish or in the conflict/dangerous way. You shouldn't be wanting to impose your belief of "conflict makes the game interesting" on people who say for instance-pay to play the game the way they wish which might actually be in the comfort zone. What about people who want to hunt others in high sec, then? They pay for the game too. No one is entitled to anything. It's a game in the end. You create an artificial environment when player can interact in a way the game allows it (even if by accident), and this is where the fun comes from. You cannot expect to go to low sec and farm missions there without everyone and their mother trying to kill you. Same way you cannot expect to be 100% safe anytime in high sec. The scaling is there it's just not 100% this way or that one. Risk is high sec makes a lot of sense because other games already provide people with tons of safety (how does it even sound - playing a game for SAFETY?!) and we dare say EVE cannot compete with the ones with highly personalized and semi interactive (pushing 1-9 buttons) avatars. EVE has something else - the unique atmosphere of action having consequences. I, and I dare say most of the players in eve, love the pvp that eve has to offer because it has impact on the parties involved. I cannot repair my ship after I lost a fight - most of the time I need to totally replace it. Each battle I take part in has impact! My wife doesn't understand the appeal when I tell her "around 20 days of game time in ship value just went pop" but then - she wants to go back to wow :P And even she can see how it makes the game stand out. TL;DR loosing a ship you need to totally replace with your own work is awesome. Don't take it away from these poor newbies. If they don't like it they will not like the game either. "NUTS!!!" - general McAuliffe
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8855	Posted - 2014.10.31 12:33:13 - [447] - Quote Princess Scarlett wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: The change CCP made was pro-pvp in a pvp game, pro-conflict in a game about conflcit, pro-destruction inn a game where 'churn' is the fuel of commerce. This idea is the exact opposite, which is exactly why it's bad. With this, fewer people will bother to awox in high sec, making for a more peaceful environment, which is great in real life but sucks in a video game. . EVE Is not a PVP game and never was. check the total kill stats. For every pvp kill there are 400 pve kills. You PvP related illusions and whining do not matter in the big picture. Benjamin Franklin will always win. Every one of those pve kills (and half of them are mine, I shoot npcs THAT MUCH) has something to do with pvp. As a PVEr I'm competing with every other mission runner and explorer. That's PVP. avoiding getting killed by real people while PVEing is also PVP. EVERYTHING you do in EVE Online other than spin a ship or sit in the captains quarters is pvp related. PVP isn't just shooting things.
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 400	Posted - 2014.10.31 12:36:09 - [448] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: The thing is CCP have stated their reason for this in the minutes as a player retention issue. Since they have the stats, I'd be inclined to accept that as a good reason. I certainly wouldn't be listening to a member of CODE, a group which is notoriously pro-botting and anti-noob. It is relatively clear from the minutes that they are just guessing like everyone else. If they had the numbers they would show them right away and end the discussion right there. Your ad-hominem attacks and fals claims are a bad substitute for real arguments. Maybe you should remain silent if you are not capable of discussing in a civilized manner. the Code ALWAYS wins
Haedonism Bot Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 1478	Posted - 2014.10.31 12:37:39 - [449] - Quote Quote: If NPC corps are nerfed, that will simply create single person player corps. If dec dodging is removed, then wardec groups deccing hundreds of corps at a time will need to be heavily restricted and the price of wardec wills need to increase. At the end of the day this is a game. If you can just wardec someone giving them the options of stop playing or die for less than pocket change and they have no way to avoid that, then the game will fail to engage players on a whole new level. I think the frustration with wardec-immune NPC corps and with wardec evasion comes from the fact that wardecs have already been so heavily nerfed. Wardecs got on just fine back when they were 2 million isk a pop, and wardec evasion was considered an exploit. The myth of corps wardeccing hundreds of others used to be reality - and I think most of us can agree that it was awesome. I can only think of one alliance right now that maintains over 100 wardecs, and when you do the math the amount of isk they are paying for wardec fees is pretty mind boggling. Wardec fees for one week against one corp start at 50 mil per week and scale up to 500 mil. Sure, carebears love to scoff at how cheap that is, but when you run multiple decs- which even a solo wardeccer must do to maintain it as a viable playstyle - it gets pricey fast. Imagine what that hypothetical corp maintaining 100 wardecs is paying - base price would be 20-25 billion per month assuming that all the targets were small 50 million isk decs and that they 25% of them didn't simply evade the dec. That much isk for an organization that doesn't have nullsec rental income or moongoo income. Wardec fees don't need an increase, they need a decrease. Evasion as it exists today I'm actually ok with. Wardecs I was fine with, but this AWOX nerf really demands that they be rebalanced to maintain the risk:reward ratio in highsec. The best way to do that is to nerf NPC corps, and the best way to nerf NPC corps is to make them all faction warfare corps - excepting the starter schools of course (must think of the children). A wardec fee price reduction would be the icing on the cake. CODE. is recruiting highsec PvPers for wardecs www.everevolutioanryfront.blogspot.com
Sol Project Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 59	Posted - 2014.10.31 12:38:06 - [450] - Quote How in hell is CODE pro-botting now??

Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8855	Posted - 2014.10.31 12:38:49 - [451] - Quote Prince Kobol wrote: Okay.. lets say CCP remove the ability to awox but new players are still leaving in large numbers and players are still staying in NPC Corps. What next? Reimburses Corp thefts? Removing War Dec's ? Banning Ganking ? I mean are their people who truly believe that stopping the ability to awox is really going to make people stay in HS Corps and not leave Eve? What should happen in that kind of situation is a person thinking "hmmm, what i believed would happen, didn't happen, perhaps I need to reconsider this issue, and also figure out what is wrong with my core belief system that led me to this incorrect conclusion" What actually happens is this: : "Hmmm, so it's didn't work, someone must have not done it right, they should do it over and over again until they get it right!" Quote: The backfire effect occurs when, in the face of contradictory evidence, established beliefs do not change but actually get stronger. The effect has been demonstrated experimentally in psychological tests, where subjects are given data that either reinforces or goes against their existing biases - and in most cases people can be shown to increase their confidence in their prior position regardless of the evidence they were faced with. In a pessimistic sense, this makes most refutations useless.
Brochan McLeod Frigateer 68	Posted - 2014.10.31 12:40:20 - [452] - Quote Balshem Rozenzweig wrote: TL;DR loosing a ship you need to totally replace with your own work is awesome. Don't take it away from these poor newbies. If they don't like it they will not like the game either. I dont like my ships to be shot ... but i like the rest of the game. Lots of aspects of this game are rather 'niche' ... maybe 'niche' dont pay the bills no more or stunts any further growth? CCP has a lot of intel on why folks walk away and are acting accordingly as far as i can say. If this AWOXing is causing Corp's to be so suspicious of new players to the extent that you have to have someones full API and stuff then maybe AWOXing has to go. Im sure it was fresh and new once but seems its just old and bothersome now. Im sure as heck NOT giving anyone full API... didnt need that in 2012 and i dont see a reason for 'wearing a chip' now, so they can check up on me. Im here paying and playing because i like a huge part of this game AND i dont mind not beeing in a large player corp. Even the nicest person's patience has a limit!
Revis Owen 49	Posted - 2014.10.31 12:40:48 - [453] - Quote One More NerfGäó strikes again! Honestly, in 11 years how much have these increased subscription revenue? Agent of the New Order http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html If you do not have a current Highsec Operations Permit, please contact me for issuance.
Mike Adoulin Adolescent Radioactive Pirate Hamsters 966	Posted - 2014.10.31 12:41:20 - [454] - Quote This....is a really bad idea, CCP. Elite Dangerous is looking downright appealing. Everything in EVE is a trap. And if it isn't, it's your job to make it a trap...:) You want to know what immorality in EVE Online looks like? Look no further than Ripard "Jester" Teg.
Sol Project Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 59	Posted - 2014.10.31 12:49:21 - [455] - Quote What Jenn is saying in that little box, is that idiots will always stick to what they believe is right and will ignore everything that shows that they are wrong, because being wrong hurts their vulnerable little egos and they can't deal with that. Thinking is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.
Bob Bedala 52	Posted - 2014.10.31 12:56:16 - [456] - Quote Having just read the minutes, there is a lot of wrong being talked in there by CCP (sorry). The two stated reasons for the change; Quote: CCP Masterplan - The main goal of this is to make recruitment safer for the recruiter and the recruitee. And it will remove the fact that you current cannot mitigate the risk of recruiting someone which makes people not recruit. Not true, you can mitigate the risk by having training corps while trust is earned -- and people do this already. (Or a new "corp lite" as was hinted in the minutes, or some kind of provisional membership role where CEO's can limit access to map intel, shooting corpies etc.) (Speaking of training, being able to shoot your corpies is hugely important for PVP training (not just for RvB as the minutes state) and I didn't see any workable suggestions in the minutes to fix this damage.) People can still steal assets, provide intel to enemies etc etc and Fozzie sez he doesn't want this changed. So there are still huge recruitment risks which can be mitigated by improving and adding roles -- the tool designed exactly for this job! Additionally AFAIK an awoxer can still go in your mission outside of your fleet, pew some rats, and pretty easily con you into taking from a yellow wreck. So, this is definitely not a barrier to recruitment. It may make people more uneasy, but it is not a barrier. There are a whole bunch of reasons risk-averse CEO's don't hire, and awoxing is just one. This leaves the main reason -- rookie joins, gets ganked & quits aka Safaris. Now firstly, I reckon people don't Safari people to shoot their t1 frigs. If a naive player has spent PLEX to jump into a blingy Golem after two months, they are going to lose that Golem one way or another, and I'll bet Safaris are way down the list compared to mission baiting and ganking. I knew a player who quit cos he PLEXed a blingy Golem ASAP when I advised him not to, set up his own corp when I advised him not to, recruited when I advised him not to, and got awoxed by a pro awoxer (not a "griefer"). He quit and gave me all his stuff because I was "the only player he met in the game who wasn't a complete ******". That guy was determined* to lose his stuff and you are never going to catch all those guys without killing Eve so please stop eroding Eve's USP. Anyway, if they ragequit over this I'm not sure how likely they are to stick around, given all the other permaloss they will experience in their eve career. DJ Funkybacon & Ali Aras both suggest the problem is education; Quote: DJ Funkybacon - Can we not educate people against this instead of changing mechanics? CCP Fozzie - Then we get to the point where we have huge amounts of documentation that covers bad game mechanics if we keep doing this? Not a great counter argument IMO. Anyway, we have the "Be Careful" alert that pops when you are about to jump into lowsec, they should have similar warnings the first time you join a player corp. Warn about safari ganks. Warn about "helping to move all your assets" etc. This has the added benefit of actually making players think about the possibilities of what can be done with corps in eve.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8855	Posted - 2014.10.31 12:58:02 - [457] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: No, what they added was NPC and anoms in lowsec which some people then fought over. This encourages players to move together an interact. Currently corp aggression mechanics push people away, both members and CEOs who legitimately want to help show newbies the ropes. The removal of that will help bring people into corps where they can learn how to actually play EVE with others, not just get ganked and laughed at by some asshat who's too scared to go fight actual combat driven players. This is your prejudice talking, and why you can't think rationally about the issue. Quote: I guess "forever" would be the answer to this since it's absolute bullcrap. whether you like it or not this will help newbie retention. You can kick and scream about how everyone joining EVE should enter the game as a hardened battle veteran all you want, but it won't change the fact that a lot of people quit because rather than show them how to play eve a lot of the scum in this game prey on them as easy targets and force them out of the game before they get a chance to figure out that they like it. So in 6 months , if this doesn't help player retention, you will be adult enough and man enough to come here and admit that you were wrong? We can both book mark this here thread and meet back here in 6 months. You game? Like many 'bleeding heart' type people, you let yourself believe that if only you 'give people a chance' they'll do what yo want them to. You don't understand people. Most of the people who quit ANYTHING quit because they don't have what it takers to succeed. Most of the people who continue with something do so no matter what barrier you put in their way. Making the game safer has zero effect on the guy or girl sitting at the keyboard trying to fulfil their entertainment needs with a video game. This is why things like what you advocate on here are doomed to failure, because (again, in your prejudice) you are 'transferring fault' for something (in this case, low player retention) in an external cause you don't like ('mean people' lol) instead of considering that perhaps the problem lies not in the game but in the incompatible individuals who try it. Quote: When you joined (and when I joined) the barriers were naturally lower, since there were far less people trying to ruin your day the moment you made a character. I've played from the perspective of a brand new newbie to see what the NPE was like very recently, and it's considerably tougher now than it was when I arrived. This part either means you are lying (most likely as you dismiss ideas that don't fit into your narrow world view) or you are that incompetent. EVe is safer now than when i started, hell you could TANK npc police (we did so to the caldari militia with hilarious results) back then, older players would tell of how you could tank CONCORD back in the day. A ganker got an insurance payment when I started. Gankers could dodge Concord by shooting and warping off. Can flipping was easy. Scams were easier. Lots of the game mechanics that keep people safe now didn't even exist then. Any objective analysis of the 2007 EVE vs today will demonstrate (with absolute certainty) that current EVE's "barriers" are lower, EVE was a much more dangerous (and free) place then. How on earth could any video game discussion be so important to you that you'd need to lie like that? Because if you aren't actually mentally ill, you can't believe what you are typing.
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 6577	Posted - 2014.10.31 12:59:43 - [458] - Quote Sol Project wrote: What Jenn is saying in that little box, is that idiots will always stick to what they believe is right and will ignore everything that shows that they are wrong, because being wrong hurts their vulnerable little egos and they can't deal with that. Thinking is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. That's a bit generic. While true, it applies to almost every single player (and their chosen dogma) that logs into the game. Jenn included. It's not that they are idiots. It's that they are passionate about the narrow little niche they have chosen in this big, big universe. I respect them for fighting for their chosen playstyle, even though most of them are completely wrong. Mr Epeen There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8856	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:07:01 - [459] - Quote Mr Epeen wrote: Sol Project wrote: What Jenn is saying in that little box, is that idiots will always stick to what they believe is right and will ignore everything that shows that they are wrong, because being wrong hurts their vulnerable little egos and they can't deal with that. Thinking is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. That's a bit generic. While true, it applies to almost every single player (and their chosen dogma) that logs into the game. Jenn included. It's not that they are idiots. It's that they are passionate about the narrow little niche they have chosen in this big, big universe. I respect them for fighting for their chosen playstyle, even though most of them are completely wrong. Mr Epeen This is the internet, so information never really gets lost. Feel free to link the post where I explicitly ignore evidence in favor of something else. I'll wait.
Good Posting Reloaded My Real Mind 5	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:10:52 - [460] - Quote First the bans of scumbags, now this. Bad times for the tough guy wannabe crowd. HAHA, i must add.

Sol Project Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 60	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:15:46 - [461] - Quote What's wrong about not wanting their playstyle to be removed for reasons that are bullshit to begin with? Read what people write. They assume new players don't join corps because of awoxxing. Think: How would they know? Do you seriously believe the majority of people knows that before they join the game? How about the more realistic approach, which combines with what is going on already? .) Lowsec is a death trap. .) All PvPers are griefers. .) Mining and mission running is a good start into the game. Where do the people come from who just level up their ravens? Do they join this game because they knew upfront that it's what they want, or are they being told to do that and then stick with it? The whole issue is a social engineering one, not a game mechanics one.
Bob Bedala 52	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:19:22 - [462] - Quote And the crux is this: Quote: CCP Fozzie - It is the game not acting in a reasonable way that a reasonable human being would understand. DJ FunkyBacon disagrees. Spot on FunkyBacon. This concept of "reasonableness" is exactly the problem with the "permabanned because you were being unreasonable and we're not going to tell you why" problem (and it is a problem). People come to the game with different expectations of what is reasonable, begat from differing experiences of gaming & "normal" culture, and from what they learned about the game before joining. It is irresponsible and (ironically) unreasonable of CCP not to educate the players as to what CCP thinks is "reasonable". There seems to have been a cultural shift at CCP over the years, and while loads of brilliant things are being done to improve the game there seems to be a pernicious shift behind the scenes which continues to erode Eve's USP -- which to me seems much more of a threat to the longevity of the product than bewildered rookies. Educate them!
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 123	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:22:29 - [463] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Agreed that it may not be the main reason people don't join corps, but it certainly is a reason why people have negative experiences once they join a corp and is a huge contributor to many decent corps having security policies which exclude newer players. Lucas Kell wrote: The risk reduction is negligible. All it means is that to kill a member of a corp you'll have to use the wardec mechanic as it is designed to be used. Nothing will prevent you awoxing the corp by setting up a kill or providing intel, it's purely the act of avoiding concord by being in the corp that would be removed. I am confused by the apparent self-contradiction here. If the risk of awoxing to a highsec corp "is negligible" as you say, why then do you think that awoxing is "a huge contributor to many decent corps having security policies which exclude newer players"? If awoxing (that is CONCORD-free violence against corpmates) poses such little risk, what makes you think that highsec corps will change their behaviour and start taking in newbies after awoxing is removed? Certainly the other risks of inviting an enemy into your corp will still exist even if CONCORD now protects you, so new players will still be excluded, no?
Brochan McLeod Frigateer 68	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:33:13 - [464] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Agreed that it may not be the main reason people don't join corps, but it certainly is a reason why people have negative experiences once they join a corp and is a huge contributor to many decent corps having security policies which exclude newer players. Lucas Kell wrote: The risk reduction is negligible. All it means is that to kill a member of a corp you'll have to use the wardec mechanic as it is designed to be used. Nothing will prevent you awoxing the corp by setting up a kill or providing intel, it's purely the act of avoiding concord by being in the corp that would be removed. I am confused by the apparent self-contradiction here. If the risk of awoxing to a highsec corp "is negligible" as you say, why then do you think that awoxing is "a huge contributor to many decent corps having security policies which exclude newer players"? If awoxing (that is CONCORD-free violence against corpmates) poses such little risk, what makes you think that highsec corps will change their behaviour and start taking in newbies after awoxing is removed? Certainly the other risks of inviting an enemy into your corp will still exist even if CONCORD now protects you, so new players will still be excluded, no? I think you underestimate the effect of people seeing their corpbuddies die in front of their eyes by another corpbuddy, right before he/she shoots you in the face ... and you just had such an enjoyable conversation with him/her as well. I imagine for a bunch of folks that's the one that's making them think twice before paying for the second (or third) month sub. Sure, its a great way of 'seperating the men from the boys' ... but them's real paying customers running out the door there. Even the nicest person's patience has a limit!
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1346	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:34:04 - [465] - Quote Bob Bedala wrote: And the crux is this: Quote: CCP Fozzie - It is the game not acting in a reasonable way that a reasonable human being would understand. DJ FunkyBacon disagrees. Spot on FunkyBacon. This concept of "reasonableness" is exactly the problem with the "permabanned because you were being unreasonable and we're not going to tell you why" problem (and it is a problem). People come to the game with different expectations of what is reasonable, begat from differing experiences of gaming & "normal" culture, and from what they learned about the game before joining. It is irresponsible and (ironically) unreasonable of CCP not to educate the players as to what CCP thinks is "reasonable". There seems to have been a cultural shift at CCP over the years, and while loads of brilliant things are being done to improve the game there seems to be a pernicious shift behind the scenes which continues to erode Eve's USP -- which to me seems much more of a threat to the longevity of the product than bewildered rookies. Educate them! What they find unreasonable is probably the rules being different while you are in a corp and those difference not being shown properly. The very same reason in the end for the creation of crimewatch 2.0 because the first one was an absolute nightmare of ifs and buts put together which permitted some wild play to be done that no newbie could ever hope to understand why it works that way. The decision was probably between finding a good way to illustrate the law change once you are a member of a player corp and changing crimewatch. The second option was probably chosen because it was much simpler and CCP could not figure a way to show in an acceptable way (for them, not us) how the rules were different once you joined a corp.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8856	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:37:15 - [466] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: I am confused by the apparent self-contradiction here. If the risk of awoxing to a highsec corp "is negligible" as you say, why then do you think that awoxing is "a huge contributor to many decent corps having security policies which exclude newer players"? If awoxing (that is CONCORD-free violence against corpmates) poses such little risk, what makes you think that highsec corps will change their behaviour and start taking in newbies after awoxing is removed? Certainly the other risks of inviting an enemy into your corp will still exist even if CONCORD now protects you, so new players will still be excluded, no? Exactly. If 'awoxing' can keep a person out of a corp, ANY threat can. That means that the 'gains' from this change equal zero. Meanwhile an avenue that some players (awoxxers) use to have an impact on other people is closed. Sure, they will find others, but EVe shouldn't be taking away things like that, but adding them. Kell mentions 'negative effects' on people. The people who need ONLY positive experiences in a game (like not ever losing lol) shouldn't have been playing a competitive game in the 1st place. Making EVE into a game where people are less likely to have negative experiences is a recipe for doom. Negative experiences are the things that make good players better. CCPs (and Lucas') outlook on these matters mirror some bad crap that is happening in real life. CCP spending so much time worrying about newbies and the NPE and such could also backfire. It's not hard to notice how eve "grew" when the barriers were higher and the NPE was worse and ganking was easier....
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4368	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:38:55 - [467] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: It is relatively clear from the minutes that they are just guessing like everyone else. If they had the numbers they would show them right away and end the discussion right there. Your ad-hominem attacks and fals claims are a bad substitute for real arguments. Maybe you should remain silent if you are not capable of discussing in a civilized manner. They haven't leapt to giving out stats before, so why would they do so now? It's clear that it's an issue they are aware of, so I'm fairly sure it's no guess. And what ad hominem attacks? CODE kill people in untanked mining barges. Most of those people are solo players and many of them relatively new. The players CODE generally don't attack are huge fleets of highly tanked mining barges. This means that it's a fact that CODE are supporting botters by attacking the people that would compete with botters and play in a way which is not botlike, and not attackign botters. I'm sorry if you were not aware of what your group really stood for when you look past the propaganda, but it's not an attack and not a false claim. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Good Posting Reloaded My Real Mind 6	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:41:39 - [468] - Quote High sec should be safer for new players, and since many old players are too scared of leaving the kiddie pool and they continue ******* with newbies, ccp is hitting their butt with a stick because they have been very very bad boys. Now the supposed bad boys are whining like the true pussies thay always have been.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4368	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:47:34 - [469] - Quote Haedonism Bot wrote: I think the frustration with wardec-immune NPC corps and with wardec evasion comes from the fact that wardecs have already been so heavily nerfed. Wardecs got on just fine back when they were 2 million isk a pop, and wardec evasion was considered an exploit. The myth of corps wardeccing hundreds of others used to be reality - and I think most of us can agree that it was awesome. I can only think of one alliance right now that maintains over 100 wardecs, and when you do the math the amount of isk they are paying for wardec fees is pretty mind boggling. And there was a reason it was changed - because people simply harassed other people by constantly wardeccing them when they stood no change of defending themselves, making it pointless to create corps with players that undock. 2m to effectively switch off concord was way too low. Most of the aggressors might have agreed it was awesome, being super cheap PvP against easy targets, but most of thsoe target probably didn't. Haedonism Bot wrote: Wardec fees for one week against one corp start at 50 mil per week and scale up to 500 mil. Sure, carebears love to scoff at how cheap that is, but when you run multiple decs- which even a solo wardeccer must do to maintain it as a viable playstyle - it gets pricey fast. Imagine what that hypothetical corp maintaining 100 wardecs is paying - base price would be 20-25 billion per month assuming that all the targets were small 50 million isk decs and that they 25% of them didn't simply evade the dec. That much isk for an organization that doesn't have nullsec rental income or moongoo income. For a group of several hundred people that's nothing. Not to mention that some of their wars are paid for by people outside of their corps, and the amount of isk you can make from looting the wrecks is phenomenal. Don't make out that these types of groups are hard done by, because that's utter nonsense. Haedonism Bot wrote: Evasion as it exists today I'm actually ok with. Wardecs I was fine with, but this AWOX nerf really demands that they be rebalanced to maintain the risk:reward ratio in highsec. The best way to do that is to nerf NPC corps, and the best way to nerf NPC corps is to make them all faction warfare corps - excepting the starter schools of course (must think of the children). A wardec fee price reduction would be the icing on the cake. And again, all that would do is create hundreds of solo corps, and making a bunch of people quit, since they can't play the game they want because your playstyle is being catered to over theirs. It's a sandbox game, where you can play how you want, not where everybody else has to do what you want. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8856	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:47:37 - [470] - Quote Brochan McLeod wrote: Black Pedro wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Agreed that it may not be the main reason people don't join corps, but it certainly is a reason why people have negative experiences once they join a corp and is a huge contributor to many decent corps having security policies which exclude newer players. Lucas Kell wrote: The risk reduction is negligible. All it means is that to kill a member of a corp you'll have to use the wardec mechanic as it is designed to be used. Nothing will prevent you awoxing the corp by setting up a kill or providing intel, it's purely the act of avoiding concord by being in the corp that would be removed. I am confused by the apparent self-contradiction here. If the risk of awoxing to a highsec corp "is negligible" as you say, why then do you think that awoxing is "a huge contributor to many decent corps having security policies which exclude newer players"? If awoxing (that is CONCORD-free violence against corpmates) poses such little risk, what makes you think that highsec corps will change their behaviour and start taking in newbies after awoxing is removed? Certainly the other risks of inviting an enemy into your corp will still exist even if CONCORD now protects you, so new players will still be excluded, no? I think you underestimate the effect of people seeing their corpbuddies die in front of their eyes by another corpbuddy, right before he/she shoots you in the face ... and you just had such an enjoyable conversation with him/her as well. I imagine for a bunch of folks that's the one that's making them think twice before paying for the second (or third) month sub. Sure, its a great way of 'seperating the men from the boys' ... but them's real paying customers running out the door there. CCp can choose between more people paying for shorter periods of time or few people (the current community + a few new players who are hearty enough to join and stay) paying forever. EVE survives because it's not for everyone, not in spite of that. In the past I've used the example of McDonalds vs Spago. Saying that EVE Online should cater to "boys" is like saying Wofgang Puck should wise up and add a Dollar Menu so he can be a boss like Ronald McDonald.

Bob Bedala 52	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:49:08 - [471] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Ima Wreckyou wrote: It is relatively clear from the minutes that they are just guessing like everyone else. If they had the numbers they would show them right away and end the discussion right there. All MMO companies are twitchy about releasing retention-related figures (due to competitive analysis, I assume). Lucas Kell wrote: The players CODE generally don't attack are huge fleets of highly tanked mining barges. This means that it's a fact that CODE are supporting botters by attacking the people that would compete with botters and play in a way which is not botlike, and not attackign botters. CODE kill botfleets too.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4368	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:50:39 - [472] - Quote Sol Project wrote: How in hell is CODE pro-botting now?? See my above post. It basically boils down to their targets being non-botters and the guys they leave alone being botters. Try it. Fly a solo yield fit retriever like a noob in a system with plenty of CODE about, you'll get ganked. Fly 20 procurers fit for tank and don't respond to any form of input, you'll get left alone. Obviously they want to get rid of the competition that keeps botters ore sale prices down. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Sol Project Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 64	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:53:43 - [473] - Quote Good Posting Reloaded wrote: High sec should be safer for new players, and since many old players are too scared of leaving the kiddie pool and they continue ******* with newbies, ccp is hitting their butt with a stick because they have been very very bad boys. Now the supposed bad boys are whining like the true pussies thay always have been. Post with your main, so we can kick his ass.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8856	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:54:57 - [474] - Quote Good Posting Reloaded wrote: High sec should be safer for new players, and since many old players are too scared of leaving the kiddie pool and they continue ******* with newbies, ccp is hitting their butt with a stick because they have been very very bad boys. Now the supposed bad boys are whining like the true pussies thay always have been. That amount of prejudice is amost LucasKellion is magnitude. Funny is that I just read a post of yours espousing the same "E-honor" type of thinking in the missions forum.. EVE is a game dude most played by adults. It's ok to explore in high sec and compete with the "new guys" (and gank them, and scam them, or at least try to if you are so inclined) because doing so inspires the good 'new guys' to become better players (because they get mad at losing the competition to you). Their is no help for the 'bad' new guys to begin with, ANY negative experience is going to have them running out of the game. Being nice to them (allowing their false sense of safety and entitlement to grow) is bad for them in the long run, because as with the spoiled kids in real life that grow up to be a spoiled clueless adults, you are denying them the opportunity to create healthy coping mechanisms that allow for a more successful navigation of life. The BEST thing you can do for most rational people is present them with a challenge to overcome.
Brochan McLeod Frigateer 68	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:56:29 - [475] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: EVE survives because it's not for everyone, not in spite of that. That might have been true at some point but EvE evolving may need a different approach. Even the nicest person's patience has a limit!
Good Posting Reloaded My Real Mind 6	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:56:35 - [476] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Sol Project wrote: How in hell is CODE pro-botting now?? See my above post. It basically boils down to their targets being non-botters and the guys they leave alone being botters. Try it. Fly a solo yield fit retriever like a noob in a system with plenty of CODE about, you'll get ganked. Fly 20 procurers fit for tank and don't respond to any form of input, you'll get left alone. Obviously they want to get rid of the competition that keeps botters ore sale prices down. Well, that and the fact they use ISBot for ganking too. They stopped being bot aspirants and took it to a new level: mutibotting.
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2951	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:57:04 - [477] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Sol Project wrote: How in hell is CODE pro-botting now?? See my above post. It basically boils down to their targets being non-botters and the guys they leave alone being botters. Try it. Fly a solo yield fit retriever like a noob in a system with plenty of CODE about, you'll get ganked. Fly 20 procurers fit for tank and don't respond to any form of input, you'll get left alone. Obviously they want to get rid of the competition that keeps botters ore sale prices down. This is highsec pubbie levels of tinfoil man what the hell have you been smoking? This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Bob Bedala 52	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:58:56 - [478] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Obviously they want to get rid of the competition that keeps botters ore sale prices down. If you seriously think CODE are running botfleets in hisec and are ganking to help ore prices you are mad in the head department. The truth is much more obvious, it's been done before by Goons and if you can't see the obvious I'm not going to point it out to you.
Sol Project Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 64	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:59:27 - [479] - Quote OMG the mission forum... I'll have a good and long peak at that one...........
Good Posting Reloaded My Real Mind 6	Posted - 2014.10.31 14:00:12 - [480] - Quote Sol Project wrote: Good Posting Reloaded wrote: High sec should be safer for new players, and since many old players are too scared of leaving the kiddie pool and they continue ******* with newbies, ccp is hitting their butt with a stick because they have been very very bad boys. Now the supposed bad boys are whining like the true pussies thay always have been. Post with your main, so we can kick his ass. I post with the account i please, and by the way, you never left high sec so i doubt you would come to hunt me where i am. Stay in high sec like the true shitlord you are, mr big mouth.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4368	Posted - 2014.10.31 14:00:18 - [481] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: So in 6 months , if this doesn't help player retention, you will be adult enough and man enough to come here and admit that you were wrong? We can both book mark this here thread and meet back here in 6 months. You game? Well in 6 months it probably won;t be in, but 6 months from deployment of the change, sure. Not that it will be abel to be proven one way or the other, but I tend to believe common sense and CCP over people like you posting on the forums, so I'm pretty confident it would be a positive change. Jenn aSide wrote: Like many 'bleeding heart' type people, you let yourself believe that if only you 'give people a chance' they'll do what yo want them to. You don't understand people. Most of the people who quit ANYTHING quit because they don't have what it takers to succeed. Most of the people who continue with something do so no matter what barrier you put in their way. Making the game safer has zero effect on the guy or girl sitting at the keyboard trying to fulfil their entertainment needs with a video game. Clearly you don;t understand me at all, since I'm not at all a "bleeding heart" type. I'm just realistic about how much crap you can expect the average player to go through to play a goddamn video game. I know, you want people to come in, get massacred repeatedly, abused, scammed, insulted, attacked and destroyed at every turn, so the only people that make it through are the most hardcore. That's just not a realistic way to approach pushing out a form of entertainment. Jenn aSide wrote: This part either means you are lying (most likely as you dismiss ideas that don't fit into your narrow world view) or you are that incompetent. EVe is safer now than when i started, hell you could TANK npc police (we did so to the caldari militia with hilarious results) back then, older players would tell of how you could tank CONCORD back in the day. Yes, you could tank npc police and concord, but there was also considerably less people wanting you dead before. As the game has matured, more vet players have been settling into positions where they attack anyone and everyone, in highsec of all places. While the mechanics have softened up a little, the players haven't. I do find it funny that you accuse me of lying while you are screeching along talking about the removal of corp aggression as if it's the removal of PvP entirely from the game. One day when you understand that changes are of varying degrees and that not everything is totally PvP or totally carebear, come back and let us know. Until then, just quiet up and let rational individuals take the floor. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4369	Posted - 2014.10.31 14:07:07 - [482] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: I am confused by the apparent self-contradiction here. If the risk of awoxing to a highsec corp "is negligible" as you say, why then do you think that awoxing is "a huge contributor to many decent corps having security policies which exclude newer players"? If awoxing (that is CONCORD-free violence against corpmates) poses such little risk, what makes you think that highsec corps will change their behaviour and start taking in newbies after awoxing is removed? I should think that's pretty obvious. The risk is already mitigated by not allowing newer players into corps. This is simply mitigating it mechanically so people will be able to allow people in without worry they are going to be ganking your existing members. So the risk isn't decreased, it's just shifted to allow players to benefit from interacting with players rather than being excluded entirely. Black Pedro wrote: Certainly the other risks of inviting an enemy into your corp will still exist even if CONCORD now protects you, so new players will still be excluded, no? There are, an all of those risks have many other forms of protection, through information security, permissions and roles, which is why those risks should remain. Awoxing (in the broad sense) shouldn't be entirely removed, just the corp aggression in highsec part makes no sense and grants few benefits while being a pretty big barrier to new players. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Sol Project Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 65	Posted - 2014.10.31 14:07:48 - [483] - Quote Doublepost.
Sol Project Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 65	Posted - 2014.10.31 14:08:53 - [484] - Quote Good Posting Reloaded wrote: Sol Project wrote: Good Posting Reloaded wrote: High sec should be safer for new players, and since many old players are too scared of leaving the kiddie pool and they continue ******* with newbies, ccp is hitting their butt with a stick because they have been very very bad boys. Now the supposed bad boys are whining like the true pussies thay always have been. Post with your main, so we can kick his ass. I post with the account i please, and by the way, you never left high sec so i doubt you would come to hunt me where i am. Stay in high sec like the true shitlord you are, mr big mouth. Calling others wannabe tough guys, while running such a big mouth and hiding behind an alt. And you probably realise the irony, but as you hide you can post hatefull crap all you want.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8856	Posted - 2014.10.31 14:10:09 - [485] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Clearly you don;t understand me at all, since I'm not at all a "bleeding heart" type. I'm just realistic about how much crap you can expect the average player to go through to play a goddamn video game. I know, you want people to come in, get massacred repeatedly, abused, scammed, insulted, attacked and destroyed at every turn, so the only people that make it through are the most hardcore. That's just not a realistic way to approach pushing out a form of entertainment. And yet, here I am, after 7 years of surviving. EVE needs the right kinds of player not the 'just anyone' you'd like to see. Yes, you could tank npc police and concord, but there was also considerably less people wanting you dead before. As the game has matured, more vet players have been settling into positions where they attack anyone and everyone, in highsec of all places. While the mechanics have softened up a little, the players haven't.[/quote] Nonesense, Where is one scrap of evidence of what you believe? A single link showing any proof that this has happened. I've actually seen people do what you are doing now. They don't truly remember how it was (or were not exposed to a wide enough range of the environment back then) so they believe that somehow things has gotten worse. This is why survey after survey says people think crime in my country has increased when in fact crime rates flee through the floor during that time period (i compie such stats for my agency as a side assignment). In other words, your opinion is colored by a more than likely false perception. Quote: I do find it funny that you accuse me of lying while you are screeching along talking about the removal of corp aggression as if it's the removal of PvP entirely from the game. One day when you understand that changes are of varying degrees and that not everything is totally PvP or totally carebear, come back and let us know. Until then, just quiet up and let rational individuals take the floor. The change wouldn't be the end of the world, it would be one more move in the wrong direction for a game like this. And yes, you are either lying, or incompetent if you don't understand that new players have it easier today than at any previous point in EVE.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1347	Posted - 2014.10.31 14:10:47 - [486] - Quote Bob Bedala wrote: All MMO companies are twitchy about releasing retention-related figures (due to competitive analysis, I assume). It's about the investors in the end. Publicly announcing you can't keep players subbed mean you can't keep the revenue stream or at least can't grow it. Blizzard probably hated to announce the sub loss over the years recently but at lest they had the numbers in the million still making it the top sub title by a wide margin. If CCP is going down in subs, it can't support itself with such an argument so making an announcement about it can be more risky. If CCP is still only owned by a single dude, then it's even less needed to post numbers because they don't have to because they answer to only that guy so no one from the public needs to know. The $$$ speaks loud as hell in entertainment and EVE is an entertainment product even if many people seem to take it like a job instead.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4369	Posted - 2014.10.31 14:12:24 - [487] - Quote Bob Bedala wrote: CODE kill botfleets too. Rarely if ever. La Nariz wrote: This is highsec pubbie levels of tinfoil man what the hell have you been smoking? How so? Because I don't lap up CODE propaganda when they say "we're anti-botter, honest!". Their actions speak for themselves. They attack players who clearly aren't botting, soaking up the tears, while they ignore botters leaving them to chomp on through all of the rocks. If you take a step back and really look at it, you'll see that the effect they have is the exact opposite of their claimed objective. Whether or not that is by design or through enormous oversight is up to you to decide. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 6579	Posted - 2014.10.31 14:13:12 - [488] - Quote Sol Project wrote: Good Posting Reloaded wrote: Sol Project wrote: Good Posting Reloaded wrote: High sec should be safer for new players, and since many old players are too scared of leaving the kiddie pool and they continue ******* with newbies, ccp is hitting their butt with a stick because they have been very very bad boys. Now the supposed bad boys are whining like the true pussies thay always have been. Post with your main, so we can kick his ass. I post with the account i please, and by the way, you never left high sec so i doubt you would come to hunt me where i am. Stay in high sec like the true shitlord you are, mr big mouth. Calling others wannabe tough guys, while running such a big mouth and hiding behind an alt. And you probably realise the irony, but as you hide you can post hatefull crap all you want. Forum alts calling out forum alts? Must be Friday. Mr Epeen There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 1517	Posted - 2014.10.31 14:13:55 - [489] - Quote Haedonism Bot wrote: ... Evasion as it exists today I'm actually ok with. If a wardec mechanic (or any mechanic) is to exist in EvE it should be meaningful and choice/consequence based. The way wardecs can be simply ducked today however breaks this fundamental concept. It also defies logic... The aggressor followed the rules and paid CONCORD for war rights, but the defender corp disbands and re-forms under another name to immediately invalidate the war. Does the aggressor get a refund? Does the aggressor get a refund even based on percentage of defenders who drop corp? No. Even though the aggressor may have a 'legitimate' complaint against the defender, they get shafted by a mechanic set up to favor the defender who can 'opt out' of the war entirely... But seriously, even then a refund doesn't quite cut it does it. In WWII, could Poland have just opted-out of getting blitzed by Germany or paid a UN imposed fee to have the war by Germany voided? Could the USA 'opt out' and prevent the Pearl Harbor bombings just by changing their fricken name from 'USA' to 'USA2'? War is hell. It has implications. If a war mechanic is to exist, it must not be duckable. F Would you like to know more?
Good Posting Reloaded My Real Mind 6	Posted - 2014.10.31 14:14:48 - [490] - Quote Sol Project wrote: Calling others wannabe tough guys, while running such a big mouth and hiding behind an alt. And you probably realise the irony, but as you hide you can post crap all you want. Will you ever undock from that crap high sec trade hub where you live? When i was talking about tough guy wannabes i wasn't talking to you, don't feel offended. This game is just a chat room for you where you vent all your frustrations. Too scared forever to leave high sec, pansy boy. You are very easy to bait by the way. Do you have anger issues? Go to Iceland and sit right at the pointy monument and pretend it's a dildo.

Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 218	Posted - 2014.10.31 14:21:12 - [491] - Quote The ideas here to nerf NPC corps, make wardeccs more powerful, etc.... completely miss the point of the CSM minutes which is that casual PvE players are already not engaging with Eve due to the awoxxing mechanics, and end up playing solo, getting bored and quitting the game. What they would like to be able to do is participate in group PvE without outlandish risks of being blown up. If anything, I would expect the game to move towards catering to that large group of people which really isn't looking for a combat experience in highsec.
Dave Stark 7105	Posted - 2014.10.31 14:22:24 - [492] - Quote Good Posting Reloaded wrote: High sec should be safer for new players, and since many old players are too scared of leaving the kiddie pool and they continue ******* with newbies, ccp is hitting their butt with a stick because they have been very very bad boys. Now the supposed bad boys are whining like the true pussies thay always have been. newbies don't fly orcas, t2 exhumers, or pimped marauders. or any of the lovely awox targets. so, try again.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4369	Posted - 2014.10.31 14:22:28 - [493] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: And yet, here I am, after 7 years of surviving. EVE needs the right kinds of player not the 'just anyone' you'd like to see. Again, completely misrepresenting my point of view. I don't want "anyone" to play, I'd just like more than is currently being catered to. Again, it's not all of one or all of the other. Jenn aSide wrote: Nonesense, Where is one scrap of evidence of what you believe? A single link showing any proof that this has happened. Observed behaviour is difficult to prove. Prove that it wasn't less common for people to be attacked as a noob during the infancy of the game when the population was lower. Jenn aSide wrote: In other words, your opinion is colored by a more than likely false perception. So my opinion must be flawed while you're is obviously perfect? Get over yourself. Jenn aSide wrote: The change wouldn't be the end of the world, it would be one more move in the wrong direction for a game like this. And yes, you are either lying, or incompetent if you don't understand that new players have it easier today than at any previous point in EVE. Well chances are the change is coming. CCP and the CSM seem to want it as do a fair portion of players. So HTFU. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1348	Posted - 2014.10.31 14:25:18 - [494] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Haedonism Bot wrote: ... Evasion as it exists today I'm actually ok with. If a wardec mechanic (or any mechanic) is to exist in EvE it should be meaningful and choice/consequence based. The way wardecs can be simply ducked today however breaks this fundamental concept. It also defies logic... The aggressor followed the rules and paid CONCORD for war rights, but the defender corp disbands and re-forms under another name to immediately invalidate the war. Does the aggressor get a refund? Does the aggressor get a refund even based on percentage of defenders who drop corp? No. Even though the aggressor may have a 'legitimate' complaint against the defender, they get shafted by a mechanic set up to favor the defender who can 'opt out' of the war entirely... But seriously, even then a refund doesn't quite cut it does it. In WWII, could Poland have just opted-out of getting blitzed by Germany or paid a UN imposed fee to have the war by Germany voided? Could the USA 'opt out' and prevent the Pearl Harbor bombings just by changing their fricken name from 'USA' to 'USA2'? War is hell. It has implications. If a war mechanic is to exist, it must not be duckable. F The problem is that the corp in high sec cannot be compared to a country in the real world because right now, it has nothing to lose. If you want to make a decent analogy with real world country not being able to just fold, you need to compare them to SOV holding alliance since and then you will see they face something similar. They can technically fleet but the alliance assets are lost just like the territory and assets of the attacked country would be lost. The high-sec corp has none of the 2. The biggest assets they can own is a bunch of trailers (POS) which can be hauled away. Corp wars will not be made meaningful as long as being in a corp don't mean more than "you can park that trailer in space".
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2951	Posted - 2014.10.31 14:25:25 - [495] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Bob Bedala wrote: CODE kill botfleets too. Rarely if ever. La Nariz wrote: This is highsec pubbie levels of tinfoil man what the hell have you been smoking? How so? Because I don't lap up CODE propaganda when they say "we're anti-botter, honest!". Their actions speak for themselves. They attack players who clearly aren't botting, soaking up the tears, while they ignore botters leaving them to chomp on through all of the rocks. If you take a step back and really look at it, you'll see that the effect they have is the exact opposite of their claimed objective. Whether or not that is by design or through enormous oversight is up to you to decide. Because you're promoting an elaborate scheme to increase ore prices, comparing apples to oranges (a procurer is not a retriever) alleging a priority targeting for newbies and ignoring the parsimonious theory. They do it because it is the least effort for the most return, the same min/maxing idea everyone falls into. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Sol Project Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 65	Posted - 2014.10.31 14:25:30 - [496] - Quote Mr. Epeen... since when does the Project hide in anonymity? That's what forum alts are there for, no? Like... yours, no? Or are all your chars called Epeen? Yes? And the goodposting coward keeps running his big mouth, while hiding behind an alt. Post with your main, I dare you.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 1517	Posted - 2014.10.31 14:25:30 - [497] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: The ideas here to nerf NPC corps, make wardeccs more powerful, etc.... completely miss the point of the CSM minutes which is that casual PvE players are already not engaging with Eve due to the awoxxing mechanics, and end up playing solo, getting bored and quitting the game. What they would like to be able to do is participate in group PvE without outlandish risks of being blown up. If anything, I would expect the game to move towards catering to that large group of people which really isn't looking for a combat experience in highsec. So basically you and your ilk want WoW with spaceships, or perhaps Hello Kitty online 'spaceships edition'? GTFO. F Would you like to know more?
Ralph King-Griffin Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 6325	Posted - 2014.10.31 14:27:35 - [498] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: The ideas here to nerf NPC corps, make wardeccs more powerful, etc.... completely miss the point of the CSM minutes which is that casual PvE players are already not engaging with Eve due to the awoxxing mechanics, and end up playing solo, getting bored and quitting the game. What they would like to be able to do is participate in group PvE without outlandish risks of being blown up. If anything, I would expect the game to move towards catering to that large group of people which really isn't looking for a combat experience in highsec. well tough **** because that threat is supposed to be there always, they are talking about trying to make recruiting a bit less dangerous for a corp to do, i.e. they are looking at corparation mechanics and functionality, war mechanics will follow. dont expect to be eble to avoid them forever outside of an npc corp veers "I'm also quite confident that you are laughing and it's the kind of laugh that gives normal people shivers." =]I[=
Revis Owen 50	Posted - 2014.10.31 14:28:55 - [499] - Quote Bob Bedala wrote: All MMO companies are twitchy about releasing retention-related figures (due to competitive analysis, I assume). Or the figures don't demonstrate a relationship of past Nerf-of-the-Month ideas and uptick on player attraction/retention. Tell me, how did EvE last through it's first few years--a life-cycle in which nearly all other MMO's are born and then die-- when its universe was far more dangerous and keep bringing on new players and keep growing despite some new players finding it's a game not suited to them? Agent of the New Order http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html If you do not have a current Highsec Operations Permit, please contact me for issuance.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 218	Posted - 2014.10.31 14:30:16 - [500] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: The ideas here to nerf NPC corps, make wardeccs more powerful, etc.... completely miss the point of the CSM minutes which is that casual PvE players are already not engaging with Eve due to the awoxxing mechanics, and end up playing solo, getting bored and quitting the game. What they would like to be able to do is participate in group PvE without outlandish risks of being blown up. If anything, I would expect the game to move towards catering to that large group of people which really isn't looking for a combat experience in highsec. So basically you and your ilk want WoW with spaceships, or perhaps Hello Kitty online 'spaceships edition'? GTFO. F No, what I would like to see is a game where new players can join and have a CHOICE of gameplay. If they want broad player controlled politics and PvP they can head to null....if they want free ranging pirate PvP they can go to low, and if they want a reasonable measure of safety and security, and a more collaborative style of play they can live in highsec. Right now joining highsec PvE corps is pretty insane. It's a great way to get awoxxed for giggles, stolen from, and wardecced into oblivion. As CCP put it the rational response is to stay in an NPC Corp or go 1 man corp, not to join a real highsec corp. How is that a positive outcome, and how does that aid new player retention? Is this what the awoxxers/griefers really want, that everyone should be anti-social and avoid player run corps in highsec?

Bob Bedala 52	Posted - 2014.10.31 14:30:38 - [501] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Bob Bedala wrote: CODE kill botfleets too. Rarely if ever. Then you should read their site more closely before besmirching their good name in a public forum. A gentleman would apologise. Also, feel free to debate the issue of this thread rather than flailing about in overly-defensive confusion.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 218	Posted - 2014.10.31 14:32:59 - [502] - Quote Ralph King-Griffin wrote: well tough **** because that threat is supposed to be there always, they are talking about trying to make recruiting a bit less dangerous for a corp to do, i.e. they are looking at corparation mechanics and functionality, war mechanics will follow. dont expect to be eble to avoid them forever outside of an npc corp veers Ralph, there is no practical way to EVER make wardeccs go down to the individual player level. Can always just dock up for a week and play on alts. And if those get wardecced too, could either have yet another alt to farm null/wh, or just play another game for a few days. You can never compel conflict in Eve because you can never compel players to log in. So yes, I am mightily unconcerned about needing to face wardeccs, not to mention the CSM minutes suggesting that, if anything, the game is headed in the opposite direction.
Good Posting Reloaded My Real Mind 6	Posted - 2014.10.31 14:33:23 - [503] - Quote Sol Project wrote: Mr. Epeen... since when does the Project hide in anonymity? That's what forum alts are there for, no? Like... yours, no? Or are all your chars called Epeen? Yes? And the goodposting coward keeps running his big mouth, while hiding behind an alt. Post with your main, I dare you. Man i'm going to tell you a secret. One time i went to pew pew you, yes, i went to Hek. And do you know what happened? Nothing, why? Because you never undocked. You won because you made me waste a few hours (2 days in fact). You are a high sec F- and you know it. Keep getting mad
Brochan McLeod Frigateer 68	Posted - 2014.10.31 14:33:51 - [504] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Haedonism Bot wrote: ... Evasion as it exists today I'm actually ok with. If a wardec mechanic (or any mechanic) is to exist in EvE it should be meaningful and choice/consequence based. The way wardecs can be simply ducked today however breaks this fundamental concept. It also defies logic... The aggressor followed the rules and paid CONCORD for war rights, but the defender corp disbands and re-forms under another name to immediately invalidate the war. Does the aggressor get a refund? Does the aggressor get a refund even based on percentage of defenders who drop corp? No. Even though the aggressor may have a 'legitimate' complaint against the defender, they get shafted by a mechanic set up to favor the defender who can 'opt out' of the war entirely... But seriously, even then a refund doesn't quite cut it does it. In WWII, could Poland have just opted-out of getting blitzed by Germany or paid a UN imposed fee to have the war by Germany voided? Could the USA 'opt out' and prevent the Pearl Harbor bombings just by changing their fricken name from 'USA' to 'USA2'? War is hell. It has implications. If a war mechanic is to exist, it must not be duckable. F So in short... if a PvP'er wants to PvP, shannanigans like awoxing is 'amazing gameplay' but ducking a wardec is a bad mechanic? Also ive learnt in another thread that i mustn't compare real life situations with ingame mechanics... so much for the real war comparison. Even the nicest person's patience has a limit!
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 1517	Posted - 2014.10.31 14:34:56 - [505] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: The ideas here to nerf NPC corps, make wardeccs more powerful, etc.... completely miss the point of the CSM minutes which is that casual PvE players are already not engaging with Eve due to the awoxxing mechanics, and end up playing solo, getting bored and quitting the game. What they would like to be able to do is participate in group PvE without outlandish risks of being blown up. If anything, I would expect the game to move towards catering to that large group of people which really isn't looking for a combat experience in highsec. So basically you and your ilk want WoW with spaceships, or perhaps Hello Kitty online 'spaceships edition'? GTFO. F No, what I would like to see is a game where new players can join and have a CHOICE of gameplay... That game already exists, its called WoW. EvE puts the sensual in non-consensual, but you and your pansied ilk want to turn EvE INTO WoW. GTFO. F Would you like to know more?
Sol Project Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 66	Posted - 2014.10.31 14:36:38 - [506] - Quote Good Posting Reloaded wrote: Sol Project wrote: Mr. Epeen... since when does the Project hide in anonymity? That's what forum alts are there for, no? Like... yours, no? Or are all your chars called Epeen? Yes? And the goodposting coward keeps running his big mouth, while hiding behind an alt. Post with your main, I dare you. Man i'm going to tell you a secret. One time i went to pew pew you, yes, i went to Hek. And do you know what happened? Nothing, why? Because you never undocked. You won because you made me waste a few hours (2 days in fact). You are a high sec F- and you know it. Keep getting mad I too can make up **** that's not true, but I'm not you. In any case... it looks more like you're the mad one here.......
Ralph King-Griffin Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 6325	Posted - 2014.10.31 14:37:11 - [507] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Ralph King-Griffin wrote: well tough **** because that threat is supposed to be there always, they are talking about trying to make recruiting a bit less dangerous for a corp to do, i.e. they are looking at corparation mechanics and functionality, war mechanics will follow. dont expect to be eble to avoid them forever outside of an npc corp veers Ralph, there is no practical way to EVER make wardeccs go down to the individual player level. Can always just dock up for a week and play on alts. And if those get wardecced too, could either have yet another alt to farm null/wh, or just play another game for a few days. You can never compel conflict in Eve because you can never compel players to log in. So yes, I am mightily unconcerned about needing to face wardeccs, not to mention the CSM minutes suggesting that, if anything, the game is headed in the opposite direction. there clearly is if you form a ONE MAN CORP. they are sanitised and heavily nda'd veers , the things they suggest are many and varied. "I'm also quite confident that you are laughing and it's the kind of laugh that gives normal people shivers." =]I[=
Good Posting Reloaded My Real Mind 6	Posted - 2014.10.31 14:41:58 - [508] - Quote Sol Project wrote: Good Posting Reloaded wrote: Sol Project wrote: Mr. Epeen... since when does the Project hide in anonymity? That's what forum alts are there for, no? Like... yours, no? Or are all your chars called Epeen? Yes? And the goodposting coward keeps running his big mouth, while hiding behind an alt. Post with your main, I dare you. Man i'm going to tell you a secret. One time i went to pew pew you, yes, i went to Hek. And do you know what happened? Nothing, why? Because you never undocked. You won because you made me waste a few hours (2 days in fact). You are a high sec F- and you know it. Keep getting mad I too can make up **** that's not true, but I'm not you. In any case... it looks more like you're the mad one here....... It was a long time ago, and no, i'm not making crap up. I went to Hek and waited for you for hours. 2 days as i said. You never undocked. As i said, you use this game just like a chat room, you talk too much in local and in forums. And no, i'm not mad now, and i wasn't wasn't mad at that time. I just wanted to play a game with you. A pvp game, but since you never undock, i will pvp you here when i please. Because i can.
Dersen Lowery Drinking in Station 1248	Posted - 2014.10.31 14:42:19 - [509] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Clearly you don;t understand me at all, since I'm not at all a "bleeding heart" type. I'm just realistic about how much crap you can expect the average player to go through to play a goddamn video game. I know, you want people to come in, get massacred repeatedly, abused, scammed, insulted, attacked and destroyed at every turn, so the only people that make it through are the most hardcore. That's just not a realistic way to approach pushing out a form of entertainment. And yet, here I am, after 7 years of surviving. EVE needs the right kinds of player not the 'just anyone' you'd like to see. Every EVE player is a true Scotsman. Regardless of the intended reasons for its inclusion, any given minigame will attract people who enjoy it for its own sake. There are people who contentedly munch rocks in high sec for years. Should we change mining to make it more interesting for more people? That's actually a delicate question. Are there enough people doing it now? Are they happy with things as they are? The question is not whether a given arrangement can attract players, because the answer to that question is always 'yes'. The question is, does it attract enough players? For years, CCP was essentially content with the state of things, because the game was always growing. Now, they've suddenly lost some good people and clammed up about their numbers, and the number of people on the server is noticeably down even within my own timeline (I came in at the tail end of Incarna--and stayed! Hey, Incarna wasn't so bad after all, amirite?). As with all changes under the New Normal, CCP can tweak or change anything that isn't working quite right in a matter of weeks. The recent releases have demonstrated that they are quite willing to do follow up on changes, so that old concern about their fire-and-forget development style can be put to rest. I'll just put it this way: if CCP is suddenly worried about retention enough to consider not only making this change, but putting an entire team together to reconceptualize the entire NPE, which has never been a priority for CCP before, then maybe it's become important enough to the health of the game for them to change their minds about things they were OK with before. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 218	Posted - 2014.10.31 14:43:36 - [510] - Quote Ralph King-Griffin wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Ralph King-Griffin wrote: well tough **** because that threat is supposed to be there always, they are talking about trying to make recruiting a bit less dangerous for a corp to do, i.e. they are looking at corparation mechanics and functionality, war mechanics will follow. dont expect to be eble to avoid them forever outside of an npc corp veers Ralph, there is no practical way to EVER make wardeccs go down to the individual player level. Can always just dock up for a week and play on alts. And if those get wardecced too, could either have yet another alt to farm null/wh, or just play another game for a few days. You can never compel conflict in Eve because you can never compel players to log in. So yes, I am mightily unconcerned about needing to face wardeccs, not to mention the CSM minutes suggesting that, if anything, the game is headed in the opposite direction. there clearly is if you form a ONE MAN CORP. they are sanitised and heavily nda'd veers , the things they suggest are many and varied. Well, presumably you were not at the meetings and are not bound by an NDA. So how would you propose dealing with the elite PvP response to a wardecc of docking up for a week and playing on alts? Remember that people might do this because they are actively evading the wardecc, or they might just be busy with work, on vacation, bored of Eve, etc....

Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1348	Posted - 2014.10.31 14:45:05 - [511] - Quote Ralph King-Griffin wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Ralph King-Griffin wrote: well tough **** because that threat is supposed to be there always, they are talking about trying to make recruiting a bit less dangerous for a corp to do, i.e. they are looking at corparation mechanics and functionality, war mechanics will follow. dont expect to be eble to avoid them forever outside of an npc corp veers Ralph, there is no practical way to EVER make wardeccs go down to the individual player level. Can always just dock up for a week and play on alts. And if those get wardecced too, could either have yet another alt to farm null/wh, or just play another game for a few days. You can never compel conflict in Eve because you can never compel players to log in. So yes, I am mightily unconcerned about needing to face wardeccs, not to mention the CSM minutes suggesting that, if anything, the game is headed in the opposite direction. there clearly is if you form a ONE MAN CORP. they are sanitised and heavily nda'd veers , the things they suggest are many and varied. The wardec mechanic will probably be revisited but don't get your hopes too high about what they will turn to. My guess is they will always leave wardecs on a corp/alliance level thus never applying to a character if he left the corp. As I said in my previous post, it's all linked to the fact that corps represent nothing of value. A country has it's territorial integrity to care about while a corp does not. This is why people will most likely always say "**** it" when they get declared war upon and don't happen to be interested in waging a war. The corp does not have anything tangible to care about so people go the most efficient way and just drop because there is no point at all to defend a worthless shell.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8856	Posted - 2014.10.31 14:58:53 - [512] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Again, completely misrepresenting my point of view. I don't want "anyone" to play, I'd just like more than is currently being catered to. Again, it's not all of one or all of the other. How do you know that the "more" can be compatible with this kind of game. The "more" different types you try to cater to, the more you water down a game. Games need a focus and focus means excluding things (and people). Can you name one game that does what you say EVE should do and is successful/alive? Quote: Observed behaviour is difficult to prove. Prove that it wasn't less common for people to be attacked as a noob during the infancy of the game when the population was lower. "Observed behavior" is as unreliable as eye witness testimony (I once spent time assigned to a Conviction Integrity Unit). This is why I don't mention behavior i observed (most of the time) but the actual mechanics of the game and things that can be measured and proved. This is the disconnect here, as you are relying on biased, faulty memory and faith. Perceptions are often faulty, that's why we have EVIDENCE. Quote: So my opinion must be flawed while you're is obviously perfect? Get over yourself. i'm sorry if Evidence based thinking annoys you. It generally has that affect on emotional thinkers. But your flawed way of thinking is not my fault. Quote: Well chances are the change is coming. CCP and the CSM seem to want it as do a fair portion of players. So HTFU. Don't have to as the change doesn't affect me. But you can't claim to love a game and want the best for it's developer while at the same time not being honest enough to admit that a change could be detrimental to that community down the line. The fact here is that you probably like this change because of the perception that it hurts awoxxer/ganker types that you demonstrate time and again that you hate. That's why such prejudice is bad, because the reality will probably be this : no long term negative impact to ganker types and no positive gain for the people you claim to champion (new players). My concern is for this game we are playing, I understand that some of you have good intentions (the thing the road to hell is paved with btw) and this is even more true of CCP. But it's flawed thinking, the same kind of flawed thinking that led to other bad things like incarna/monocle gate and the blue donut etc.
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 6579	Posted - 2014.10.31 15:00:36 - [513] - Quote I can't help but compare this thread to many like it in the past about mechanic changes. CCP changes mechanics when they become so commonplace that everyone is 'abusing' it. When they become disruptive to the average player as opposed to the elite forum warriors. Ghost training, nano HACs, greifing noobs in starter systems, greifing noobs in tutorials and many more. It's a long list but those few examples jump to mind. CCP is stuck here. It's their game and they have an interest in keep it viable for all players. Not the just the elite who can jump to another game once their selfish gameplay destroys the player base of this one. They don't make these changes without giving it a lot of thought. It's their RL corporate ass on the line if they make the wrong call. They have everything to lose if the screw up (read, Incarna). I'm going to trust CCP on this way more than a bunch of asshats with no vested interest in whether this game survives or not. CCP have made some major blunders in the past, but I believe they learned from them and I like the direction this game is going. Not just making awoxing have consequences, but the overall thought they are putting into bringing the fun back into the game. Many players are happy with the stagnation we've seen over the last while and are satisfied with their little empires that add nothing to the game but entitlement and maintaining the status quo. But CCP is not. That's a good thing for CCP and EVE. Mr Epeen There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8856	Posted - 2014.10.31 15:10:06 - [514] - Quote Dersen Lowery wrote: Every EVE player is a true Scotsman. Regardless of the intended reasons for its inclusion, any given minigame will attract people who enjoy it for its own sake. There are people who contentedly munch rocks in high sec for years. Should we change mining to make it more interesting for more people? In a game with a live, player-driven economy, that's actually a delicate question. Are there enough people doing it now? Are they happy with things as they are? The question is not whether a given arrangement can attract players, because the answer to that question is always 'yes'. The question is, does it attract enough players? For years, CCP was essentially content with the state of things, because the game was always growing. Now, they've suddenly lost some good people and clammed up about their numbers, and the number of people on the server is noticeably down even within my own timeline (I came in at the tail end of Incarna--and stayed! Hey, Incarna wasn't so bad after all, amirite?). As with all changes under the New Normal, CCP can tweak or change anything that isn't working quite right in a matter of weeks. The recent releases have demonstrated that they are quite willing to do follow up on changes, so that old concern about their fire-and-forget development style can be put to rest. I'll just put it this way: if CCP is suddenly worried about retention enough to consider not only making this change, but putting an entire team together to reconceptualize the entire NPE, which has never been a priority for CCP before, then maybe it's become important enough to the health of the game for them to change their minds about things they were OK with before. All of this is completly besides the point. I don't care about or even comment about CCPs motivation for doing anything, because the motivation doesn't matter. The RESULT does. i'm going to have to go back on a pledge and like my oft linked 2011 dev blog again, simply becuase iot's the best way to explain what I mean. http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/those-anomaly-changes-in-full/ Quote: Expected consequences Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec Coalitions will be marginally less stable Alliances will have to choose more carefully what space they develop, where their staging systems are, and so on (low truesec systems generally tend to be in strategically inconvenient places) This is an example of GREAT intentions by ccp and reasonable thinking., the result was that null sec went from THIS to THIS lol. it's because they didn't understand or take into account how the game fit together, or how humans react to nerfs/barriers. They are doing this again with the jump drive nerfs and jump fatigue. Removing inter-corp aggression possibilities would be a smaller high sec focused version of the above thinking. ie, People think it would make things better for them or people they support (new players) when the most likely outcomes are either no change or things get worse. At this point i know that no amount of talking about it is going to change it, because CCP doesn't change course till things get so bad they have to. And it's all good, it's just a game (I'm not the guy who owns CCP thus my stake in this game is "what do I do with my time after the wife leaves for work " lol). It is just frustrating seeing the same failed thinking applied to a game I enjoy over and over and no almost one is smart enough to see it coming.
Dersen Lowery Drinking in Station 1250	Posted - 2014.10.31 15:11:43 - [515] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Well, presumably you were not at the meetings and are not bound by an NDA. So how would you propose dealing with the elite PvP response to a wardecc of docking up for a week and playing on alts? Remember that people might do this because they are actively evading the wardecc, or they might just be busy with work, on vacation, bored of Eve, etc.... To paraphrase the rapscallions, logging in to EVE is consent. So if you want to make the choice for other people about whether and where they're in PVP, you have to do it after they've already logged in, because otherwise it's implicitly consensual, and they can refuse consent with 100% effectiveness by not logging in. That's why CCP introduced those nice, long logout timers that can be reset simply by activating an offensive module on the logged-out ship. With no price to pay for the tactic of suddenly and unilaterally withdrawing consent, anyone in a valuable ship could just leave. Getting rid of the ability to shed decs by dropping corp will not force anyone to do anything in game. It may very well convince them to go dark for a while. That's why Feyd had to fall back on a real-world war analogy, because Poland couldn't simply log out of Earth for a while and go play a different country on another planet. But in EVE, Poland can pop up in Qo'noS for a week, or it can log in an alt country in South America (just as Brazil could log in Germany, its wardec country with minimal assets to lose, to target Poland, while sitting fat and unmolested a long way away). And that's why wars and bounties, to the extent that they are at all modeled on real-world conflict, will always be ridiculous and broken in EVE: in a game that you actively decide to log in to, anything other than a sudden ambush is essentially consensual PVP. Which means that it has to be fun for everyone involved. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
Dave Stark 7107	Posted - 2014.10.31 15:13:43 - [516] - Quote Mr Epeen wrote: I can't help but compare this thread to many like it in the past about mechanic changes. CCP changes mechanics when they become so commonplace that everyone is 'abusing' it. if people bothered to do basic recruitment checks, then nobody would be able to abuse anything. it's just ccp legislating for stupid once again.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8856	Posted - 2014.10.31 15:15:46 - [517] - Quote Mr Epeen wrote: I can't help but compare this thread to many like it in the past about mechanic changes. CCP changes mechanics when they become so commonplace that everyone is 'abusing' it. When they become disruptive to the average player as opposed to the elite forum warriors. Ghost training, nano HACs, greifing noobs in starter systems, greifing noobs in tutorials and many more. It's a long list but those few examples jump to mind. CCP is stuck here. It's their game and they have an interest in keep it viable for all players. Not the just the elite who can jump to another game once their selfish gameplay destroys the player base of this one. They don't make these changes without giving it a lot of thought. It's their RL corporate ass on the line if they make the wrong call. They have everything to lose if the screw up (read, Incarna). I'm going to trust CCP on this way more than a bunch of asshats with no vested interest in whether this game survives or not. CCP have made some major blunders in the past, but I believe they learned from them and I like the direction this game is going. Not just making awoxing have consequences, but the overall thought they are putting into bringing the fun back into the game. Many players are happy with the stagnation we've seen over the last while and are satisfied with their little empires that add nothing to the game but entitlement and maintaining the status quo. But CCP is not. That's a good thing for CCP and EVE. Mr Epeen You forgot to use words like "equality" and terms like "the 99% won't stand for this anymore". i mean, you can taste unrealistic ideological egalitarianism oozing off posts like this. You don't get it. Many of our peers don't either. Trying to cater to "all" players is a fools errand. Trying to cater to ANY players is likewise foolish. CCP made a sandbox game, beyond the eula terms they should not care about what people do in it so long as someone is still in it.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 218	Posted - 2014.10.31 15:17:34 - [518] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: Mr Epeen wrote: I can't help but compare this thread to many like it in the past about mechanic changes. CCP changes mechanics when they become so commonplace that everyone is 'abusing' it. if people bothered to do basic recruitment checks, then nobody would be able to abuse anything. it's just ccp legislating for stupid once again. That only helps for corps not accepting an awoxxer, and it doesn't help if this is going to be the first awoxx. It is of no use for players who are recruited into a corp and them ambushed and killed for giggles. And with that unfortunately being a not uncommon occurrence, players respond by staying in NPC corpland.
Dersen Lowery Drinking in Station 1250	Posted - 2014.10.31 15:22:24 - [519] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: All of this is completly besides the point. No, actually, it is the point. Your argument is that CCP is a fire-and-forget developer, which is why you have to go back to 2011 for your example. Intent matters now, because if CCP "fixes" new player retention now the way they "fixed" nullsec in 2011, they'll be back iterating on the change in a matter of weeks, not years. Their measuring tools are also much better than they were then, and so is their level of communication with the player base. So their intent matters more now than it did then, because they're better able to line the consequences of their actions up with their intentions. They have a fairly powerful incentive to, since their company has seen better days. This is also a much smaller change than a complete sovereignty overhaul. If this doesn't work, I don't imagine it will take much developer time or effort for CCP to say, "whoops, never mind," and turn on whatever flag they're about to turn off. In fact, the greatest possible threat to this change's effectiveness are players who are stuck in their conception of the way things are, ignoring the change and continuing to turtle up and ignore new players because they aren't willing to evolve with the game or its developer. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
Cephelange du'Krevviq Senex Legio 259	Posted - 2014.10.31 15:29:29 - [520] - Quote I've said it numerous times before and will continue to say it (so long as it remains true): EVE rewards those that pay attention and learn from their experiences (both good and bad). Part of that learning curve also involves keeping perspective that this is a game. Yep, a lot of time and effort is put into acquiring/accruing resources, including contacts. Losing some of those can be frustrating and even a little maddening, especially if it was avoidable through some common sense. That's a key lesson learned when shopping for a corp to join and even more so forming a corp and recruiting folks. Unlike the majority of other MMOs out there, there are significant (in game terms) consequences for not keeping your head on a swivel (aka situational awareness) and being on top of your game. If this was still the game's first few years, I could understand not being sure how to screen recruits, etc. This game is 11 years old; there is a plethora of resources to be found via a quick online search through your search engine of choice. There is literally no excuse a new player can't be well informed before they even create an account. This change might (and that's a slim "might," in my opinion) increase new player subscriptions by significant numbers, but it would dilute the playerbase in terms of quality. Those that would leave due to AWOXing will still leave due to ganking/griefing/wardecs, for the most part. CCP, please reconsider this proposed change. There is very little to be gained from it and more to be lost, in my opinion. "I am a leaf on the...ah, frak it!"

Dave Stark 7112	Posted - 2014.10.31 15:30:32 - [521] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Dave Stark wrote: Mr Epeen wrote: I can't help but compare this thread to many like it in the past about mechanic changes. CCP changes mechanics when they become so commonplace that everyone is 'abusing' it. if people bothered to do basic recruitment checks, then nobody would be able to abuse anything. it's just ccp legislating for stupid once again. That only helps for corps not accepting an awoxxer, and it doesn't help if this is going to be the first awoxx. It is of no use for players who are recruited into a corp and them ambushed and killed for giggles. And with that unfortunately being a not uncommon occurrence, players respond by staying in NPC corpland. we've already been through the myriad of ways to defend yourself should your recruitment standards are low.
Mag's the united 18115	Posted - 2014.10.31 15:30:35 - [522] - Quote Steve Ronuken wrote: Dave Stark wrote: Steve Ronuken wrote: I keep seeing people thinking that Logi creates aggression which will get you Concorded. The only time you'll be concorded for Logi, is if you rep someone with a criminal flag, in high sec. repping awoxers incurs nothing, and that's what's so broken about the whole thing. That I know (now. I'd missed that you didn't get an LE for attacking a corp mate) But I'm seeing people who think that they won't be able to rep corp mates, or structures, without being concorded. It would make it a riskier thing to do in hi sec corps. I'm sure it wouldn't be abused though, because we must think of the retention rates. Also the webbing of a corp mates freighter, would become a whole lot harder. But so what, more targets I guess. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Prince Kobol 2346	Posted - 2014.10.31 15:35:10 - [523] - Quote Cephelange du'Krevviq wrote: This change might (and that's a slim "might," in my opinion) increase new player subscriptions by significant numbers, but it would dilute the playerbase in terms of quality. Those that would leave due to AWOXing will still leave due to ganking/griefing/wardecs, for the most part. CCP, please reconsider this proposed change. There is very little to be gained from it and more to be lost, in my opinion. This 100%. Anybody who leaves the game because they were axowed is not going to stay long anyway. You are removing a mechanic that generates content, a mechanic that is part of the Eve is hard Universe that you like to talk about so much for what... a very slim chance that a few people will stay a little bit longer?
KnowUsByTheDead Sunlight...Through The Blight. 2134	Posted - 2014.10.31 15:37:23 - [524] - Quote It seems that no one at CCP any longer has the backbone for their "sandbox integrity" anymore. Let alone, letting players create their own content. Guess it is time to spool up Bonus Round v.3. At least I will be getting banned with my integrity to the original vision of this game intact. Playing the villain. I would have been content with playing infiltration/safari, but alas, my hand is forced. Once you realize what a joke everything is, being the comedian is the only thing that makes sense.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 1522	Posted - 2014.10.31 15:38:00 - [525] - Quote At this time I think it is appropriate to quote CCP Falcon's comments from another thread that while was in the context of ganking, still holds true to this conversation. I have added emphasis where appropriate. Key here is this...when discussing nerfing awoxing or requests to close wardec dodging exploits, is CCP and the CSM actually living by Falcon's words, or were these words just so much bullsh1t? Actions speak louder than words. We are watching. F "CCP Falcon" wrote: "Okay, so what follows is entirely my personal opinion. It's not a case of not "catering to the tearfilled entitled", it's a case of us staying true to the core of what EVE was built on. Some of the people complaining in this thread have valid points about the fact that they don't feel safe. Simple fact of the matter is, that you're not suppose to feel safe in New Eden. Eve is not a game for the faint hearted. It's a game that will chew you up and spit you out in the blink of an eye if you even think about letting your guard down or becoming complacent. While every other MMO starts off with an intro that tells you you're going to be the savior of the realm, holds your hand, protects you, nurtures your development and ultimately guides you to your destiny as a hero along with several other million players who've had the exact same experience, EVE assaults you from the second you begin to play after you create a character, spitting you out into a universe that under the surface, is so complex that it's enough to make your head explode. The entire design is based around being harsh, vicious, relentless, hostile and cold. It's about action and reaction, and the story that unfolds as you experience these two things. True, we're working hard to lower the bar of entry so that more players can enjoy EVE and can get into the game. Our NPE (New Player Experience) is challenging, and we're trying to improve it to better prepare rookies for what lies out there, but when you start to play eve, you'll always start out as the little fish in the big pond. The only way to grow is to voraciously consume what's around you, and its your choice whether that happens to be New Eden's abundant natural resources, or the other people who're also fighting their way to the top. EVE is a playing experience like no other, where every action or reaction resonates through a single universe and is felt by players from all corners of the word. There are no shards here, no mirror universes, no instances and very few rules. If you stumble across something valuable, then chances are someone else already knows where you are, or is working their way toward you and you better be prepared to fight for what you've discovered. EVE will test you from the outset, from the very second you undock and glimpse the stars, and will take pleasure from sorting those who can survive from those who'd rather curl up and perish. EVE will let you fight until you collapse, then let you struggle to your feet, exhausted from the effort. Then when you can see the light at the end of the tunnel it'll kick you flat on your ass in the mud again and ask you why you deserve to be standing. It'll test you against every other individual playing at some point or another, and it'll ask for answers. Give it an answer and maybe it'll let you up again, long enough to gather your thoughts. After a few more steps you're on the ground again and it's asking more questions. EVE is designed to be harsh, it's designed to be challenging, and it's designed to be so deep and complex that it should fascinate and terrify you at the same time. Corporation, Alliances and coalitions of tens of thousands have risen and fallen on these basic principles, and every one of those thousands of people has their own unique story to tell about how it affected them and what they experienced. That's the beauty of EVE. Action and reaction. Emergence. Welcome to the most frightening virtual playground you'll ever experience." Would you like to know more?
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 125	Posted - 2014.10.31 15:45:40 - [526] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Black Pedro wrote: I am confused by the apparent self-contradiction here. If the risk of awoxing to a highsec corp "is negligible" as you say, why then do you think that awoxing is "a huge contributor to many decent corps having security policies which exclude newer players"? If awoxing (that is CONCORD-free violence against corpmates) poses such little risk, what makes you think that highsec corps will change their behaviour and start taking in newbies after awoxing is removed? I should think that's pretty obvious. The risk is already mitigated by not allowing newer players into corps. This is simply mitigating it mechanically so people will be able to allow people in without worry they are going to be ganking your existing members. So the risk isn't decreased, it's just shifted to allow players to benefit from interacting with players rather than being excluded entirely. I'm sorry that isn't very clear. You are saying the negligible risk, isn't actually negligible, but because smart corps previously took protective actions to avoid it, it didn't count as a risk. And that now this is being removed by a game mechanic, there is no net change in risk now, at least for smart corporations. That means then that awoxing is indeed currently a significant risk to highsec corps (especially bad ones) and that removing it, as I said before, skews the risk vs. reward in highsec, and this will result in less destruction. This supports the point I was making that rationally, to those who view this game as a competitive PvP game, these changes will hurt Eve by reducing conflict. Over the years, highsec has been made safer and safer, with no corresponding change in reward leading to the situation we have now - Skiff bot fleets in every other system, deflation in most commodities and at least in part, almost 900M ISK PLEX. Each nerf to highsec PvP makes it less rational to operate in any other security space but highsec, and forces more people to move back to, or stay in highsec reducing targets for PvPers. I have no desire to stomp new players out of the game, but the reality is this possible removal of awoxing will affect mostly established players (both the practitioners of the awox and the highsec corp leaders it will protect), further incentivizing them never to leave, much more so than the theoretical retention of some small amount of new players. I have no problem with temporary safe zones for new players, or even super risk-adverse established players as long as it doesn't influence the greater Eve economy to a significant extent. Make such a place if you must, or turn highsec into that, but something has to be done to prevent the spiral into overproduction and underdestruction we have begun. Either nerf highsec rewards, or increase the risk, but something has to change soon. Nerfing awoxing is going the wrong direction.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4371	Posted - 2014.10.31 15:50:58 - [527] - Quote La Nariz wrote: Because you're promoting an elaborate scheme to increase ore prices, comparing apples to oranges (a procurer is not a retriever) alleging a priority targeting for newbies and ignoring the parsimonious theory. They do it because it is the least effort for the most return, the same min/maxing idea everyone falls into. I'm not promoting anything. I'm stating that the end result of their efforts is that botters get richer while the average player mining gets poorer. That means their groups, whether they aim to or not, supports botters. And you say "most return", yet their claimed goal is to remove botlike behavior. For that, measuring their return would not be measuring tears or isk from ganking random solo players. Bob Bedala wrote: Then you should read their site more closely before besmirching their good name in a public forum. A gentleman would apologise. Reading propaganda really wouldn't help. Of course their site claims to be anti-botting, that's what their group claims to be against, but the action they take are clearly not in line with their stated goals. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
KnowUsByTheDead Sunlight...Through The Blight. 2134	Posted - 2014.10.31 15:51:12 - [528] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: At this time I think it is appropriate to quote CCP Falcon's comments from another thread that while was in the context of ganking, still holds true to this conversation. I have added emphasis where appropriate. Key here is this...when discussing nerfing awoxing or requests to close wardec dodging exploits, is CCP and the CSM actually living by Falcon's words, or were these words just so much bullsh1t? Actions speak louder than words. We are watching. F "CCP Falcon" wrote: Hollow words by another CCP employee. Probably written by the lore department, like Hilmar's apology. Why even bother anymore, Feyd? It's no different than him saying.... CCP Falcon wrote: The freedom to scam and commit piracy, espionage, and extortion are all fundamental to the EVE Online experience, and CCP will never change that. .....when the bonus round was called "off limits." Once you realize what a joke everything is, being the comedian is the only thing that makes sense.
Brochan McLeod Frigateer 70	Posted - 2014.10.31 15:55:54 - [529] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: At this time I think it is appropriate to quote CCP Falcon's comments from another thread that while was in the context of ganking, still holds true to this conversation. I have added emphasis where appropriate. Key here is this...when discussing nerfing awoxing or requests to close wardec dodging exploits, is CCP and the CSM actually living by Falcon's words, or were these words just so much bullsh1t? Actions speak louder than words. We are watching. F "CCP Falcon" wrote: "Okay, so what follows is entirely my personal opinion. It's not a case of not "catering to the tearfilled entitled", it's a case of us staying true to the core of what EVE was built on. Some of the people complaining in this thread have valid points about the fact that they don't feel safe. Simple fact of the matter is, that you're not suppose to feel safe in New Eden. Eve is not a game for the faint hearted. It's a game that will chew you up and spit you out in the blink of an eye if you even think about letting your guard down or becoming complacent. While every other MMO starts off with an intro that tells you you're going to be the savior of the realm, holds your hand, protects you, nurtures your development and ultimately guides you to your destiny as a hero along with several other million players who've had the exact same experience, EVE assaults you from the second you begin to play after you create a character, spitting you out into a universe that under the surface, is so complex that it's enough to make your head explode. The entire design is based around being harsh, vicious, relentless, hostile and cold. It's about action and reaction, and the story that unfolds as you experience these two things. True, we're working hard to lower the bar of entry so that more players can enjoy EVE and can get into the game. Our NPE (New Player Experience) is challenging, and we're trying to improve it to better prepare rookies for what lies out there, but when you start to play eve, you'll always start out as the little fish in the big pond. The only way to grow is to voraciously consume what's around you, and its your choice whether that happens to be New Eden's abundant natural resources, or the other people who're also fighting their way to the top. EVE is a playing experience like no other, where every action or reaction resonates through a single universe and is felt by players from all corners of the word. There are no shards here, no mirror universes, no instances and very few rules. If you stumble across something valuable, then chances are someone else already knows where you are, or is working their way toward you and you better be prepared to fight for what you've discovered. EVE will test you from the outset, from the very second you undock and glimpse the stars, and will take pleasure from sorting those who can survive from those who'd rather curl up and perish. EVE will let you fight until you collapse, then let you struggle to your feet, exhausted from the effort. Then when you can see the light at the end of the tunnel it'll kick you flat on your ass in the mud again and ask you why you deserve to be standing. It'll test you against every other individual playing at some point or another, and it'll ask for answers. Give it an answer and maybe it'll let you up again, long enough to gather your thoughts. After a few more steps you're on the ground again and it's asking more questions. EVE is designed to be harsh, it's designed to be challenging, and it's designed to be so deep and complex that it should fascinate and terrify you at the same time. Corporation, Alliances and coalitions of tens of thousands have risen and fallen on these basic principles, and every one of those thousands of people has their own unique story to tell about how it affected them and what they experienced. That's the beauty of EVE. Action and reaction. Emergence. Welcome to the most frightening virtual playground you'll ever experience." I realise its all giving you a hard... ehmm... mousecursor..? But read that first line again... Maybe there was a meeting that wasnt in the Minutes about salary and future prospects? Even the nicest person's patience has a limit!
Ralph King-Griffin Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 6325	Posted - 2014.10.31 15:55:58 - [530] - Quote this isnt about that, lets not try and make that the case "I'm also quite confident that you are laughing and it's the kind of laugh that gives normal people shivers." =]I[=

Dersen Lowery Drinking in Station 1251	Posted - 2014.10.31 15:58:52 - [531] - Quote Thank you, Mag's, for identifying one way in which this change will definitely enable more high sec skullduggery: no more freighter and Orca webbing. Enjoy those align times! Feyd, I don't see where in Falcon's post he says that EVE should be harsh, vicious, relentless, hostile and cold, nor harsh, challenging, deep and complex, only for some players. You are not the agent, merely a participant. CCP Seagull said that she wants the challenge to be other players. So if you have to talk to other players to set up situations where you can ambush them, that's more in line with her vision and it applies Falcon's post more symmetrically to you, not only to your targets. The ideal is not that there are wolves and sheep, it's that there are wolves as far as the eye can see, and maybe some of them are dressed as sheep. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
Doc Fury Furious Enterprises 6996	Posted - 2014.10.31 15:59:08 - [532] - Quote LOL at any of you that think Falcon has anything to do with the direction of the game. He divides his time/loyalty between being both CCP's and Riot's "Community Manager". The FUD and tears are delicious however, please keep them coming... Gÿ+ The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the ho's and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' and I'll look down, and whisper 'Hodor'.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4371	Posted - 2014.10.31 16:01:35 - [533] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Can you name one game that does what you say EVE should do and is successful/alive? That entirely depends on what you mean by "what you say EVE should do". Jenn aSide wrote: "Observed behavior" is as unreliable as eye witness testimony (I once spent time assigned to a Conviction Integrity Unit). This is why I don't mention behavior i observed (most of the time) but the actual mechanics of the game and things that can be measured and proved. This is the disconnect here, as you are relying on biased, faulty memory and faith. Except you have. Your entire argument against this change is based around how you found what you like in EVE. I'm happy to let CCP and the CSM make this decision based on the actual facts that they have behind the scenes. You want them to go against that because you think you were more hardcore and thus feel all players should be given a hard time so only the most hardened players will make it through. Jenn aSide wrote: i'm sorry if Evidence based thinking annoys you. It generally has that affect on emotional thinkers. But your flawed way of thinking is not my fault. What evidence? All you've presented is anecdotes about your origins in EVE. Jenn aSide wrote: Don't have to as the change doesn't affect me. Then stop crying about it. Simples. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Brochan McLeod Frigateer 70	Posted - 2014.10.31 16:03:17 - [534] - Quote KnowUsByTheDead wrote: It seems that no one at CCP any longer has the backbone for their "sandbox integrity" anymore. Let alone, letting players create their own content. Guess it is time to spool up Bonus Round v.3. At least I will be getting banned with my integrity to the original vision of this game intact. Playing the villain. I would have been content with playing infiltration/safari, but alas, my hand is forced. At some point someone will realise that your filth is also scaring people (read income) away... on that day you will be one of the first casualties... ........... Even the nicest person's patience has a limit!
Darth Schweinebacke Caldari Provisions Caldari State 9	Posted - 2014.10.31 16:04:11 - [535] - Quote I think I am gonna have to write a long letter to dice soon. I would very much like to play battlefield and just fly around in a chopper, watching all the nice explosions without ever getting involved into the action myself. Being forced to engage into PvP in Battlefield sucks. I love the graphics and I love flying choppers but I do not want to shoot at other people, so they there should be an option in the game which prevents me from getting involved into any combat action. I want my chosen playstyle to be valid in every game i could possibly ever touch, no matter if it fits into the core concept of the game or not. Just to make sure: I am being sarcastic here, to point out how silly the way you "I want to PvE in peace" ppl think is. Also if you think this will prevent awoxing then you are not thinking this through. Sure with that change you can not just freely attack your corpm8s in high sec, but people who are flying around PvE ships that are actually worth awoxing will still be stupid enough to lose ships to people, who know how to infiltrate a corp and gains peoples trust. Sure it will be a bit more difficult, but I would place any bet that still more than enough people will get blown up by people in their corp. All this does is putting another restriction on yet another game mechanic that did not ever stop eve from growing and if CCP keeps moving in that direction, they might get more people like Veers, who think their PvE only playstyle should be valid in every game. And anyone with 2 braincells can see how long Eve will keep going with a PvE only community.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1349	Posted - 2014.10.31 16:05:55 - [536] - Quote Dersen Lowery wrote: Thank you, Mag's, for identifying one way in which this change will definitely enable more high sec skullduggery: no more freighter and Orca webbing. Enjoy those align times! Duel request > web > fast warp. It even work on out of corp freighter...
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4372	Posted - 2014.10.31 16:07:27 - [537] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: if people bothered to do basic recruitment checks, then nobody would be able to abuse anything. it's just ccp legislating for stupid once again. I don't remember seeing the part of the API which tells you that a new player is an actual new player rather than a new account of an established player set up as an awoxer. Since that in fact does not exist, this means the only way to lower the risk of that is to make sure players have to hit a certain age and/or SP bar to be allowed entry to a corp - which is exactly the problem. New players shouldn't be excluded from playing with others because of corp aggression. Removing that doesn't stop all forms of awoxing, it just means newer players can actually be brought into corps earlier. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1349	Posted - 2014.10.31 16:11:30 - [538] - Quote Darth Schweinebacke wrote: I think I am gonna have to write a long letter to dice soon. I would very much like to play battlefield and just fly around in a chopper, watching all the nice explosions without ever getting involved into the action myself. Being forced to engage into PvP in Battlefield sucks. I love the graphics and I love flying choppers but I do not want to shoot at other people, so they there should be an option in the game which prevents me from getting involved into any combat action. I want my chosen playstyle to be valid in every game i could possibly ever touch, no matter if it fits into the core concept of the game or not. Just to make sure: I am being sarcastic here, to point out how silly the way you "I want to PvE in peace" ppl think is. Also if you think this will prevent awoxing then you are not thinking this through. Sure with that change you can not just freely attack your corpm8s in high sec, but people who are flying around PvE ships that are actually worth awoxing will still be stupid enough to lose ships to people, who know how to infiltrate a corp and gains peoples trust. Sure it will be a bit more difficult, but I would place any bet that still more than enough people will get blown up by people in their corp. All this does is putting another restriction on yet another game mechanic that did not ever stop eve from growing and if CCP keeps moving in that direction, they might get more people like Veers, who think their PvE only playstyle should be valid in every game. And anyone with 2 braincells can see how long Eve will keep going with a PvE only community. 1st- Battlfield have different set of rules based on what server you play on. Friendly fire server exsist for example where you can shoot your own teamates. 2nd- If it will still be possible, why are people crying about it so much? According to you, all it does is make the valueless newbie not a worthwhile target because he does not have anything worth the extra effort to go through while the guy with value is still possible to kill. 3rd- This change will not amke the entire community PvE players andy anyone with at least one braincell can realise this.
Darth Schweinebacke Caldari Provisions Caldari State 10	Posted - 2014.10.31 16:18:23 - [539] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: 3rd- This change will not amke the entire community PvE players andy anyone with at least one braincell can realise this. This has not been the only change over the years driving Eve more and more in that direction. It-¦s the sum of all the changes which gradually make Eve safer and safer, catering to the anti PvP people. On your replies to my sarcastic BF remark, you totally did not get the point did you?
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 6584	Posted - 2014.10.31 16:19:22 - [540] - Quote Darth Schweinebacke wrote: Also if you think this will prevent awoxing then you are not thinking this through. I guess I shouldn't be surprised at how quickly Quote: CCP Masterplan - We're looking at changing three things before the end of the year. First is the intra-corp aggression rules - At the moment all members can now freely aggress each other. We are looking to change this so that being in the same member corp does not give you the right to legally kill your corp mates. The main goal of this is to make recruitment safer for the recruiter and the recruitee. And it will remove the fact that you current cannot mitigate the risk of recruiting someone which makes people not recruit. Gets turned into, "Wah! CCP is going to remove awoxxing! I quit/ unsub/ hate CCP etc." Do people even read stuff before going off the deep end? Whatta meesa sayin? Of course they don't. Mr Epeen There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!

KnowUsByTheDead Sunlight...Through The Blight. 2134	Posted - 2014.10.31 16:22:56 - [541] - Quote Ralph King-Griffin wrote: this isnt about that, lets not try and make that the case I am well aware, but I am trying to make a point. We let them take one thing, that was merely a mass-amalgamation of " HS piracy." Then we trust them to tell us that everything else is gonna be "okay" because it is what lies at "EVE Online's core." When the reality is, we let them set the precedent to take any highsec "piratical" action away, one by one. How long before ganking is gone? Or dueling? Or placing a bounty on the head of someone as a troll. Or non-consensual wardecs? How about the last Fanfest when we were told that highsec would become less safe. Not more. But that is what I am driving at, Ralph. We let them take the ability to create away from us once. Stories. Content. Laughs. Rebirths. Revenge. How long before they take the rest away....one by one? I love this game, with all my heart, and despite a company that repeatedly *** on their customers of numerous years, I still love the game. But now... It's just becoming like everything else. Casual. And like it has been said before, in this thread.... If someone cries, or hides in an NPC corp, and quits.... Because they were ganked, awoxed, scammed, heisted.....whatever... They weren't gonna stick around anyway. This isn't even close to being about the bonus room. That was a side thing for me, much like ganking. I am a heist/safari dude. Since my very first corp. I live for the closeness of it. That moment when someone realizes..........."Oops. I ** up in a game that has horrible consequences if I up." And it isn't about adapting and overcoming. You cannot adapt and overcome an entire entire play style being removed. Once you realize what a joke everything is, being the comedian is the only thing that makes sense.**
Revis Owen 51	Posted - 2014.10.31 16:23:20 - [542] - Quote Nerfing intra-corpmate aggression is a bad idea. Keep EvE harsh. Intead of more hand-holding for risk-averse players, their hand should be patted gently, they should be looked in the eye, and they should be told EvE is just not the game for them. Agent of the New Order http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html If you do not have a current Highsec Operations Permit, please contact me for issuance.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1349	Posted - 2014.10.31 16:23:29 - [543] - Quote Darth Schweinebacke wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: 3rd- This change will not amke the entire community PvE players andy anyone with at least one braincell can realise this. This has not been the only change over the years driving Eve more and more in that direction. It-¦s the sum of all the changes which gradually make Eve safer and safer, catering to the anti PvP people. On your replies to my sarcastic BF remark, you totally did not get the point did you? And even with all these changes, the EVE community is not all PvE so unless this one is some kind of real complete flipper for everybody's mind, your argument is still invalid. Your reference to BF was wrong even if taken with sarcasm in mind. Try again.
Darth Schweinebacke Caldari Provisions Caldari State 10	Posted - 2014.10.31 16:24:30 - [544] - Quote How does me saying that this does not prevent awoxing equal "Wah! I am going to quit Eve?".
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4372	Posted - 2014.10.31 16:25:06 - [545] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: I'm sorry that isn't very clear. You are saying the negligible risk, isn't actually negligible, but because smart corps previously took protective actions to avoid it, it didn't count as a risk. And that now this is being removed by a game mechanic, there is no net change in risk now, at least for smart corporations. As much as your are trying to confuse the situation, yes. Black Pedro wrote: That means then that awoxing is indeed currently a significant risk to highsec corps (especially bad ones) and that removing it, as I said before, skews the risk vs. reward in highsec, and this will result in less destruction. This supports the point I was making that rationally, to those who view this game as a competitive PvP game, these changes will hurt Eve by reducing conflict. Less destruction yes, significantly less, no. It's like how using a credit card technically gives you a risk of going blind, since you could stab yourself in the eyes repeatedly with it, but you don't. People could be awoxed by letting in more players, but they don't so the risk is already mitigated at the cost of new players being rejected from player interaction. The change is to remove that cost by mechanically mitigating that risk. Yes, overall the risk will be reduced, but that reduction will be minimal and far outweighed by the benefits to new players. Arguably though if new player retention can be increased, the addition of players into the game will provide an increase in conflict in the long run, since players who are engaged with others early have been shown to continue to engage with other players later on (last fanfest). Black Pedro wrote: Over the years, highsec has been made safer and safer, with no corresponding change in reward leading to the situation we have now - Skiff bot fleets in every other system, deflation in most commodities and at least in part, almost 900M ISK PLEX. Each nerf to highsec PvP makes it less rational to operate in any other security space but highsec, and forces more people to move back to, or stay in highsec reducing targets for PvPers. I have no desire to stomp new players out of the game, but the reality is this possible removal of awoxing will affect mostly established players (both the practitioners of the awox and the highsec corp leaders it will protect), further incentivizing them never to leave, much more so than the theoretical retention of some small amount of new players. And I agree that high sec reward is far too high for the overall risk in highsec and that needs to be addressed, but the corp issue is at most a minimal part of the highsec risk. All it does is push players away from each other so they aren't likely to engage with other players at all, further pushing them into the solo missioner/miner group. I'd rather see newbies engaged more with an easier start while longer term highsec players bear the brunt of reward nerfs and risk increases. Corp aggression is really a newbie focussed area, since most veteran highsec carebears will already know it's safer to be in NPC corps or alone, and more risky to corp up with others. It should be safer to corp up and less rewarding to play alone. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8858	Posted - 2014.10.31 16:27:58 - [546] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Then stop crying about it. Simples. So now we have to have something personally at stake to comment on something. I've come to expect such irrational double standards from you. You don't live in high sec and are not a new player (I at least live in high sec) so why are you in this discussion then? Because obviously it doesn't affect you either, right?
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8858	Posted - 2014.10.31 16:30:27 - [547] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Arguably though if new player retention can be increased, the addition of players into the game will provide an increase in conflict in the long run, since players who are engaged with others early have been shown to continue to engage with other players later on (last fanfest). Ain;'t that sweet, Lucas Kell thinks people who would have quit EVE if it allowed the awoxing that's been possible for 11 years will engage in 'conflict' later on lol.
Darth Schweinebacke Caldari Provisions Caldari State 11	Posted - 2014.10.31 16:30:31 - [548] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Darth Schweinebacke wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: 3rd- This change will not amke the entire community PvE players andy anyone with at least one braincell can realise this. This has not been the only change over the years driving Eve more and more in that direction. It-¦s the sum of all the changes which gradually make Eve safer and safer, catering to the anti PvP people. On your replies to my sarcastic BF remark, you totally did not get the point did you? And even with all these changes, the EVE community is not all PvE so unless this one is some kind of real complete flipper for everybody's mind, your argument is still invalid. Your reference to BF was wrong even if taken with sarcasm in mind. Try again. Since you seem unable to understand it: The point is. When I go and play an FPS game I have to expect to get shot at. If I am playing Eve (a open world PvP Sandbox - which would not work without PvP at all) I am well aware that PvP is possible and people who clain that their PvE only playstyle without interference should be viable are just as deluded as anyone thinking you can go play an FPS game without ever being shot. And the people who defend changes like that are exactly the same people who would want this playstyle to be possible in Eve. I never claimed Eve has reached the status of a PvE only community yet, but that is the direction the game seems to be going.
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 6584	Posted - 2014.10.31 16:31:08 - [549] - Quote Darth Schweinebacke wrote: How does me saying that this does not prevent awoxing equal "Wah! I am going to quit Eve?". You're right. Now fixed. Mr Epeen There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
Dersen Lowery Drinking in Station 1251	Posted - 2014.10.31 16:32:15 - [550] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Ain;'t that sweet, Lucas Kell thinks people who would have quit EVE if it allowed the awoxing that's been possible for 11 years will engage in 'conflict' later on lol. Mabrick. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8858	Posted - 2014.10.31 16:32:56 - [551] - Quote Revis Owen wrote: Nerfing intra-corpmate aggression is a bad idea. Keep EvE harsh. Intead of more hand-holding for risk-averse players, their hand should be patted gently, they should be looked in the eye, and they should be told EvE is just not the game for them. BUT BUT, they (the people who don't belong and who won't even stay if you 100% carebear thempark this game) have money, and money is obviously more important than the integrity and spirit of the game! Don't you know nothin?
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8859	Posted - 2014.10.31 16:37:07 - [552] - Quote Darth Schweinebacke wrote: Since you seem unable to understand it: The point is. When I go and play an FPS game I have to expect to get shot at. If I am playing Eve (a open world PvP Sandbox - which would not work without PvP at all) I am well aware that PvP is possible and people who clain that their PvE only playstyle without interference should be viable are just as deluded as anyone thinking you can go play an FPS game without ever being shot. And the people who defend changes like that are exactly the same people who would want this playstyle to be possible in Eve. I never claimed Eve has reached the status of a PvE only community yet, but that is the direction the game seems to be going. I understood (and support) what you meant. I once likened the situation to a dude on a soccer team refusing to kick the ball because kicking a all in a soccer game "wasn't his preferred playstyle" lol. To which the question "WTF are you doing on a soccer field?" seems apt lol.
Brochan McLeod Frigateer 70	Posted - 2014.10.31 16:43:54 - [553] - Quote KnowUsByTheDead wrote: Ralph King-Griffin wrote: this isnt about that, lets not try and make that the case I am well aware, but I am trying to make a point. We let them take one thing, that was merely a mass-amalgamation of " HS piracy." Then we trust them to tell us that everything else is gonna be "okay" because it is what lies at "EVE Online's core." When the reality is, we let them set the precedent to take any highsec "piratical" action away, one by one. How long before ganking is gone? Or dueling? Or placing a bounty on the head of someone as a troll. Or non-consensual wardecs? How about the last Fanfest when we were told that highsec would become less safe. Not more. But that is what I am driving at, Ralph. We let them take the ability to create away from us once. Stories. Content. Laughs. Rebirths. Revenge. How long before they take the rest away....one by one? I love this game, with all my heart, and despite a company that repeatedly *** on their customers of numerous years, I still love the game. But now... It's just becoming like everything else. Casual. And like it has been said before, in this thread.... If someone cries, or hides in an NPC corp, and quits.... Because they were ganked, awoxed, scammed, heisted.....whatever... They weren't gonna stick around anyway. This isn't even close to being about the bonus room. That was a side thing for me, much like ganking. I am a heist/safari dude. Since my very first corp. I live for the closeness of it. That moment when someone realizes..........."Oops. I ** up in a game that has horrible consequences if I up." And it isn't about adapting and overcoming. You cannot adapt and overcome an entire entire play style being removed.** Tears... flowing the other way... how strange and beautiful mother nature can be. Still don't like em tho... too salty.. not sweet at all. Even the nicest person's patience has a limit!
Indahmawar Fazmarai 3166	Posted - 2014.10.31 16:45:38 - [554] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Revis Owen wrote: Nerfing intra-corpmate aggression is a bad idea. Keep EvE harsh. Intead of more hand-holding for risk-averse players, their hand should be patted gently, they should be looked in the eye, and they should be told EvE is just not the game for them. BUT BUT, they (the people who don't belong and who won't even stay if you 100% carebear thempark this game) have money, and money is obviously more important than the integrity and spirit of the game! Don't you know nothin? Maybe those who don't belong in EVE are those who whine about losing their impunity... The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! Ingame chat channel: The Greater Fool Bar
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 6584	Posted - 2014.10.31 16:45:41 - [555] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Revis Owen wrote: Nerfing intra-corpmate aggression is a bad idea. Keep EvE harsh. Intead of more hand-holding for risk-averse players, their hand should be patted gently, they should be looked in the eye, and they should be told EvE is just not the game for them. BUT BUT, they (the people who don't belong and who won't even stay if you 100% carebear thempark this game) have money, and money is obviously more important than the integrity and spirit of the game! Don't you know nothin? Shooting fish in a barrel is about as themepark as it gets. Undocking in a barge is about 100x more risky than sitting on a gate in a ship that is replaced for free after you shoot a target with no guns. Or ratting deep in the blue of null. Or killing corpies with zero consequence. The most risk averse whiners in this forum are the very people that claim to want the harsh and dangerous unverse. Except when it concerns them, I guess. Mr Epeen There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1349	Posted - 2014.10.31 16:46:26 - [556] - Quote Darth Schweinebacke wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Darth Schweinebacke wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: 3rd- This change will not amke the entire community PvE players andy anyone with at least one braincell can realise this. This has not been the only change over the years driving Eve more and more in that direction. It-¦s the sum of all the changes which gradually make Eve safer and safer, catering to the anti PvP people. On your replies to my sarcastic BF remark, you totally did not get the point did you? And even with all these changes, the EVE community is not all PvE so unless this one is some kind of real complete flipper for everybody's mind, your argument is still invalid. Your reference to BF was wrong even if taken with sarcasm in mind. Try again. Since you seem unable to understand it: The point is. When I go and play an FPS game I have to expect to get shot at. If I am playing Eve (a open world PvP Sandbox - which would not work without PvP at all) I am well aware that PvP is possible and people who clain that their PvE only playstyle without interference should be viable are just as deluded as anyone thinking you can go play an FPS game without ever being shot. And the people who defend changes like that are exactly the same people who would want this playstyle to be possible in Eve. I never claimed Eve has reached the status of a PvE only community yet, but that is the direction the game seems to be going. The common player who never played EVE probably can't expect to be shot by people in what he most likely firmly bellieve to be his own team. That's where the rules are muddied and what CCP probably want to stop. Of course the actual thing that should change about it is find an actual clear war to tell people how the rules of engagement from the entire games are completely null and void if it happen between 2 members of the same corp but it does not and that, for a player who does not already know the rules and it's exception, is a problem that CCP don't want to stay. They are probably faced with this question : How the hell do we inform player in a clear way that the rules are not applicable when inside of the same corporation? They remade crimewatch because it was muddy as hell and required an encyclopedia to list all the ifs and buts about and at the end of the day, it seems there is still something they don't like about it so they are looking for a way to remove those unclear (to the new guy who didn't learn it yet) rules exception.
Ralph King-Griffin Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 6327	Posted - 2014.10.31 16:46:28 - [557] - Quote KnowUsByTheDead wrote: Ralph King-Griffin wrote: this isnt about that, lets not try and make that the case I am well aware, but I am trying to make a point. i agree and i can see why the discussion makes a lot of the vets nervous but if this results in less people sitting in npc corps till the end of time i.e. more more player corps (read targets) then im for it. obviously wardecs and/or corp mechanics need a change (way to easy to avoid) and ill see what they do with those before i start flipping out and shedding tears. point taken though, the "one more nerf" seems strong with this "I'm also quite confident that you are laughing and it's the kind of laugh that gives normal people shivers." =]I[=
Mike Azariah DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited 1785	Posted - 2014.10.31 16:47:29 - [558] - Quote I checked The Games Website and, oddly, I do not see them saying that Eve is a Purely PvP game. Now I will readily admit that it is a game with PvP in it if you will do the same in respect to PvE, because that is also part of the game. Missions, mining, exploration, are things you can do where you compete (maybe) but don't have to shoot some other player. So where do all the people whose main argument against this change find the ground to stand on . . . that by shifting a rule that made little sense (It is OK to go Postal if you are in a post office and work there) we are somehow moving away from what the game IS. It is like they are the apostles of a religion within the game but I cannot seem to find their holy book or church. So to some of the points 1) Yes, a well made and good practices corp could slow or catch most awoxers (though not all) and in that respect the game has been made (shudder) easier b) Yes, free for alls will be harder to run since shooting each other will bring the wrath of concord down on you (pity there is no part of space where this is not true. iii) I still haven't seen an argument that convinces me to go back to CCP and demand that they 'tear down this wall' Five) but I do appreciate the level of discourse, here, over some of the other threads I monitor m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2951	Posted - 2014.10.31 16:53:26 - [559] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: [quote=La Nariz]Because you're promoting an elaborate scheme to increase ore prices, comparing apples to oranges (a procurer is not a retriever) alleging a priority targeting for newbies and ignoring the parsimonious theory. They do it because it is the least effort for the most return, the same min/maxing idea everyone falls into. I'm not promoting anything. I'm stating that the end result of their efforts is that botters get richer while the average player mining gets poorer. That means their groups, whether they aim to or not, supports botters. And you say "most return", yet their claimed goal is to remove botlike behavior. For that, measuring their return would not be measuring tears or isk from ganking random solo players. Then why are you spewing dinsdale-esque crap? Their method did not do as they intended so it's a failed method that's all it means. It is the most return for the :effort: spent, how much more difficult is it to gank a retriever versus a procurer? So they are using an inefficiently optimized method to remove botters, what a surprise people have been using terribly optimized stuff forever, yet that does not mean they support something. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Indahmawar Fazmarai 3166	Posted - 2014.10.31 16:53:50 - [560] - Quote Mr Epeen wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Revis Owen wrote: Nerfing intra-corpmate aggression is a bad idea. Keep EvE harsh. Intead of more hand-holding for risk-averse players, their hand should be patted gently, they should be looked in the eye, and they should be told EvE is just not the game for them. BUT BUT, they (the people who don't belong and who won't even stay if you 100% carebear thempark this game) have money, and money is obviously more important than the integrity and spirit of the game! Don't you know nothin? Shooting fish in a barrel is about as themepark as it gets. Undocking in a barge is about 100x more risky than sitting on a gate in a ship that is replaced for free after you shoot a target with no guns. Or ratting deep in the blue of null. Or killing corpies with zero consequence. The most risk averse whiners in this forum are the very people that claim to want the harsh and dangerous unverse. Except when it concerns them, I guess. Mr Epeen It is remarkable that the change only affects hisec. I wonder what those spitfires even do in hisec... The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! Ingame chat channel: The Greater Fool Bar

La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2951	Posted - 2014.10.31 16:56:08 - [561] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: I checked The Games Website and, oddly, I do not see them saying that Eve is a Purely PvP game. Now I will readily admit that it is a game with PvP in it if you will do the same in respect to PvE, because that is also part of the game. Missions, mining, exploration, are things you can do where you compete (maybe) but don't have to shoot some other player. So where do all the people whose main argument against this change find the ground to stand on . . . that by shifting a rule that made little sense (It is OK to go Postal if you are in a post office and work there) we are somehow moving away from what the game IS. It is like they are the apostles of a religion within the game but I cannot seem to find their holy book or church. So to some of the points 1) Yes, a well made and good practices corp could slow or catch most awoxers (though not all) and in that respect the game has been made (shudder) easier b) Yes, free for alls will be harder to run since shooting each other will bring the wrath of concord down on you (pity there is no part of space where this is not true. iii) I still haven't seen an argument that convinces me to go back to CCP and demand that they 'tear down this wall' Five) but I do appreciate the level of discourse, here, over some of the other threads I monitor m Now go tackle the topic of highsec reward being too high. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 220	Posted - 2014.10.31 16:56:33 - [562] - Quote Just to be clear, even if in addition to this minor Awox nerf CCP would somehow decide to get rid of all non-consensual combat in highsec, Eve STILL wouldn't be a PvE only game because low/null would have PvP, there would be consensual combat in highsec, and lots of non-combat mechanics are also PvP, mainly trading, etc....
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1350	Posted - 2014.10.31 16:58:57 - [563] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: So where do all the people whose main argument against this change find the ground to stand on . . . that by shifting a rule that made little sense (It is OK to go Postal if you are in a post office and work there) we are somehow moving away from what the game IS. It is like they are the apostles of a religion within the game but I cannot seem to find their holy book or church. Remember you somehow can go postal on your fellow post man but only if they work for the same post office. The rest of the postman are still not legal target.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21331	Posted - 2014.10.31 16:58:58 - [564] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: I checked The Games Website and, oddly, I do not see them saying that Eve is a Purely PvP game. Now I will readily admit that it is a game with PvP in it if you will do the same in respect to PvE, because that is also part of the game. Missions, mining, exploration, are things you can do where you compete (maybe) but don't have to shoot some other player. So where do all the people whose main argument against this change find the ground to stand on . . . that by shifting a rule that made little sense (It is OK to go Postal if you are in a post office and work there) we are somehow moving away from what the game IS. It is like they are the apostles of a religion within the game but I cannot seem to find their holy book or church. So to some of the points 1) Yes, a well made and good practices corp could slow or catch most awoxers (though not all) and in that respect the game has been made (shudder) easier b) Yes, free for alls will be harder to run since shooting each other will bring the wrath of concord down on you (pity there is no part of space where this is not true. iii) I still haven't seen an argument that convinces me to go back to CCP and demand that they 'tear down this wall' Five) but I do appreciate the level of discourse, here, over some of the other threads I monitor m Maybe you should try reading the New Citizens FAQ, where it says: "This is because EVE Online is essentially a PvP (Player versus Player) game at its core" "Furthermore, as we mentioned previously, once you enter New Eden you must consider every action you take as a form of PvP since this is the core game concept" "The essential core concept of EVE Online is that it is full time PvP in a sandbox environment." "there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. The safest systems are the GÇÿrookie systemsGÇÖ where new players start their journey in EVE." PvP is not limited to shooting other people, it encompasses virtually every activity in the game. "Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1350	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:01:12 - [565] - Quote La Nariz wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: I checked The Games Website and, oddly, I do not see them saying that Eve is a Purely PvP game. Now I will readily admit that it is a game with PvP in it if you will do the same in respect to PvE, because that is also part of the game. Missions, mining, exploration, are things you can do where you compete (maybe) but don't have to shoot some other player. So where do all the people whose main argument against this change find the ground to stand on . . . that by shifting a rule that made little sense (It is OK to go Postal if you are in a post office and work there) we are somehow moving away from what the game IS. It is like they are the apostles of a religion within the game but I cannot seem to find their holy book or church. So to some of the points 1) Yes, a well made and good practices corp could slow or catch most awoxers (though not all) and in that respect the game has been made (shudder) easier b) Yes, free for alls will be harder to run since shooting each other will bring the wrath of concord down on you (pity there is no part of space where this is not true. iii) I still haven't seen an argument that convinces me to go back to CCP and demand that they 'tear down this wall' Five) but I do appreciate the level of discourse, here, over some of the other threads I monitor m Now go tackle the topic of highsec reward being too high. NPC tax @ 35% + no LP gain in any form + npc taxes applies to the market?
KnowUsByTheDead Sunlight...Through The Blight. 2135	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:07:58 - [566] - Quote Brochan McLeod wrote: Tears... flowing the other way... how strange and beautiful mother nature can be. Still don't like em tho... too salty.. not sweet at all. Right..... Tears. How about coherent thoughts when you respond to me. Fact remains, I have created more content then you will ever dream, child, with more positive outcomes, than bad.....using these mechanics. What have you done? And if I am crying so hard.....why am I still here? I would assume "Stockholm Syndrome," right? Or "Sunken Cost Fallacy?" Those are the typical carebear responses. Lmao, I am a tear harvester by nature. And even if this does transpire, I know that I will still go out creating content, even if it leads to me being banned. Because I actually believe in the so-called "core principles" of EVE, that the devs and community managers throw around carelessly. And the reality is.... Even if I do leave EVE Online.... I get the last laugh. Because I have literally played for years damn near exclusively out of the pockets of other players. And played it in just about every way short of flying a super or running an alliance. Lmfao. vOv It's pixels, dude. Once you realize what a joke everything is, being the comedian is the only thing that makes sense.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 220	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:08:41 - [567] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: NPC tax @ 35% + no LP gain in any form + npc taxes applies to the market? Result - everyone operating in one man corps and even LESS social interaction. This is good for the game how exactly?
Brochan McLeod Frigateer 70	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:09:53 - [568] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: I checked The Games Website and, oddly, I do not see them saying that Eve is a Purely PvP game. Now I will readily admit that it is a game with PvP in it if you will do the same in respect to PvE, because that is also part of the game. Missions, mining, exploration, are things you can do where you compete (maybe) but don't have to shoot some other player. So where do all the people whose main argument against this change find the ground to stand on . . . that by shifting a rule that made little sense (It is OK to go Postal if you are in a post office and work there) we are somehow moving away from what the game IS. It is like they are the apostles of a religion within the game but I cannot seem to find their holy book or church. So to some of the points 1) Yes, a well made and good practices corp could slow or catch most awoxers (though not all) and in that respect the game has been made (shudder) easier b) Yes, free for alls will be harder to run since shooting each other will bring the wrath of concord down on you (pity there is no part of space where this is not true. iii) I still haven't seen an argument that convinces me to go back to CCP and demand that they 'tear down this wall' Five) but I do appreciate the level of discourse, here, over some of the other threads I monitor m Maybe you should try reading the New Citizens FAQ, where it says: "This is because EVE Online is essentially a PvP (Player versus Player) game at its core" "Furthermore, as we mentioned previously, once you enter New Eden you must consider every action you take as a form of PvP since this is the core game concept" "The essential core concept of EVE Online is that it is full time PvP in a sandbox environment." "there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. The safest systems are the GÇÿrookie systemsGÇÖ where new players start their journey in EVE." PvP is not limited to shooting other people, it encompasses virtually every activity in the game. So? .... the FAQ is out of date... right? Even the nicest person's patience has a limit!
Darth Schweinebacke Caldari Provisions Caldari State 11	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:10:53 - [569] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: How the hell do we inform player in a clear way that the rules are not applicable when inside of the same corporation? There is a quite easy way. If you recruit someone who is new to the game and does not have a clue about game mechanics you teach them about the possible consequences of joining a corp. Any good rookie friendly corp should take some time to teach them things anyway, but that would mean that you would actually have to be interested in teaching new players things about the game and do not want them just to increase the number of pilots in your corp or want to get their tax money. A rookie friendly corp living up to it-¦s description of course is something one can not expect. @Mike Sure PvE is an element of the game and I will never claim that is not an important one either. But some people should learn to accept that in EvE there is no clear line drawn, between doing my PvE stuff and engaging in PvP. PvP can happen allways and anywhere in some form or another and people should either accept that or look for a game where they actually are safe from PvP and stop asking for more and more changes, which turns the game into a different game. This one change does not change anything on a large scale. It is the general direction ccp has taken the game over the last years to appeal to a broader mass which worries people who play Eve and have been sticking for it for so many years. If changes in the direction to make high sec a safer place would be the thing to do to get more subscribers the sub numbers over the past few years should have skyrocketed, but they did not. I am totally not against new players and making live easier for them, but I would rather prefer better education for new players than nerfing mechanics.
Ralph King-Griffin Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 6328	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:11:01 - [570] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: NPC tax @ 35% + no LP gain in any form + npc taxes applies to the market? Result - everyone operating in one man corps and even LESS social interaction. This is good for the game how exactly? based on what veers, your word? "I'm also quite confident that you are laughing and it's the kind of laugh that gives normal people shivers." =]I[=

Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 400	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:11:57 - [571] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Bob Bedala wrote: CODE kill botfleets too. Rarely if ever. La Nariz wrote: This is highsec pubbie levels of tinfoil man what the hell have you been smoking? How so? Because I don't lap up CODE propaganda when they say "we're anti-botter, honest!". Their actions speak for themselves. They attack players who clearly aren't botting, soaking up the tears, while they ignore botters leaving them to chomp on through all of the rocks. If you take a step back and really look at it, you'll see that the effect they have is the exact opposite of their claimed objective. Whether or not that is by design or through enormous oversight is up to you to decide. You accuse the one group of player with the mission to extinguish bots and bot like behaviour of botting? You must really run out of arguments if you even had some to begin with it seams. Botting is against the EULA and will therefore be reported to CCP by us if we suspect the player to use a bot. If there is a way how I can harm the bot (ISK wise, ingame) without assembling a fleet of friends (that would just be silly as he will get banned anyway) I will go to great lengths to do so as I regard bots as one of the most game destroying entities around. What are you doing against botting? Do you even care about this game? the Code ALWAYS wins
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 220	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:12:30 - [572] - Quote Brochan McLeod wrote: So? .... the FAQ is out of date... right? No, all it means is that because you are making money while doing PvE that it is also a form of PvP. So all the "carebears" you laugh at are actually PvP players.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21333	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:13:23 - [573] - Quote Brochan McLeod wrote: So? .... the FAQ is out of date... right? The FAQ which is stickied in the New Citizens Q&A forum and was published in January of this year is out of date? Somebody should inform CCP of that and get them to remedy it "Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 220	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:14:11 - [574] - Quote Ralph King-Griffin wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: NPC tax @ 35% + no LP gain in any form + npc taxes applies to the market? Result - everyone operating in one man corps and even LESS social interaction. This is good for the game how exactly? based on what veers, your word? Based on the CSM minutes and on rational behavior. As CCP put it, the rational thing to do right now is to stay in NPC corps, and the players are doing it. Nerfing NPC corps would just exacerbate the already increasing movement to one man tax evasion corps. Again - there is no way to force people to willingly engage in combat if they don't want to. You need to offer carrots, not sticks.
Brochan McLeod Frigateer 70	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:14:45 - [575] - Quote KnowUsByTheDead wrote: Brochan McLeod wrote: Tears... flowing the other way... how strange and beautiful mother nature can be. Still don't like em tho... too salty.. not sweet at all. Right..... Tears. How about coherent thoughts when you respond to me. Fact remains, I have created more content then you will ever dream, child, with more positive outcomes, than bad.....using these mechanics. What have you done? And if I am crying so hard.....why am I still here? I would assume "Stockholm Syndrome," right? Or "Sunken Cost Fallacy?" Those are the typical carebear responses. Lmao, I am a tear harvester by nature. And even if this does transpire, I know that I will still go out creating content, even if it leads to me being banned. Because I actually believe in the so-called "core principles" of EVE, that the devs and community managers throw around carelessly. And the reality is.... Even if I do leave EVE Online.... I get the last laugh. Because I have literally played for years damn near exclusively out of the pockets of other players. And played it in just about every way short of flying a super or running an alliance. Lmfao. vOv It's pixels, dude. Yes you are awesome. ... and its still tears flowing upstream ... Even the nicest person's patience has a limit!
Revis Owen 52	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:16:15 - [576] - Quote Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: Maybe those who don't belong in EVE are those who whine about losing impunity... An awoxer has impunity? The target corp can target and kill the awoxer just as freely. By what twisted logic do awoxers currently have "impunity"? Any corp that can't defend itself against one pilot isn't a corp worth existing . . . in EvE. EvE should be harsh. Keep it that way. Agent of the New Order http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html If you do not have a current Highsec Operations Permit, please contact me for issuance.
Mike Azariah DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited 1787	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:16:58 - [577] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: "This is because EVE Online is essentially a PvP (Player versus Player) game at its core" [quote] If the other pilot had no right to attack you then CONCORD will track him down and punish him for his crimes, so long as the attack took place in high security space. from the line following so we are both right, eh? m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8860	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:19:10 - [578] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: "This is because EVE Online is essentially a PvP (Player versus Player) game at its core" [quote] If the other pilot had no right to attack you then CONCORD will track him down and punish him for his crimes, so long as the attack took place in high security space. from the line following so we are both right, eh? m No. guns don't magically stop working in high sec, X Rebirth is a PVE game, EVE is a PVP (and not just the shooting kind, station traders pvp for example) game with supporting pve elements.
Mag's the united 18115	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:20:20 - [579] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: "This is because EVE Online is essentially a PvP (Player versus Player) game at its core" [quote] If the other pilot had no right to attack you then CONCORD will track him down and punish him for his crimes, so long as the attack took place in high security space. from the line following so we are both right, eh? m Name 3 things, that are not PvP in Eve. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Brochan McLeod Frigateer 70	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:21:54 - [580] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Brochan McLeod wrote: So? .... the FAQ is out of date... right? No, all it means is that because you are making money while doing PvE that it is also a form of PvP. So all the "carebears" you laugh at are actually PvP players. Uh oh!.... so now they wanna kill me? They looked so.... peaceful... Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Brochan McLeod wrote: So? .... the FAQ is out of date... right? The FAQ which is stickied in the New Citizens Q&A forum and was published in January of this year is out of date? Somebody should inform CCP of that and get them to remedy it I just called em... they will take care of it soon. Even the nicest person's patience has a limit!

Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1351	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:22:43 - [581] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: NPC tax @ 35% + no LP gain in any form + npc taxes applies to the market? Result - everyone operating in one man corps and even LESS social interaction. This is good for the game how exactly? Of course that's the result and it's probably even worse than the actual system but I never said it was a good proposition either.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 221	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:23:33 - [582] - Quote Mag's wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: "This is because EVE Online is essentially a PvP (Player versus Player) game at its core" [quote] If the other pilot had no right to attack you then CONCORD will track him down and punish him for his crimes, so long as the attack took place in high security space. from the line following so we are both right, eh? m Name 3 things, that are not PvP in Eve. Skill Training PvE mission running if you dont spend the isk Mining in a plentiful area if you just use the minerals to manufacture your own ships off the market.
Princess Scarlett Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:24:33 - [583] - Quote Save one person from AWOX - save the world Oscar Schindler
KnowUsByTheDead Sunlight...Through The Blight. 2135	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:25:37 - [584] - Quote Brochan McLeod wrote: Yes you are awesome. ... and its still tears flowing upstream ... Ready to explain? Because I will continue letting you attempt to bait me, lmfao. It won't end badly for me. At least I am staying on topic. Once you realize what a joke everything is, being the comedian is the only thing that makes sense.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21336	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:25:40 - [585] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: "This is because EVE Online is essentially a PvP (Player versus Player) game at its core" [quote] If the other pilot had no right to attack you then CONCORD will track him down and punish him for his crimes, so long as the attack took place in high security space. from the line following so we are both right, eh? m Nope, getting Concordokken is a consequence of initiating PvP in a specific area of space, under specific conditions; PvP still happened. "Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Mike Azariah DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited 1787	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:25:58 - [586] - Quote Quote: Name 3 things, that are not PvP in Eve. Mags Depends on your definition of PvP. as a MMO I am always in competition with other folks but if I mine my own stuff and then use it to build my own ship so I can run missions quietly in a small out of the way system my level of PvP is low, very low. Only interaction with outsiders was buying the bpo's. I do miss drone poo as it allowed me to be very independent when I was that way inclined. If you define PvP as shooting the other guy there are TONS ofg non PvP things to do. If your definition is broad enough to encompass them then this minor change does not really shift much of the PvP that takes place in hisec every damn day. which is it? m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
Dersen Lowery Drinking in Station 1252	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:26:27 - [587] - Quote Mag's wrote: Name 3 things, that are not PvP in Eve. This is where I interject that the term "PvP" is general enough in a game like EVE to be essentially meaningless. Essentially, EVE is about players interacting with other players. That includes, but is not limited to, what is conventionally considered "PvP." There are enough different forms that appeal to enough different people that it's worthless to lump them all together. If EVE is a PvP game, where do I get my 8v8 balanced team PvP? Nowhere, because that's not how EVE works, and EVE is simply never going to appeal to people who want sports-style PvP. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
Mag's the united 18115	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:26:51 - [588] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Mag's wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: "This is because EVE Online is essentially a PvP (Player versus Player) game at its core" [quote] If the other pilot had no right to attack you then CONCORD will track him down and punish him for his crimes, so long as the attack took place in high security space. from the line following so we are both right, eh? m Name 3 things, that are not PvP in Eve. Skill Training PvE mission running if you dont spend the isk Mining in a plentiful area if you just use the minerals to manufacture your own ships off the market. The funny thing is, you believe all that. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 1525	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:28:21 - [589] - Quote Doc Fury wrote: ... The FUD and tears are delicious however, please keep them coming... "The only thing necessary for the triumph of (nerfs) is for good men to do nothing.." - Edmund Burke The paradox being content creators and asshats in EvE are actually the good guys protecting the sandbox, while carebear CSM's (and court-jester trolltards like yourself) empower the slow creep of nerfdom evil done in the name of 'player retention' (or 'social justice' in the real world...). F Would you like to know more?
Mag's the united 18115	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:28:32 - [590] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Quote: Name 3 things, that are not PvP in Eve. Mags Depends on your definition of PvP. as a MMO I am always in competition with other folks but if I mine my own stuff and then use it to build my own ship so I can run missions quietly in a small out of the way system my level of PvP is low, very low. Only interaction with outsiders was buying the bpo's. I do miss drone poo as it allowed me to be very independent when I was that way inclined. If you define PvP as shooting the other guy there are TONS ofg non PvP things to do. If your definition is broad enough to encompass them then this minor change does not really shift much of the PvP that takes place in hisec every damn day. which is it? m I define PvP as it is. Player versus Player. So I am waiting. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21336	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:28:48 - [591] - Quote Mag's wrote: The funny thing is, you believe all that. :Veers: "Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Revis Owen 53	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:28:58 - [592] - Quote The type of player that quits or doesn't subscribe to EvE due to the possibility of getting killed by a corpmate is the type that will quit 3 months later due to boredom from their own risk-averse play style. Agent of the New Order http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html If you do not have a current Highsec Operations Permit, please contact me for issuance.
Marsha Mallow 1652	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:29:08 - [593] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: I checked The Games Website and, oddly, I do not see them saying that Eve is a Purely PvP game. Now I will readily admit that it is a game with PvP in it if you will do the same in respect to PvE, because that is also part of the game. Missions, mining, exploration, are things you can do where you compete (maybe) but don't have to shoot some other player. This is a really irritating line of argument that keeps popping up. How the hell is anyone playing in a sandbox with a player driven market NOT engaged in PvP, all the time, everywhere. You don't need to shoot another player to compete with them for resources, to have an impact on the economy, or to engage in the metagame. Look at Dinsdale and Gevlon. FFS I can't believe I just had to state that to a CSM. Thank gawd I forgot to vote this year, you were on my list. Mike Azariah wrote: So where do all the people whose main argument against this change find the ground to stand on . . . that by shifting a rule that made little sense (It is OK to go Postal if you are in a post office and work there) we are somehow moving away from what the game IS. It is like they are the apostles of a religion within the game but I cannot seem to find their holy book or church. Why bring religious rhetoric into it, other than to derail the topic? We're not fanatics, and the implication is an unnecessary insult. The topic polarises opinion but that doesn't mean the participants can't take on board the arguments other people present. Don't pat us on the head on the one hand for the quality of the discussion then be so condescending towards those whose viewpoint diverges from yours. Non consensual combat makes little sense to a certain portion of the playerbase, as does allowing scams. To a lot of people (particularly those who have been playing 5 years or more) removing highsec awoxing - with whatever justification - is simply not a small change. It matters to us and it has wider implications if it's part of a trend to pacify people for the purposes of sub retention at the expense of player driven content. It's not just us who are concerned about what the game IS, CCP reiterate it from time totime, because it's an important thing to protect - and it's been under almost continuous attack since launch. Mike Azariah[/quote wrote: I still haven't seen an argument that convinces me to go back to CCP and demand that they 'tear down this wall' We don't need to convince you, and I'm not sure they listen to CSM demands any more than they do us. We can shout over here at CCP just fine. DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2954	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:30:14 - [594] - Quote Mag's wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: "This is because EVE Online is essentially a PvP (Player versus Player) game at its core" [quote] If the other pilot had no right to attack you then CONCORD will track him down and punish him for his crimes, so long as the attack took place in high security space. from the line following so we are both right, eh? m Name 3 things, that are not PvP in Eve. Captains quarter and we all know how well that expansion went. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Prince Kobol 2350	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:30:36 - [595] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Quote: Name 3 things, that are not PvP in Eve. Mags Depends on your definition of PvP. as a MMO I am always in competition with other folks but if I mine my own stuff and then use it to build my own ship so I can run missions quietly in a small out of the way system my level of PvP is low, very low. Only interaction with outsiders was buying the bpo's. I do miss drone poo as it allowed me to be very independent when I was that way inclined. If you define PvP as shooting the other guy there are TONS ofg non PvP things to do. If your definition is broad enough to encompass them then this minor change does not really shift much of the PvP that takes place in hisec every damn day. which is it? m Erm.. both are, thats the point isn't it.. that all activities are forms of PvP
Darth Schweinebacke Caldari Provisions Caldari State 12	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:31:39 - [596] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Skill Training PvE mission running if you dont spend the isk Mining in a plentiful area if you just use the minerals to manufacture your own ships off the market. If you are mining you are competing with other players for ressources no matter if you do it intentionally or not. If you run missions you either did build your ship with ressources you mined yourself, or you did spend ISK for it. If you loot / salvage anything you are competing with others on the market. (Show me just 1 missionrunner who never bought anything from the market and just started out running missions in a rookie ship, never sold anything, only reprocessed loot to build everything he needs. Got all the materials for T2 / faction equipment on his own -> which again is impossible to do without competing with other players).
Indahmawar Fazmarai 3166	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:32:17 - [597] - Quote Revis Owen wrote: Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: Maybe those who don't belong in EVE are those who whine about losing impunity... An awoxer has impunity? The target corp can target and kill the awoxer just as freely. By what twisted logic do awoxers currently have "impunity"? Any corp that can't defend itself against one pilot isn't a corp worth existing . . . in EvE. EvE should be harsh. Keep it that way. impunity: exemption or freedom from punishment, harm, or loss Not being attacked by CONCORD is a case of impunity. And this thread is full of whiners who don't want it to go. The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! Ingame chat channel: The Greater Fool Bar
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1351	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:32:46 - [598] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: "This is because EVE Online is essentially a PvP (Player versus Player) game at its core" [quote] If the other pilot had no right to attack you then CONCORD will track him down and punish him for his crimes, so long as the attack took place in high security space. from the line following so we are both right, eh? m No. guns don't magically stop working in high sec, X Rebirth is a PVE game, EVE is a PVP (and not just the shooting kind, station traders pvp for example) game with supporting pve elements. I'm pretty sure he didn't say the gun would have to turn off but was pointing at the fact there were no kill rights or war declaration but somehow in corp violence didn't trigger CONCORD's reaction. For someone who has been playing for a while, it makes sense because we mostly know the rules, for others, it does not because they were never told. That is the issue CCP has with it. If your corp does not teach you player on player combat can happen inside the corp without concord intervention, there isn't all that much way to find out inside the game.
Doc Fury Furious Enterprises 6997	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:33:32 - [599] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Doc Fury wrote: ... The FUD and tears are delicious however, please keep them coming... "The only thing necessary for the triumph of (nerfs) is for good men to do nothing.." - Edmund Burke The paradox being content creators and asshats in EvE are actually the good guys protecting the sandbox, while carebear CSM's (and court-jester trolltards like yourself) empower the slow creep of nerfdom evil done in the name of 'player retention' (or 'social justice' in the real world...). F Concern trolling detected. Gÿ+ The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the ho's and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' and I'll look down, and whisper 'Hodor'.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4373	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:34:17 - [600] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: So now we have to have something personally at stake to comment on something. I've come to expect such irrational double standards from you. You don't live in high sec and are not a new player (I at least live in high sec) so why are you in this discussion then? Because obviously it doesn't affect you either, right? Well it seems that according to you I need proof of everything, and am not allowed to use personal experience or have opinions on anything, yet you seem to be able to whine endlessly about changes which you are claiming will not affect you in the slightest yet somehow will destroy the essence of EVE. Jenn aSide wrote: Ain;'t that sweet, Lucas Kell thinks people who would have quit EVE if it allowed the awoxing that's been possible for 11 years will engage in 'conflict' later on lol. Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you really not understand? Types of players who want to join in but are currently refused access to corporations because awoxing is possible, currently join the ranks of the solo highsec bear and for the most part quit. If awoxing were not, those same players would be engaging with others and may go on to play for a long time. Long terms players tend to be more capable and motivated to join in conflicts. In all seriousness, if you aren't going to bring anything reasonable to the table and are going to continue acting like a spoiled little brat who's being told he has to share his sandpit, then I'm done with you. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!

Black Pedro Yammerschooner 125	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:34:58 - [601] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: I checked The Games Website and, oddly, I do not see them saying that Eve is a Purely PvP game. Now I will readily admit that it is a game with PvP in it if you will do the same in respect to PvE, because that is also part of the game. Missions, mining, exploration, are things you can do where you compete (maybe) but don't have to shoot some other player. So where do all the people whose main argument against this change find the ground to stand on . . . that by shifting a rule that made little sense (It is OK to go Postal if you are in a post office and work there) we are somehow moving away from what the game IS. It is like they are the apostles of a religion within the game but I cannot seem to find their holy book or church. Articles with comments from the designers like this New York Times one, or statements from the Eve site that this game a competitive sandbox in which "[my] actions in the Sandbox can lead to the destruction of starships" make it quite clear what type of game this is at least marketed as. A sandbox is a sandbox is a sandbox. This continual nerfing of risk and buffing of rewards will eventually cause everything to come tumbling down.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21340	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:35:52 - [602] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: If your corp does not teach you player on player combat can happen inside the corp without concord intervention, there isn't all that much way to find out inside the game. Unfortunately this is the norm, shite corps run by incompetents who take no steps to protect their corp assets, or teach their corp members how to protect themselves. "Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar Nil mortifi sine lucre.
KnowUsByTheDead Sunlight...Through The Blight. 2135	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:39:48 - [603] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: If your corp does not teach you player on player combat can happen inside the corp without concord intervention, there isn't all that much way to find out inside the game. Unfortunately this is the norm, shite corps run by incompetents who take no steps to protect their corp assets, or teach their corp members how to protect themselves. Ironically, one of the reasons I chose this play style, straight out of the gate. Because while I may end up being the "bad guy," I have taught a valuable lesson, not easily forgotten by incompetent corp leaders, or their line members. Yep, such a horrible, horrible thing to do. Once you realize what a joke everything is, being the comedian is the only thing that makes sense.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4378	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:39:51 - [604] - Quote La Nariz wrote: Then why are you spewing dinsdale-esque crap? Their method did not do as they intended so it's a failed method that's all it means. It is the most return for the :effort: spent, how much more difficult is it to gank a retriever versus a procurer? So they are using an inefficiently optimized method to remove botters, what a surprise people have been using terribly optimized stuff forever, yet that does not mean they support something. I'm not, I'm simply stating that their actions help support botters. Whether or not that's their goal behind the scenes is their business. As usual though a CODE player jumped in to scream about how I was misrepresenting them and how they are the saviors of highsec. What they post is propaganda regardless since it doesn't reflect what they are actually accomplishing. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4378	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:44:17 - [605] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: You accuse the one group of player with the mission to extinguish bots and bot like behaviour of botting? You must really run out of arguments if you even had some to begin with it seams. Botting is against the EULA and will therefore be reported to CCP by us if we suspect the player to use a bot. If there is a way how I can harm the bot (ISK wise, ingame) without assembling a fleet of friends (that would just be silly as he will get banned anyway) I will go to great lengths to do so as I regard bots as one of the most game destroying entities around. What are you doing against botting? Do you even care about this game? No, I didn't accuse anyone of botting. I simply stated that you groups actions, regardless of whether it is through choice or bad organisation, has the effect of helping botters. If you consider bots to be game breaking, why do you choose to attack targets that are clearly not bots, and who are in fact competition to actual bot players? Why thing out the competition allowing bots more profit? If you were really against bots, you would help solo and small group miners in competing against botters and be as disruptive as possible to the mass mining bot fleets. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Darth Schweinebacke Caldari Provisions Caldari State 12	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:45:50 - [606] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: La Nariz wrote: Then why are you spewing dinsdale-esque crap? Their method did not do as they intended so it's a failed method that's all it means. It is the most return for the :effort: spent, how much more difficult is it to gank a retriever versus a procurer? So they are using an inefficiently optimized method to remove botters, what a surprise people have been using terribly optimized stuff forever, yet that does not mean they support something. I'm not, I'm simply stating that their actions help support botters. Whether or not that's their goal behind the scenes is their business. As usual though a CODE player jumped in to scream about how I was misrepresenting them and how they are the saviors of highsec. What they post is propaganda regardless since it doesn't reflect what they are actually accomplishing. So... I have a couple of mining chars too and when I actually feel like some relaxed mining I mine with procs / skiffs. By your definition that would make me a botter then.
Brochan McLeod Frigateer 70	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:46:15 - [607] - Quote Marsha Mallow wrote: We're not fanatics.... Don't make me laugh... that's exactly what most people on these forums are... fanatics and zealots. I also sense a dash of hysterics every now and then... X-years ago some dungus found a loophole and it got turned into a feature. Now its going cos its contributing to beginning players leaving and tha's costing real money. What is there to understand? Plenty of room for both playstyles i should say. You people need to get over yourselves... seriously Even the nicest person's patience has a limit!
Josef Djugashvilis 2639	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:47:40 - [608] - Quote La Nariz wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: I checked The Games Website and, oddly, I do not see them saying that Eve is a Purely PvP game. Now I will readily admit that it is a game with PvP in it if you will do the same in respect to PvE, because that is also part of the game. Missions, mining, exploration, are things you can do where you compete (maybe) but don't have to shoot some other player. So where do all the people whose main argument against this change find the ground to stand on . . . that by shifting a rule that made little sense (It is OK to go Postal if you are in a post office and work there) we are somehow moving away from what the game IS. It is like they are the apostles of a religion within the game but I cannot seem to find their holy book or church. So to some of the points 1) Yes, a well made and good practices corp could slow or catch most awoxers (though not all) and in that respect the game has been made (shudder) easier b) Yes, free for alls will be harder to run since shooting each other will bring the wrath of concord down on you (pity there is no part of space where this is not true. iii) I still haven't seen an argument that convinces me to go back to CCP and demand that they 'tear down this wall' Five) but I do appreciate the level of discourse, here, over some of the other threads I monitor m Now go tackle the topic of highsec reward being too high. Show 'em your science, La Nariz, show 'em your science which scientifically proves that hi-sec rewards are too high This is not a signature.
Ama Scelesta 78	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:48:05 - [609] - Quote Marsha Mallow wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: I checked The Games Website and, oddly, I do not see them saying that Eve is a Purely PvP game. Now I will readily admit that it is a game with PvP in it if you will do the same in respect to PvE, because that is also part of the game. Missions, mining, exploration, are things you can do where you compete (maybe) but don't have to shoot some other player. This is a really irritating line of argument that keeps popping up. How the hell is anyone playing in a sandbox with a player driven market NOT engaged in PvP, all the time, everywhere. You don't need to shoot another player to compete with them for resources, to have an impact on the economy, or to engage in the metagame. Look at Dinsdale and Gevlon. FFS I can't believe I just had to state that to a CSM. Thank gawd I forgot to vote this year, you were on my list. It keeps popping up because people in general don't want to talk about the actual issue and instead want to play games with the defintion of PvP. Generally it is presented as a retort when someone tries to define everything in the game as PvP. Usually just to beat down on a person talking about players interested mainly in PvE activities and not interested in direct PvP activities. Defined so broadly it becomes a meaningless concept and stops being useful. More importantly it isn't used to further the conversation. It's used to belittle the point of the opposition and the want of players who don't share their views on an issue. Doing so is a **** weasel thing to do, since it brushed aside the viewpoint of the other person and tries to paint it as irrelevant by just bloating the definition instead of talking to the other person like a human being. If you don't want to see it, try understanding what the person is talking about and counter his points instead of playing word games.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1351	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:54:27 - [610] - Quote KnowUsByTheDead wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: If your corp does not teach you player on player combat can happen inside the corp without concord intervention, there isn't all that much way to find out inside the game. Unfortunately this is the norm, shite corps run by incompetents who take no steps to protect their corp assets, or teach their corp members how to protect themselves. Ironically, one of the reasons I chose this play style, straight out of the gate. Because while I may end up being the "bad guy," I have taught a valuable lesson, not easily forgotten by incompetent corp leaders, or their line members. Yep, such a horrible, horrible thing to do. How many people did you catch in the crossfire while teaching idiot corp CEO how bad they were? CCP probably care about those too. The CEO deserve to be slapped like you do for being worse than useless since he is likely to prevent legit newbie from learning what the game is about and how it really works. The guy who waded in the corp recruitment system had to throw a dart while blindfolded and struck a 1. It'es really close to a 20 but it's still a damn 1. He is literally an inch away from a triple 20 but still a 1. He now has to realize his throw was bad and he should throw again but the player contact eh has is with someone "teaching" him bad stuff and then he got wrecked by a safari runner. Who's the guy at fault? The safari runner? Of course not. He's playing EVE. The guy at fault is the stupid corp leader beaing as bad as he can be. Who's got his fun? The safari runner. Good for him. Who paid for it? The corp CEO and the newbie. Poor newbie already paying for someone else bad behavior. Not the safari runner. He never did something against the rules. The newbie pays for the **** quality of his CEO which he could not detect because he didn't know about anything in the game. This guy is the one CCP seem to think they lose too often. ** that corp CEO for being that bad but he probably lost less in proportion of what he had in game than the newbie who didn't really do anything wrong except his blind throw...

Ralph King-Griffin Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 6331	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:54:44 - [611] - Quote Brochan McLeod wrote: Marsha Mallow wrote: We're not fanatics.... Don't make me laugh... that's exactly what most people on these forums are... fanatics and zealots. I also sense a dash of hysterics every now and then... X-years ago some dungus found a loophole and it got turned into a feature. Now its going cos its contributing to beginning players leaving and tha's costing real money. What is there to understand? Plenty of room for both playstyles i should say. You people need to get over yourselves... seriously X-years ago the devs called it emergent game-play, this is how we got the mwd-cloak trick. "I'm also quite confident that you are laughing and it's the kind of laugh that gives normal people shivers." =]I[=
Some Rando University of Caille Gallente Federation 1227	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:55:34 - [612] - Quote I can't help but think that this isn't going to have the effect CCP wants it to. There still isn't any incentive (for the die-hard carebear) to leave NPC corps or to join multi-player corps. This change isn't going to engender any real trust and doesn't address the problem of **** corps taking advantage of people. It's going to involve a whole bunch of strange flags and dueling exceptions to allow certain corps to operate as they always have (RvB, haulers, etc...) which could end up with actionable "social exploits" that will leave us in the exact same situation we have right now. I'd love to see what else they have in mind to address the problem of NPR because, on its own, this isn't going to do anything to get people "out there". CCP has no sense of humour.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 34	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:56:13 - [613] - Quote I think its funny that the definition of pvp being thrown around is as long as there is one other person in Eve....you are somehow competing with them and its pvp. Why stop at that...why not call it pvp if there is someone in another game. Hell, there is someone on the planet somewhere...they are breathing...it must be pvp...we are competing for the same air. This has become so deliciously funny. Omg....I hit launch button....someone somewhere on the planet is gonna hit launch before me...omg the pvp....they are going to win. I think its funny that basically they are saying they don't want to lose their ship during pvp...in a pvp game.
Some Rando University of Caille Gallente Federation 1227	Posted - 2014.10.31 17:57:56 - [614] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: I think its funny that the definition of pvp being thrown around is as long as there is one other person in Eve....you are somehow competing with them and its pvp. Why stop at that...why not call it pvp if there is someone in another game. Hell, there is someone on the planet somewhere...they are breathing...it must be pvp...we are competing for the same air. Elite poasting~ CCP has no sense of humour.
Marsha Mallow 1653	Posted - 2014.10.31 18:01:16 - [615] - Quote Brochan McLeod wrote: Don't make me laugh... that's exactly what most people on these forums are... fanatics and zealots. It's known as General Drama for a reason There's no need to keep portraying playstyles as PvE vs PvE with no interraction between them. Unless they sell Plexes, most hardcore murderers do dabble in other aspects of the game. They aren't the ones trying to ringfence a particular playstyle from interference by others though, are they? Ama Scelesta wrote: Outraged peasant gibbering To be fair Ama, if I wanted to insult PVE players I'd just call them scrubs. Or maybe squealers. There's no point subtly insulting someone too dim to detect it, may as well be direct. You can call us filthy scum if you like, I don't mind. Syn Shi wrote: I think its funny that the definition of pvp being thrown around is as long as there is one other person in Eve....you are somehow competing with them and its pvp. Erm, what exactly do you think the "p" stands for? DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
Brochan McLeod Frigateer 70	Posted - 2014.10.31 18:02:55 - [616] - Quote Ralph King-Griffin wrote: Brochan McLeod wrote: Marsha Mallow wrote: We're not fanatics.... Don't make me laugh... that's exactly what most people on these forums are... fanatics and zealots. I also sense a dash of hysterics every now and then... X-years ago some dungus found a loophole and it got turned into a feature. Now its going cos its contributing to beginning players leaving and tha's costing real money. What is there to understand? Plenty of room for both playstyles i should say. You people need to get over yourselves... seriously X-years ago the devs called it emergent game-play, this is how we got the mwd-cloak trick. Yes and now its almost history. Just as everything else in the world gets old and vanishes. Someone will come up with another trick right? And if not... who cares? All the drama... ffs. BTW... Hi Ralph! Even the nicest person's patience has a limit!
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8861	Posted - 2014.10.31 18:04:14 - [617] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Well it seems that according to you I need proof of everything, and am not allowed to use personal experience or have opinions on anything, yet you seem to be able to whine endlessly about changes which you are claiming will not affect you in the slightest yet somehow will destroy the essence of EVE. Quote: Not destroy, "lessen" is a better word. "unnecessarily lessen" is better still. The principle here is that CCP should NEVER implement game mechanics that do for a player what a player should do for himself.. Players can currently safeguard themselves from awoxxing in high sec via inclusion of a single module (ECM, or even easier, ecm drones), or by having some clue about who they are flying with. Truth is you've lost it (and you know it0. YOU are the one who said that I should shut about it since it doesn't concern me. I simply pointed out your hypocrisy as it doesn't concern you either (by your own logic, you are not a new player and you apparently don't even live in high sec). Explain why you get to talk about something that doesn't involve you but you think I shouldn't? Go ahead, this will be fun to hear lol. You are making assertions from opinions that you didn't use (or need) evidence to form (in this case, the idea that the barriers to entry were LOWER when we started, which is an outright lie given that CCP is on the record saying they are lowering the barriers). What you are doing is displaying an irresponsible way of thinking...and then getting mad at me for pointing out your error. Quote: Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you really not understand? Types of players who want to join in but are currently refused access to corporations because awoxing is possible, currently join the ranks of the solo highsec bear and for the most part quit. If awoxing were not, those same players would be engaging with others and may go on to play for a long time. Long terms players tend to be more capable and motivated to join in conflicts. So you're saying that people play solo because player corps won't let them in? That is pure nonsense. People who want to group up eventually do, people who are solo tend to be the solo mentality types. You're again blaming an external cause (awoxxing) for behavior when most human social behavior has an internal origin. and that's insane. [quote] In all seriousness, if you aren't going to bring anything reasonable to the table and are going to continue acting like a spoiled little brat who's being told he has to share his sandpit, then I'm done with you. Good, feel free to stop posting, because the crap you're posting is less than useless, it's useless and incoherent..
Ssoraszh Tzarszh Eschelon Directive Universal Consortium 68	Posted - 2014.10.31 18:04:17 - [618] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: I checked The Games Website and, oddly, I do not see them saying that Eve is a Purely PvP game. Now I will readily admit that it is a game with PvP in it if you will do the same in respect to PvE, because that is also part of the game. Missions, mining, exploration, are things you can do where you compete (maybe) but don't have to shoot some other player. So where do all the people whose main argument against this change find the ground to stand on . . . that by shifting a rule that made little sense (It is OK to go Postal if you are in a post office and work there) we are somehow moving away from what the game IS. It is like they are the apostles of a religion within the game but I cannot seem to find their holy book or church. Articles with comments from the designers like this New York Times one, or statements from the Eve site that this game a competitive sandbox in which "[my] actions in the Sandbox can lead to the destruction of starships" make it quite clear what type of game this is at least marketed as. A sandbox is a sandbox is a sandbox. This continual nerfing of risk and buffing of rewards will eventually cause everything to come tumbling down. Every sandbox has walls to contain the sand, even the Sahara ends somewhere. And in this case CCP sees a need to contain the 5 year old's hitting each other with a tiny shovel to allow a few more toddlers in the sandbox. More people, less alts is a good thing and if this helps even a small bit to retain new players and actually _understand_ what this game is fundamantaly about and what it has to offer you just might see that person not hiding in High Sec anymore and joining us in w-space, Lowsec or even Nullbore. I have seen people who were dropping corp every wardec, and it took some mentoring to get them to hang around the next time it happened, but when you can make that difference that is an impact on the game. Even if only you and the little pack of newbies knows about it. Throwing sandbox around like everyone needs to play only one way is sadly not what sandbox means, Eve is not only a hard and cold awox scam but it is also the great experience with your buddies achieving something against all odds. This has for me created friendships for the last ten years with people i have never met in real life and would never have met if we did not have some common grounds. If you are upset you now have one less option to grief people, try and learn the game better. There are plenty mechanics left to grief and gank to your hearts content you only need to dig a little deeper in the sand to see them. So in stead of just awoxing some newbie or that once in two years purple raven (was also a newbie with plex btw) you can try and mentoring them to broaden their horizons give them some fire in their belly in stead of their face. Who knows, it might just get better results and help CCP to subs and yourself to some more targets(who actually would shoot back this time). Longterm vs short term thinking just killing noobs and laughing at them is not a very good strategy as people have pointed out.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 34	Posted - 2014.10.31 18:05:28 - [619] - Quote Oh ya...and then there is the I create more content...yada yada. If that was true you look at the change and think...lets gain their trust and convince them to take a nice blingy ship out to low for some level 5s. Not known to the mark, you have your real corp mates sitting ready to attack. They even attack you i the process. And somehow.....the mark dies and you magically get away and survive. Does the mark realize that you set him up, and may be able to do it again before someone catches on. Not only have you created content for you and the mark, now you have included even more people. But I know this will fall on deaf ears.....you heard it here folks. Awoxxing is going to disappear because the ones doing it are making a choice to stop.
KnowUsByTheDead Sunlight...Through The Blight. 2135	Posted - 2014.10.31 18:05:39 - [620] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: How many people did you catch in the crossfire while teaching idiot corp CEO how bad they were? CCP probably care about those too. The CEO deserve to be slapped like you do for being worse than useless since he is likely to prevent legit newbie from learning what the game is about and how it really works. The guy who waded in the corp recruitment system had to throw a dart while blindfolded and struck a 1. It'es really close to a 20 but it's still a damn 1. He is literally an inch away from a triple 20 but still a 1. He now has to realize his throw was bad and he should throw again but the player contact eh has is with someone "teaching" him bad stuff and then he got wrecked by a safari runner. Who's the guy at fault? The safari runner? Of course not. He's playing EVE. The guy at fault is the stupid corp leader beaing as bad as he can be. Who's got his fun? The safari runner. Good for him. Who paid for it? The corp CEO and the newbie. Poor newbie already paying for someone else bad behavior. Not the safari runner. He never did something against the rules. The newbie pays for the **** quality of his CEO which he could not detect because he didn't know about anything in the game. This guy is the one CCP seem to think they lose too often. that corp CEO for being that bad but he probably lost less in proportion of what he had in game than the newbie who didn't really do anything wrong except his blind throw... Sure, I get my fun because I am playing EVE. But at the same time, do not discount the players I have helped in return for my "fun" and how many players have sought my advice, directly at the expense of my "fun." Or how I tend to keep a shoestring budget, even when I was flush, instead providing isk and advice to newbies in newbie systems. In fact, on this character's killboard, there is a Navy Slicer I had killed, quite frankly, accidentally......while in a corp I was spending time learning player movements prior to my "safari." He was a young character that asked me to let him "test his fit." I had forgotten to group my launchers, and left a single missile launcher running on my Griffin. And I gave him back that isk, immediately. In fact, some of my peers in the HS piracy community have called me "soft" because I would rather show a newbie..... Hard Lesson > Advice > Financial Assist...... Rather than....... Hard Lesson > Laugh > "Too bad, that's EVE." Please don't pretend to know how I play, unless you have doxxed me, read all of my logs, and actually know how I play. Thanks. Once you realize what a joke everything is, being the comedian is the only thing that makes sense.**

Revis Owen 53	Posted - 2014.10.31 18:08:55 - [621] - Quote Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: impunity: exemption or freedom from punishment, harm, or loss Not being attacked by CONCORD is a case of impunity. You are missing a key part of the definition: the word "complete". Impunity is complete freedom from sanctions. "Not being attacked by CONCORD" is a case of that particular sanction not applying. But there are a full range of other sanctions against the awoxer that are on the table: 1)Can be freely attacked by the rest of the corp. 2)Can be freely attacked by other corps friendly to the target corp wardeccing the corp but only targeting the awoxer. 3)Can be freely attacked by mercs having a specific contract to wardec the corp but only target the awoxer. 4)Can have bounty placed or added to incentivize 3rd party gankers. 5)Etc. Use the tools CCP has already provided us. Stop whining for CCP hand-holding and coddling. Agent of the New Order http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html If you do not have a current Highsec Operations Permit, please contact me for issuance.
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2960	Posted - 2014.10.31 18:14:42 - [622] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: La Nariz wrote: Then why are you spewing dinsdale-esque crap? Their method did not do as they intended so it's a failed method that's all it means. It is the most return for the :effort: spent, how much more difficult is it to gank a retriever versus a procurer? So they are using an inefficiently optimized method to remove botters, what a surprise people have been using terribly optimized stuff forever, yet that does not mean they support something. I'm not, I'm simply stating that their actions help support botters. Whether or not that's their goal behind the scenes is their business. As usual though a CODE player jumped in to scream about how I was misrepresenting them and how they are the saviors of highsec. What they post is propaganda regardless since it doesn't reflect what they are actually accomplishing. Lucas Kell wrote: It basically boils down to their targets being non-botters and the guys they leave alone being botters. Try it. Fly a solo yield fit retriever like a noob in a system with plenty of CODE about, you'll get ganked. Fly 20 procurers fit for tank and don't respond to any form of input, you'll get left alone. Obviously they want to get rid of the competition that keeps botters ore sale prices down. You are spewing dinsdale-esque crap. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 1526	Posted - 2014.10.31 18:18:27 - [623] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: So where do all the people whose main argument against this change find the ground to stand on . . . that by shifting a rule that made little sense (It is OK to go Postal if you are in a post office and work there) we are somehow moving away from what the game IS. It is like they are the apostles of a religion within the game but I cannot seem to find their holy book or church. 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 Would you like to know more?
Notorious Fellon 348	Posted - 2014.10.31 18:21:43 - [624] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: ...Awoxxing is going to disappear because the ones doing it are making a choice to stop. 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. Crime, it is not a "career", it is a lifestyle.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 34	Posted - 2014.10.31 18:22:19 - [625] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: So where do all the people whose main argument against this change find the ground to stand on . . . that by shifting a rule that made little sense (It is OK to go Postal if you are in a post office and work there) we are somehow moving away from what the game IS. It is like they are the apostles of a religion within the game but I cannot seem to find their holy book or church. 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 You can still awox. Now you lose a ship. Why are you risk averse? I assure you losing a ship will not be the end of everything. Don't fly what you aren't prepared to lose. Or...just don't fly........your choice. Can we haz your stuffs.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 222	Posted - 2014.10.31 18:23:08 - [626] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: So where do all the people whose main argument against this change find the ground to stand on . . . that by shifting a rule that made little sense (It is OK to go Postal if you are in a post office and work there) we are somehow moving away from what the game IS. It is like they are the apostles of a religion within the game but I cannot seem to find their holy book or church. 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 That's a pretty crazy question. Removing CONCORD from the game and forcing everyone into player corps that can't be dropped during wardeccs would increase player interaction and content creation. So would turning Eve into a World of Tanks style combat simulation, or making New Eden only 5 systems large. Since when is that the relevant metric to judge ideas? Whatever leads to more ships blowing up is not necessarily what is best for the game.
Mara Pahrdi The Order of Anoyia 829	Posted - 2014.10.31 18:23:34 - [627] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: Doc J wrote: ...the comfort zone. The appeal of EVE to many of us was that there was supposed to be no comfort zone. Anyone that's looking for a comfort zone is playing the wrong game. Looking for comfort zones in EVE is like getting in a plane but never taking off. Unfortunately, it seems that won't be the case for much longer. It looks like a day is coming where EVE will only be EVE by name, but the game it is/was will no longer exist. EVE was originally created by people who didn't like the PVP restrictions in Ultima Online. Now they're going in a completely opposite direction, and handing it over to the same kinds of people who ruined Ultima. This. +1 to Remiel. Remove insurance.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 34	Posted - 2014.10.31 18:25:06 - [628] - Quote Notorious Fellon wrote: Syn Shi wrote: ...Awoxxing is going to disappear because the ones doing it are making a choice to stop. 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. Only ones not willing to adapt are the awoxxers who are saying they will stop doing said activity because their ship will get blown up. Strange how that works. The hypocrisy is really getting deep in here.
Notorious Fellon 348	Posted - 2014.10.31 18:26:18 - [629] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Notorious Fellon wrote: Syn Shi wrote: ...Awoxxing is going to disappear because the ones doing it are making a choice to stop. 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. Only ones not willing to adapt are the awoxxers who are saying they will stop doing said activity because their ship will get blown up. Strange how that works. The hypocrisy is really getting deep in here. That is who I was referring to clownshoes. Crime, it is not a "career", it is a lifestyle.
Mag's the united 18115	Posted - 2014.10.31 18:28:12 - [630] - Quote Notorious Fellon wrote: Syn Shi wrote: Notorious Fellon wrote: Syn Shi wrote: ...Awoxxing is going to disappear because the ones doing it are making a choice to stop. 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. Only ones not willing to adapt are the awoxxers who are saying they will stop doing said activity because their ship will get blown up. Strange how that works. The hypocrisy is really getting deep in here. That is who I was referring to clownshoes. Quality shiptoasting. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21344	Posted - 2014.10.31 18:28:44 - [631] - Quote Notorious Fellon wrote: Syn Shi wrote: ...Awoxxing is going to disappear because the ones doing it are making a choice to stop. 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. The criminal element in highsec has adapted to every other nerf that they've hit with, they'll adapt to this one too. I predict a rise in suicide ganking as a result of changes to awoxing, the proposed changes pretty much turn any awox attempt into a suicide gank anyway. Here's the thing, the changes are unlikely to result in increased retention of new players, and some players will still bleat like sheep when their ships explode. Incompetents will still form corps and recruit newbies, they'll still feed newbies misinformation because they themselves don't know any better. Education about existing mechanics is far better than removing the mechanics themselves IMHO. The problem is that the people who know how the mechanics work and attempt to explain them to others are often dismissed because they the criminal element. For example I've lost track of how many people I've see tell haulers and miners how not to die, and then been ignored because they are the people doing the ganking. TL;DR the more things change, the more they stay the same. "Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1351	Posted - 2014.10.31 18:29:27 - [632] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Notorious Fellon wrote: Syn Shi wrote: ...Awoxxing is going to disappear because the ones doing it are making a choice to stop. 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. Only ones not willing to adapt are the awoxxers who are saying they will stop doing said activity because their ship will get blown up. Strange how that works. The hypocrisy is really getting deep in here. How is a newbie who don't know that rules is supposed to adapt to the potential presence of an awoxer in his corp? How is a CEO suppose to spot an awoxer if the character is created on a fresh account?
Mag's the united 18115	Posted - 2014.10.31 18:30:17 - [633] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Notorious Fellon wrote: Syn Shi wrote: ...Awoxxing is going to disappear because the ones doing it are making a choice to stop. 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. The criminal element in highsec has adapted to every other nerf that they've hit with, they'll adapt to this one too. I predict a rise in suicide ganking as a result of changes to awoxing, the proposed changes pretty much turn any awox attempt into a suicide gank anyway. Here's the thing, the changes are unlikely to result in increased retention of new players, and some players will still bleat like sheep when their ships explode. Incompetents will still form corps and recruit newbies, they'll still feed newbies misinformation because they themselves don't know any better. TL;DR the more things change, the more they stay the same. Indeed. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 34	Posted - 2014.10.31 18:32:56 - [634] - Quote Mara Pahrdi wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: Doc J wrote: ...the comfort zone. The appeal of EVE to many of us was that there was supposed to be no comfort zone. Anyone that's looking for a comfort zone is playing the wrong game. Looking for comfort zones in EVE is like getting in a plane but never taking off. Unfortunately, it seems that won't be the case for much longer. It looks like a day is coming where EVE will only be EVE by name, but the game it is/was will no longer exist. EVE was originally created by people who didn't like the PVP restrictions in Ultima Online. Now they're going in a completely opposite direction, and handing it over to the same kinds of people who ruined Ultima. This. +1 to Remiel. Interesting.......CCP is changing the game to be less pvp but yet..........somewhere in nulll......... The Elite Eve pvp players are all blued up holding hands around the pos singing folk songs. And the awoxers don't want to lose their ship. And this is the pvp elite of Eve...... The pvp elite are looking more like the hi-sec carebears they loathe the deeper I dig. So much risk aversion going on.
Indahmawar Fazmarai 3169	Posted - 2014.10.31 18:37:42 - [635] - Quote Revis Owen wrote: Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: impunity: exemption or freedom from punishment, harm, or loss Not being attacked by CONCORD is a case of impunity. You are missing a key part of the definition: the word "complete". Impunity is complete freedom from sanctions. "Not being attacked by CONCORD" is a case of that particular sanction not applying. But there are a full range of other sanctions against the awoxer that are on the table: 1)Can be freely attacked by the rest of the corp. 2)Can be freely attacked by other corps friendly to the target corp wardeccing the corp but only targeting the awoxer. 3)Can be freely attacked by mercs having a specific contract to wardec the corp but only target the awoxer. 4)Can have bounty placed or added to incentivize 3rd party gankers. 5)Etc. Use the tools CCP has already provided us. Stop whining for CCP hand-holding and coddling. I trust Merrian Webster over you, in matters of definition of a word. And anyway you are not adressing the main issue: with awox an option, the optimal strategy is to not recruit nor be recruited by people you don't know. This leads to not recruiting noobs, and noobs not risking to be recruited. Please iluminate me on how is that of any good for the game. The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! Ingame chat channel: The Greater Fool Bar
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4384	Posted - 2014.10.31 18:40:02 - [636] - Quote Darth Schweinebacke wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: La Nariz wrote: Then why are you spewing dinsdale-esque crap? Their method did not do as they intended so it's a failed method that's all it means. It is the most return for the :effort: spent, how much more difficult is it to gank a retriever versus a procurer? So they are using an inefficiently optimized method to remove botters, what a surprise people have been using terribly optimized stuff forever, yet that does not mean they support something. I'm not, I'm simply stating that their actions help support botters. Whether or not that's their goal behind the scenes is their business. As usual though a CODE player jumped in to scream about how I was misrepresenting them and how they are the saviors of highsec. What they post is propaganda regardless since it doesn't reflect what they are actually accomplishing. So... I have a couple of mining chars too and when I actually feel like some relaxed mining I mine with procs / skiffs. By your definition that would make me a botter then. No... Not really sure how you got to that conclusion. You aren't a botter just for being tanked, and at no point did I say that CODE never pass up on ganking a normal player due to the difficulty. What I'm saying is that the vast majority of CODE ganks are categorically not botters, and that each time you kill a ganker who is not a botter, you remove competition against the botters. Thus CODE, by primarily ganking non-botters are in fact supporting botters, the exact opposite of their stated goals. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
KnowUsByTheDead Sunlight...Through The Blight. 2137	Posted - 2014.10.31 18:41:54 - [637] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: The criminal element in highsec has adapted to every other nerf that they've hit with, they'll adapt to this one too. I predict a rise in suicide ganking as a result of changes to awoxing, the proposed changes pretty much turn any awox attempt into a suicide gank anyway. Here's the thing, the changes are unlikely to result in increased retention of new players, and some players will still bleat like sheep when their ships explode. Incompetents will still form corps and recruit newbies, they'll still feed newbies misinformation because they themselves don't know any better. Education about existing mechanics is far better than removing the mechanics themselves IMHO. The problem is that the people who know how the mechanics work and attempt to explain them to others are often dismissed because they the criminal element. For example I've lost track of how many people I've see tell haulers and miners how not to die, and then been ignored because they are the people doing the ganking. TL;DR the more things change, the more they stay the same. Quoted for absolute truth. Once you realize what a joke everything is, being the comedian is the only thing that makes sense.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4384	Posted - 2014.10.31 18:45:15 - [638] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: The principle here is that CCP should NEVER implement game mechanics that do for a player what a player should do for himself.. Players can currently safeguard themselves from awoxxing in high sec via inclusion of a single module (ECM, or even easier, ecm drones), or by having some clue about who they are flying with. I don;t know who's principle that is, but it's certainly not CCPs. Otherwise we need to go back and see the removal of the new industry system, scan probe launch configurations, the safety locking system the exploration scanner (the list goes on for a long time). I also assume you'll be wanting then to stop putting in the multi-sell feature too. Jenn aSide wrote: Good, feel free to stop posting, because the crap you're posting is less than useless, it's useless and incoherent.. I'm not going to stop posting because some neckbeard on the internet is getting all angry because CCP are sharing their sandbox lol. I'll just ignore the vast majority of your tearful little posts. The change is coming though, so get over it. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4385	Posted - 2014.10.31 18:48:40 - [639] - Quote La Nariz wrote: You are spewing dinsdale-esque crap. Wrong. dinsdale-esque would be screaming "the cartels!" and claiming the devs were helping. That was just pointing out that if you aren't completely incompetent and somehow managing to do the complete opposite of your stated goals by accident, then the explanation can only be that you are purposely targeting non-botters. So which are you, pro-botters or completely incompetent? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8862	Posted - 2014.10.31 18:54:33 - [640] - Quote Ssoraszh Tzarszh wrote: Throwing sandbox around like everyone needs to play only one way is sadly not what sandbox means, Eve is not only a hard and cold awox scam but it is also the great experience with your buddies achieving something against all odds. This has for me created friendships for the last ten years with people i have never met in real life and would never have met if we did not have some common grounds. 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. Quote: If you are upset you now have one less option to grief people, try and learn the game better. There are plenty mechanics left to grief and gank to your hearts content you only need to dig a little deeper in the sand to see them. 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. Quote: So in stead of just awoxing some newbie or that once in two years purple raven (was also a newbie with plex btw) you can try and mentoring them to broaden their horizons give them some fire in their belly in stead of their face. Who knows, it might just get better results and help CCP to subs and yourself to some more targets(who actually would shoot back this time). Longterm vs short term thinking just killing noobs and laughing at them is not a very good strategy as people have pointed out. 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.

Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8862	Posted - 2014.10.31 19:02:40 - [641] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: The principle here is that CCP should NEVER implement game mechanics that do for a player what a player should do for himself.. Players can currently safeguard themselves from awoxxing in high sec via inclusion of a single module (ECM, or even easier, ecm drones), or by having some clue about who they are flying with. I don;t know who's principle that is, but it's certainly not CCPs. Otherwise we need to go back and see the removal of the new industry system, scan probe launch configurations, the safety locking system the exploration scanner (the list goes on for a long time). I also assume you'll be wanting then to stop putting in the multi-sell feature too. There is a different between useable game control and UI features and automating self preservation. The PLAYERS should be concerning themselves with self preservation. If people don't want to be exposed to a game environment like the one EVe has traditionally been, why come to EVE? Why not play the dozens on games that DO automate things like that. Hell, i occasionally still play Star Trek Online and 'awoxxing' isn't even possible, (oh, and news flash, STO is smaller population-wise than EVE despite all the safety and walking around and good engaging pve and minimal losses upon ship destruction/character death), i don't understand why people who can't deal with EVe stay here when alternatives exist. I mean, it's just a video game. Losing means exactly nothing, why are soo many human players so chicken...scratch(lol) when it comes to these things? Quote: I'm not going to stop posting because some neckbeard on the internet is getting all angry because CCP are sharing their sandbox lol. I'll just ignore the vast majority of your tearful little posts. The change is coming though, so get over it. I'm going to enjoy linking this post for you in your own blogs comments section a few months from now for all your readers to see, complete with EVE-Offline graphs.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 38	Posted - 2014.10.31 19:06:01 - [642] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Ssoraszh Tzarszh wrote: Throwing sandbox around like everyone needs to play only one way is sadly not what sandbox means, Eve is not only a hard and cold awox scam but it is also the great experience with your buddies achieving something against all odds. This has for me created friendships for the last ten years with people i have never met in real life and would never have met if we did not have some common grounds. 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. Quote: If you are upset you now have one less option to grief people, try and learn the game better. There are plenty mechanics left to grief and gank to your hearts content you only need to dig a little deeper in the sand to see them. 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. Quote: So in stead of just awoxing some newbie or that once in two years purple raven (was also a newbie with plex btw) you can try and mentoring them to broaden their horizons give them some fire in their belly in stead of their face. Who knows, it might just get better results and help CCP to subs and yourself to some more targets(who actually would shoot back this time). Longterm vs short term thinking just killing noobs and laughing at them is not a very good strategy as people have pointed out. 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. one thing EVE has in common with real life is that no on ever promised anyone a fair or even fight. Ya, if you go to the bar with a friend and turn around and shoot them society isn't going to give you mad props either. They are going to put an end to that activity.
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2961	Posted - 2014.10.31 19:11:35 - [643] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: La Nariz wrote: You are spewing dinsdale-esque crap. Wrong. dinsdale-esque would be screaming "the cartels!" and claiming the devs were helping. That was just pointing out that if you aren't completely incompetent and somehow managing to do the complete opposite of your stated goals by accident, then the explanation can only be that you are purposely targeting non-botters. So which are you, pro-botters or completely incompetent? Conspiracies are his thing, parsimony is a thing and you still haven't stopped being wrong about anything I've already noted. Perhaps you should ask CODE. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 6591	Posted - 2014.10.31 19:12:44 - [644] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: The criminal element in highsec has adapted to every other nerf that they've hit with, they'll adapt to this one too. I hope so. The only thing that will happen is the one thing we all agree on. EVE weeds out the morons that can't adapt. A good percentage will stop awoxing as they are too stupid to work with an unbroken mechanic. Many pathetics in this thread have actually threatened to quit over having to deal with a little risk and consequence. We don't need or want people like that in the game. The smart ones will figure it out and continue to be criminal thorns in the side of of high sec corporations. This is how it should be in our EVE. Mr Epeen There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8862	Posted - 2014.10.31 19:12:50 - [645] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Ya, if you go to the bar with a friend and turn around and shoot them society isn't going to give you mad props either. They are going to put an end to that activity. You have obviously never been to my home, the Great State of Texas
Dersen Lowery Drinking in Station 1254	Posted - 2014.10.31 19:16:15 - [646] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: I predict a rise in suicide ganking as a result of changes to awoxing, the proposed changes pretty much turn any awox attempt into a suicide gank anyway. Well, if you insist on doing it from within corp, in high sec, without relying on any of the available engagement mechanics, anyway. Awox did his thing outside of high sec. Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Here's the thing, the changes are unlikely to result in increased retention of new players, and some players will still bleat like sheep when their ships explode. Incompetents will still form corps and recruit newbies, they'll still feed newbies misinformation because they themselves don't know any better. This is true, and important. This change attempts to solve a very narrow problem, which is that not nearly enough new players get into corps quickly enough. Once they solve that problem--and while I'm more optimistic about its chances of working than you are, that's nothing more than a hunch--they have many more to solve before they can relax. Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Education about existing mechanics is far better than removing the mechanics themselves IMHO Ideally, yes. Given that CCP is about to burn the entire corporation codebase in a long-overdue bonfire, there's no reason for them to waste a second attempting to teach anyone how it works--not that they ever have. Ideally, again, the shiny new corp mechanics and its pretty new management interface will feature enough configuration to nuance this change. Maybe they could even do settings panes for fleets while they were at it. Or you could have more than one kind of corporation! That would be pretty awesome. I suspect that they're flipping the switch on this now to see if it's a significant variable to take into account when they clean-sheet the corporation code. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 38	Posted - 2014.10.31 19:16:55 - [647] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Syn Shi wrote: Ya, if you go to the bar with a friend and turn around and shoot them society isn't going to give you mad props either. They are going to put an end to that activity. You have obviously never been to my home, the Great State of Texas No matter how many times school kids awox their class mates in the US it will never be a cool and accepted activity.
Doc Fury Furious Enterprises 6998	Posted - 2014.10.31 19:18:40 - [648] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Syn Shi wrote: Ya, if you go to the bar with a friend and turn around and shoot them society isn't going to give you mad props either. They are going to put an end to that activity. You have obviously never been to my home, the Great State of Texas No matter how many times school kids awox their class mates in the US it will never be a cool and accepted activity. Especially when the only reason given is: "I don't like Mondays". Gÿ+ The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the ho's and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' and I'll look down, and whisper 'Hodor'.
Mara Pahrdi The Order of Anoyia 830	Posted - 2014.10.31 19:21:16 - [649] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Mara Pahrdi wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: Doc J wrote: ...the comfort zone. The appeal of EVE to many of us was that there was supposed to be no comfort zone. Anyone that's looking for a comfort zone is playing the wrong game. Looking for comfort zones in EVE is like getting in a plane but never taking off. Unfortunately, it seems that won't be the case for much longer. It looks like a day is coming where EVE will only be EVE by name, but the game it is/was will no longer exist. EVE was originally created by people who didn't like the PVP restrictions in Ultima Online. Now they're going in a completely opposite direction, and handing it over to the same kinds of people who ruined Ultima. This. +1 to Remiel. Interesting.......CCP is changing the game to be less pvp but yet..........somewhere in nulll......... The Elite Eve pvp players are all blued up holding hands around the pos singing folk songs. And the awoxers don't want to lose their ship. And this is the pvp elite of Eve...... The pvp elite are looking more like the hi-sec carebears they loathe the deeper I dig. So much risk aversion going on. I completely agree, that something needs to be done about null. Since CCP is working on null right now, we'll have to wait and see what direction they take. But since I've been a dedicated highsec resident for most of my EvE time, I can say that Highsec feels unbalanced safe now and has constantly been getting safer since I started playing EvE 4 years ago. And this despite all the efforts a lot of people have put into making highsec more lively and dangerous. I liked the way highsec worked when I joined EvE. I like the fact, that you can never be completely sure, what's going to happen behind the next gate. I'd actually like it if there were more and substantially different ways to non consensual aggression in highsec. Since I joined EvE, CCP have removed or devalued quite some of those and added exactly none. And yes, HS EvE feels less lively because of that. But I guess I'm in a minority there. Oh, and before someone asks: I'm paying my sub with real money and the only thing I've ever killed in HS was a pos. Remove insurance.
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 400	Posted - 2014.10.31 19:24:47 - [650] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: La Nariz wrote: You are spewing dinsdale-esque crap. Wrong. dinsdale-esque would be screaming "the cartels!" and claiming the devs were helping. That was just pointing out that if you aren't completely incompetent and somehow managing to do the complete opposite of your stated goals by accident, then the explanation can only be that you are purposely targeting non-botters. So which are you, pro-botters or completely incompetent? Ok, it seams this is a bit hard to understand, so I try again. Botting is a violation of the EULA. If we encounter a player that acts like a bot we report him to CCP as it is their business to remove him. If we can kill him with low amount of effort we will, otherwise there is no point in wasting ISK on illegal players. Bot-aspirants get blown up, nothing new here. And it does not matter if he is 10 years old or a month. They usually fly untanked stuff because they think highsec is safe. And maybe in a not so far future they will actually be right if people like you get their way. The AFK mining paradise is coming. Now there are also a lot of big Procurer and Skiff fleets around and they may use Isboxer or just multibox by hand. They are not bots, and just because you like to call them bots does not change their nature. I actually consider them more active than a AFK retriever, as they push the mining gameplay to a level where constant interaction is actually needed. If you don't like them, go ahead and do something about it. I usually use a 100MN Stabber, they are quite effective if they don't pay for a permit. You can also do this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__b8fCbviVU&feature http://www.minerbumping.com/2014/10/kills-of-week_19.html But let's go back to the topic and talk a bit more about how you still have no solid argument about why the safari gameplay should be removed other that some sort of "think about the children!!"-fallacy. the Code ALWAYS wins

Talon SilverHawk Ronin Cartel The G0dfathers 697	Posted - 2014.10.31 19:30:47 - [651] - Quote 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
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1352	Posted - 2014.10.31 19:33:05 - [652] - Quote Talon SilverHawk wrote: 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 You can still have inter corp competition and setup test...
Dersen Lowery Drinking in Station 1254	Posted - 2014.10.31 19:34:08 - [653] - Quote Mara Pahrdi wrote: I liked the way highsec worked when I joined EvE. I like the fact, that you can never be completely sure, what's going to happen behind the next gate. I'd actually like it if there were more and substantially different ways to non consensual aggression in highsec. Since I joined EvE, CCP have removed or devalued quite some of those and added exactly none. And yes, HS EvE feels less lively because of that. But I guess I'm in a minority there. I suppose I'll have to chalk that up to different experiences, then. There's a lot more undocking into the middle of a fight in a trade hub. Nothing like piloting an industrial through active fire to get the old heart rate up. Duel invitations are semi-regular (though oddly subdued when I'm flying something shooty) and I see a steady stream of yellow and red skulls in Local during my travels, not to mention huge swarms of CONCORD ships on gates. I still get locked by Tornadoes scanning for cargo. The scanning changes have meant that seeing 8 combat scanner probes on D-scan is, if anything, more of a regular occurrence than it was. I wouldn't say it's exciting, exactly. I'm very much looking forward to when I'll have the time to recommit to wormhole space. But there's the usual rumble of chaos under the veneer of safety, as far as I can tell. The precise nature and identifiers of the chaos have changed, but, for example, I still never use autopilot. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 39	Posted - 2014.10.31 19:37:19 - [654] - Quote Talon SilverHawk wrote: 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 You can still do this in low, null, or WH space. But that would involve leaving the safety of hi-sec. Hang on, why is it ok for awoxxers to practice pvp in the safe folds of hi-sec???? But there marks should face the cold hard truth of Eve.
Revis Owen 54	Posted - 2014.10.31 19:38:00 - [655] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: You can still awox. Now you lose a ship. For the trader who kills my buy orders with higher-priced buy orders, CONCORD should kill him on undock instead of me going after him. For the miner who kills my asteroids I got to first by mining them from under me, CONCORD should kill him instead of me going after him. When it comes to substituting CONCORD for actions I could very well take myself using the tools provided to all of us, why are you stopping at awoxing? Agent of the New Order http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html If you do not have a current Highsec Operations Permit, please contact me for issuance.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21344	Posted - 2014.10.31 19:42:38 - [656] - Quote Dersen Lowery wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: I predict a rise in suicide ganking as a result of changes to awoxing, the proposed changes pretty much turn any awox attempt into a suicide gank anyway. Well, if you insist on doing it from within corp, in high sec, without relying on any of the available engagement mechanics, anyway. That's exactly the point, the proposed changes will only affect highsec, Concord responses don't exist anywhere else. Removing the ability to shoot at corp members without Concord rolling up and instawtfbbqing the instigator not only removes the potential for legitimate intracorp funs and games (see below), it also removes one of the reasons to infiltrate a corporation. Post proposed change any potential awoxer may as well just suicide gank their targets, the outcome will be exactly the same. The suggestion that you can open a duel to shoot at corpmates in tournaments or training sessions shows just how disconnected some CCP employees are from the game that they're working on. Without some serious work on the duel mechanic, which at present is very limited in scope, corp PvP tournaments and training sessions in highsec may well become a thing of the past. The Dojo idea that is currently on SiSi may enable those things to happen. I haven't looked into it tbh, it doesn't appeal to me and smacks of the "arena" style gameplay in other MMO's. Quote: Awox did his thing outside of high sec. Indeed. "Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 39	Posted - 2014.10.31 19:42:57 - [657] - Quote I think the bigger issue is the statement by one of the CSMs calling the person being shot dumb. How can you represent the player base when you view some of them as dumb? CCP Fozzie - To address FunkyGÇÖs comment about dumb people. I really donGÇÖt think that you can assume that someone who joins a group in an online game and doesn't assume immediately that means that person gets immunity from all of the games normal consequences for shooting them is dumb. ThatGÇÖs the game being dumb and the player being normal and smart.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 1526	Posted - 2014.10.31 19:48:04 - [658] - Quote A reading, from "No country for old (eve players)": "You know, if you'd have told me (5) years ago I'd see (carebears flying) the (systems) of our (empire)...(unafraid of getting can-flipped or awoxed)...I just flat-out wouldn't have believed you. Signs and wonders. But I think once you quit hearing "(HTFU)" and "(sandbox)" the rest is soon to foller. Oh, it's the tide. Yeah. It's the dismal tide. It is not the one thing. Not the one thing." Would you like to know more?
Mike Azariah DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited 1790	Posted - 2014.10.31 19:51:13 - [659] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: So where do all the people whose main argument against this change find the ground to stand on . . . that by shifting a rule that made little sense (It is OK to go Postal if you are in a post office and work there) we are somehow moving away from what the game IS. It is like they are the apostles of a religion within the game but I cannot seem to find their holy book or church. 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 OK, but your question should be broken down, the AND kinda makes it impossible to answer correctly. Remove the corp on corp free fire zone. Will, in the short run, decrease player conflict? Yes, unless awoxers are willing to lose a ship to kill a corpmate. Increase content? I hope so. If a few more people join corps, if a few more corps recruit without worrying about bad things happening then we have more people, more content. If not, then I seriously doubt that there will be a decrease. As I asked before and Mags magnified on, we throw terms around without a solid base of definitions. PvP, carebear, PvE. You log on, you could argue that you are doing PvP by some folks definition. Others think it involves ships exploding. If we are ALL doing PvP then what are Carebears? PvPers just like the rest. I did not mean the religion reference earlier as an insult but anybody who reads these forums on a regular basis KNOW that there are some fanatical supporters of specific playstyles. In that regard I am an agnostic. I support the game as a whole and closingh an odd loophole seems like a no brainer to me, not the cause for 35 pages of debate. m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21344	Posted - 2014.10.31 19:58:15 - [660] - Quote Mara Pahrdi wrote: But since I've been a dedicated highsec resident for most of my EvE time, I can say that Highsec feels unbalanced safe now and has constantly been getting safer since I started playing EvE 4 years ago. And this despite all the efforts a lot of people have put into making highsec more lively and dangerous. Agreed, highsec is far safer than it was in 2009 when I started playing. Quote: I liked the way highsec worked when I joined EvE. I like the fact, that you can never be completely sure, what's going to happen behind the next gate. I'd actually like it if there were more and substantially different ways to non consensual aggression in highsec. Since I joined EvE, CCP have removed or devalued quite some of those and added exactly none. And yes, HS EvE feels less lively because of that. 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. Quote: But I guess I'm in a minority there. There's a few of us left, unfortunately CCP seems to be going down the path of catering for the lowest common denominator, carebears. "Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar Nil mortifi sine lucre.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4385	Posted - 2014.10.31 19:58:35 - [661] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: There is a different between useable game control and UI features and automating self preservation. The PLAYERS should be concerning themselves with self preservation. Oh OK, so it's fine that scan probes can be launched in 1 click, without having to train up skills to use 8 probes anymore because of :reasons: but a change to remove corp aggression, a mechanic which the majority of uses for have now been removed is not. What about high sec safety lock mechanics? Those must have made you rage out more than this with the amount of risk they removed. Jenn aSide wrote: If people don't want to be exposed to a game environment like the one EVe has traditionally been, why come to EVE? Why not play the dozens on games that DO automate things like that. Hell, i occasionally still play Star Trek Online and 'awoxxing' isn't even possible, (oh, and news flash, STO is smaller population-wise than EVE despite all the safety and walking around and good engaging pve and minimal losses upon ship destruction/character death), i don't understand why people who can't deal with EVe stay here when alternatives exist. People do want to be exposed to EVE game environment, you just seem to have a warped view of what that environment is. It's supposed to be tough and challenging and have players wanting you dead at every turn, but that doesn't mean that every single inch of it is supposed to be ridiculously risky. If it was, concord wouldn't exist, and neither would NPC corps, wardecs would be automatic and it would be possible to force people to undock. At the end of the day new player need more support than vets. That's a simple fact. CCP are realising this more and more watching their player retention go out of the window, and they are now taking steps to engage more players. If you don't like it, it's not them that can sod off to STO (which by the way is dire). By the way, if you are saying that a game with safety mechanics is low population, thus safety mechanics = bad game design, then look at WoW, with far more subscribers and the most carebear friendly gameplay on the MMO market or FFXIV, still with more subscribers than EVE and a similar carebear friendly gameplay style. I think it's safe to say that as long as the content is engaging, some safety mechanics are not a problem. Jenn aSide wrote: I'm going to enjoy linking this post for you in your own blogs comments section a few months from now for all your readers to see, complete with EVE-Offline graphs. Thanks for being a fan. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 1526	Posted - 2014.10.31 19:58:39 - [662] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: ... I support the game as a whole and closing an odd loophole seems like a no brainer to me, not the cause for 35 pages of debate. What you call 'closing a loophole' we call nerfing a valuable content-creation mechanic. Ultimately, if closing said 'loophole' vs. status quo ultimately results in less player conflict or content creation, said change should be summarily dismissed. Period. Protect the sandbox Mike, no more nerfs. F Would you like to know more?
Anslo Scope Works 20422	Posted - 2014.10.31 20:00:51 - [663] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: ... I support the game as a whole and closing an odd loophole seems like a no brainer to me, not the cause for 35 pages of debate. What you call 'closing a loophole' we call nerfing a valuable content-creation mechanic. Ultimately, if closing said 'loophole' vs. status quo ultimately results in less player conflict or content creation, said change should be summarily dismissed. Period. Protect the sandbox Mike, no more nerfs. F If you don't like what Eve is becoming, why not find a game more suitable to your play style? [center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4385	Posted - 2014.10.31 20:01:09 - [664] - Quote La Nariz wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: La Nariz wrote: You are spewing dinsdale-esque crap. Wrong. dinsdale-esque would be screaming "the cartels!" and claiming the devs were helping. That was just pointing out that if you aren't completely incompetent and somehow managing to do the complete opposite of your stated goals by accident, then the explanation can only be that you are purposely targeting non-botters. So which are you, pro-botters or completely incompetent? Conspiracies are his thing, parsimony is a thing and you still haven't stopped being wrong about anything I've already noted. Perhaps you should ask CODE. I've not seen you note me as being wrong about anything. And yes perhaps I should To be fair CODE members would just post up an entire wall of repetitive jargon explaining how great they are and such. Would hardly be an objective viewpoint. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 40	Posted - 2014.10.31 20:01:49 - [665] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Mara Pahrdi wrote: But since I've been a dedicated highsec resident for most of my EvE time, I can say that Highsec feels unbalanced safe now and has constantly been getting safer since I started playing EvE 4 years ago. And this despite all the efforts a lot of people have put into making highsec more lively and dangerous. Agreed, highsec is far safer than it was in 2009 when I started playing. Quote: I liked the way highsec worked when I joined EvE. I like the fact, that you can never be completely sure, what's going to happen behind the next gate. I'd actually like it if there were more and substantially different ways to non consensual aggression in highsec. Since I joined EvE, CCP have removed or devalued quite some of those and added exactly none. And yes, HS EvE feels less lively because of that. 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. Quote: But I guess I'm in a minority there. There's a few of us left, unfortunately CCP seems to be going down the path of catering for the lowest common denominator, carebears. Says the risk averse player not willing to lose his ship for said pvp........how can anyone take an awoxxer seriously now. I would say the response is right up there with Code not showing up for the tourney and basically logging off with their fingers in their ears. The caliber of pvp player atm in this thread is the lowest and Eve is worse off for it.
Mike Azariah DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited 1792	Posted - 2014.10.31 20:02:11 - [666] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: I think the bigger issue is the statement by one of the CSMs calling the person being shot dumb. How can you represent the player base when you view some of them as dumb? 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 Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
Bronson Hughes The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration 659	Posted - 2014.10.31 20:04:51 - [667] - Quote If ever anyone needs proof that some people take EvE way too seriously, point them to this thread and laugh. Seriously, the amount of butthurt and longwinded rhetoric over such a minor change to game mechanics is comical. Gankers gonna gank, AWOX or no. They'll adapt and keep right on ganking while player corps may have an easier time recruiting people. That should pretty much be the end of this topic, yet it's gone on for over 30 pages now. Wow. EDIT: Post 666. Nice. CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking. Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook. I want to create content, not become content.
Mike Azariah DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited 1796	Posted - 2014.10.31 20:08:00 - [668] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: ... I support the game as a whole and closing an odd loophole seems like a no brainer to me, not the cause for 35 pages of debate. What you call 'closing a loophole' we call nerfing a valuable content-creation mechanic. Ultimately, if closing said 'loophole' vs. status quo ultimately results in less player conflict or content creation, said change should be summarily dismissed. Period. Protect the sandbox Mike, no more nerfs. F I am honestly trying. But sometimes a surgeon has to make cuts and injure the patient to keep it alive in the long run. Nerfs are the cuts that CCP applies in hopes of keeping the game alive . . . now some of you might carry this medical analogy out and call the devs 'quacks' and 'bloodletters' who practice medicine with no clue of what is really going on. You have the right to think that. I am allowed to disagree. m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
Masao Kurata Z List 124	Posted - 2014.10.31 20:09:57 - [669] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: You can still awox. Now you lose a ship. Why are you risk averse? We went over this earlier. You do not understand how CONCORD works. CONCORD do not respond to the destruction of a ship, their response timer starts at the first aggressive action. The timer is very short, in a prepared system it is 10-25 seconds (1.0-0.5 systems), in an unprepared one it is 4-19 seconds. That is the time in which you have to kill a ship and this is why suicide gankers have to fly in packs of high dps destroyers. EDIT: To clarify, the first response CONCORD uses is infinite strength ecm, reducing drone bandwidth to zero and infinite strength neuting.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 41	Posted - 2014.10.31 20:10:02 - [670] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Syn Shi wrote: I think the bigger issue is the statement by one of the CSMs calling the person being shot dumb. How can you represent the player base when you view some of them as dumb? 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 Aren't the CSM suppose to represent everyone. Even the dumb ones. Its obvious by reading the minutes that you look down on these people and I have to wonder how you can represent them. I don't think you can and by your statement....no requirements to be nice ...I can only think that you don't represent everyone equally. You only represent the ones who you agree with. This whole CSm thing seems alittle dodgy to me now.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4386	Posted - 2014.10.31 20:10:28 - [671] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: Ok, it seams this is a bit hard to understand, so I try again.[/quote[LOL, how can you still be missing the point! You are still attacking the people who compete against botters, thus raising the profit margins of botters. By ganking normal miners, you are helping botters and isboxer miners. Ima Wreckyou wrote: Bot-aspirants get blown up, nothing new here. And it does not matter if he is 10 years old or a month. They usually fly untanked stuff because they think highsec is safe. And maybe in a not so far future they will actually be right if people like you get their way. The AFK mining paradise is coming. No, eay to kill solo players get ganked. A "bot aspirant" would be mining with a bunch of procurers. One guy mining in a retriever while reading the paper isn't bot aspirant, and the fact that your group goes so far to publicise peoples tearful responses to you (something a bot aspirant would not do) Is further proof of this. Long and short - the action you take HELPS botters and isboxer miners. [quote=Ima Wreckyou]Now there are also a lot of big Procurer and Skiff fleets around and they may use Isboxer or just multibox by hand. They are not bots, and just because you like to call them bots this does not change their nature. I actually consider them more active than a AFK retriever, as they push the mining gameplay to a level where constant interaction is actually needed. If you don't like them, go ahead and do something about it. I usually use a 100MN Stabber, they are quite effective if they don't pay for a permit. LOL so a CODE member supports iboxer fleets? Further proof that all of this complaining abut "bot aspirants" is bull. Maybe that's your goal, raise the profit margins for isboxer fleets. One thing is for sure, you aren't accomplishing your groups started goals by killing average Joe miners. So answer the question form earlier: So which are you, pro-botters or completely incompetent? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4386	Posted - 2014.10.31 20:12:43 - [672] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Talon SilverHawk wrote: 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 You can still do this in low, null, or WH space. But that would involve leaving the safety of hi-sec. Hang on, why is it ok for awoxxers to practice pvp in the safe folds of hi-sec???? But there marks should face the cold hard truth of Eve. This is still possible in high sec. Dueling mechanics make this possible. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Anslo Scope Works 20423	Posted - 2014.10.31 20:12:54 - [673] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: Syn Shi wrote: I think the bigger issue is the statement by one of the CSMs calling the person being shot dumb. How can you represent the player base when you view some of them as dumb? 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 Aren't the CSM suppose to represent everyone. Even the dumb ones. Its obvious by reading the minutes that you look down on these people and I have to wonder how can represent them. I don't think you can and by your statement....no requirements to be nice ...I can only think that you don't represent everyone equally. You only represent the ones who you agree with. This whole CSm thing seems alittle dodgy to me now. Wrong. CSM are elected by the people who like their wants in Eve. They represent the players who like their playstyle, not everyone. Stop trying to twist words and stir **. [center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]**
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2961	Posted - 2014.10.31 20:13:03 - [674] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: La Nariz wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: La Nariz wrote: You are spewing dinsdale-esque crap. Wrong. dinsdale-esque would be screaming "the cartels!" and claiming the devs were helping. That was just pointing out that if you aren't completely incompetent and somehow managing to do the complete opposite of your stated goals by accident, then the explanation can only be that you are purposely targeting non-botters. So which are you, pro-botters or completely incompetent? Conspiracies are his thing, parsimony is a thing and you still haven't stopped being wrong about anything I've already noted. Perhaps you should ask CODE. I've not seen you note me as being wrong about anything. And yes perhaps I should To be fair CODE members would just post up an entire wall of repetitive jargon explaining how great they are and such. Would hardly be an objective viewpoint. It's all content just make it a good thread. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1353	Posted - 2014.10.31 20:14:25 - [675] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: Syn Shi wrote: I think the bigger issue is the statement by one of the CSMs calling the person being shot dumb. How can you represent the player base when you view some of them as dumb? 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 Aren't the CSM suppose to represent everyone. Even the dumb ones. Its obvious by reading the minutes that you look down on these people and I have to wonder how can represent them. I don't think you can and by your statement....no requirements to be nice ...I can only think that you don't represent everyone equally. You only represent the ones who you agree with. This whole CSm thing seems alittle dodgy to me now. Name one CSM members not only representing the player who agrees with themselves. How the hell do you expect them to represent everyone from the playerbase when the playerbase opinion is split over most matter of the game?
Mike Azariah DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited 1798	Posted - 2014.10.31 20:19:42 - [676] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Aren't the CSM suppose to represent everyone. Even the dumb ones. Its obvious by reading the minutes that you look down on these people and I have to wonder how can represent them. I don't think you can and by your statement....no requirements to be nice ...I can only think that you don't represent everyone equally. You only represent the ones who you agree with. This whole CSm thing seems alittle dodgy to me now. Bwa ha ha haaaa pant pant wooo hoooo hooo hoo represent EVERYBODY? How in the hell do you expect a person to do that when you have been in this forum? WHICH EVERYBODY SHOULD i REPRESENT? I listen, participate, listen more and form an opinion and THAT is what I take up the ladder and to summits. That is also why I ask for and respect clear proposals and counter arguments. It is impossible to represent everyone but what I mainly try for is to represent THE GAME. Not CCP, the game I play and you play and everybody else here supposedly plays. We play it in all sorts of different ways and that is GREAT! I love that. Eve is not one game it is like a Rec Centre in a city, bowling alley and pool, library and youth centre all rolled into one. You want to sway my opinion? Leave off the hysterical ranting or the 'I'll quit if I don't get my way' Present a good solid argument. I madly volunteered to be the forum guy, other come and go and if you think another CSM would better suit your interest then write them a note. If you write it here? I am mainly 'it'. m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 41	Posted - 2014.10.31 20:21:53 - [677] - Quote The Council of Stellar Management (CSM) is a player-elected council to represent the views of the players to CCP. Current CSM members can be identified by the golden title CSM under their image in forum posts, and a list is available in the Category CSM Candidates. Players can raise issues to the CSM for consideration, and obtain support for the CSM to raise issues to CCP by posting in the Assembly Hall Channel on the Eve-Online official forums. If the CSM thinks the person is dumb, then they must think that what they say is dumb...and I have to wonder if they are going to bring these dumb concerns to CCP. I wouldn't feel comfortable talking to this person and trusting they will bring up my concerns. Most people wouldn't. Sounds more like a politician with their own personal agenda.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1354	Posted - 2014.10.31 20:24:48 - [678] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: The Council of Stellar Management (CSM) is a player-elected council to represent the views of the players to CCP. Current CSM members can be identified by the golden title CSM under their image in forum posts, and a list is available in the Category CSM Candidates. Players can raise issues to the CSM for consideration, and obtain support for the CSM to raise issues to CCP by posting in the Assembly Hall Channel on the Eve-Online official forums. If the CSM thinks the person is dumb, then they must think that what they say is dumb...and I have to wonder if they are going to bring these dumb concerns to CCP. I wouldn't feel comfortable talking to this person and trusting they will bring up my concerns. Most people wouldn't. Sounds more like a politician with their own personal agenda. No ****, some dude got elected and kinda sound like a politician? You do know Mike was elected after proposing a platform right? And the player voted for the guys they though would represent them the best? If you don't feel like sharing your concern with the one guy posting here, how about you find out who else is on the CSM and bring your concern to that elected member?
Anslo Scope Works 20424	Posted - 2014.10.31 20:25:33 - [679] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: The Council of Stellar Management (CSM) is a player-elected council to represent the views of the players to CCP. Where does it say anything about one Member representing ALL players? Quote: If the CSM thinks the person is dumb, then they must think that what they say is dumb...and I have to wonder if they are going to bring these dumb concerns to CCP. 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. Quote: I wouldn't feel comfortable talking to this person and trusting they will bring up my concerns. Most people wouldn't. Sounds more like a politician with their own personal agenda. 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. [center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 400	Posted - 2014.10.31 20:26:36 - [680] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Increase content? I hope so. If a few more people join corps, if a few more corps recruit without worrying about bad things happening then we have more people, more content. If not, then I seriously doubt that there will be a decrease. This is suicide ganking and something completely else. It has nothing to do with corp aggression mechanics. Yes you can assemble some friends and gank the guy out of his bling ship for loot or giggles. That is completely fine, it's what I do all the time and it is fun. But it is no substitute for Safari/Awoxing. If you infiltrate a corp there are other things you have to consider. - You have to play the role of a completely innocent new player who looks up to his new CEO or whatever and plays along with the stuff the corp is doing. - You have to analyze how the people in the corp play the game. How many of theme are active at which hours? Do they play isolated or can they react in time and protect each other if I strike now? - Many CEOs are aware of this game mechanic, so they will be suspicious and you have to social engineer your was trough the questions and suspicions to remain in the corp. - You have to wait for the right opportunity to strike, you will probably be alone, maybe you have a neutral logy (which btw is a pretty broken thing and most awoxers acknowledge this). But if you don't kill your target fast before other corp members can react it will be over and you will not get a second chance, maybe you have just wasted a week of preparation. After that you will be kicked out of the corp and the safari is over. -- This is an example of what you will remove from the game. You will remove this kind of gameplay forever, just based on a hunch that maybe this will retain more new players. Instead you will strengthen the security of the corps in Highsec and Highsec only who are most of the time a death end for the players who join them, as they will bore them to dead and tell them tails about how dangerous the low/null/worm parts of EVE are. I am actually not an awoxer, I am a suicide ganker. But I seriously enjoy the stories about this infiltrations and I consider it one of the more interesting things you can do in EVE. To remove such a great source of player content in favor of safer PvE crap is just insane in my eyes and something I will fight against with all my heart (verbal, on the Forums, no I will not RL or ingame torture people over this). the Code ALWAYS wins

Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 41	Posted - 2014.10.31 20:31:02 - [681] - Quote Anslo wrote: Syn Shi wrote: The Council of Stellar Management (CSM) is a player-elected council to represent the views of the players to CCP. Where does it say anything about one Member representing ALL players? Quote: If the CSM thinks the person is dumb, then they must think that what they say is dumb...and I have to wonder if they are going to bring these dumb concerns to CCP. 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. Quote: I wouldn't feel comfortable talking to this person and trusting they will bring up my concerns. Most people wouldn't. Sounds more like a politician with their own personal agenda. 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. I did. If the change was made the only difference is you would lose a ship. And that is confusing since you are saying you are a pvp'r but don't want to lose your ship during the pvp. All the pvp'rs call people who don't want to lose their ship carebears. Does this make you a carebear since you don't want to lose your ship.
Anslo Scope Works 20425	Posted - 2014.10.31 20:32:46 - [682] - Quote uw0tm8 ...Did you read ANYTHING I posted at all? [center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 400	Posted - 2014.10.31 20:33:36 - [683] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: No, easy to kill solo players get ganked. You sound more and more like a butthurt miner, was there a resent antimatter accident? Maybe you should just buy a permit next time. the Code ALWAYS wins
Mag's the united 18115	Posted - 2014.10.31 20:38:46 - [684] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: I am allowed to disagree. m Indeed. Now then, can you provide me an answer yet? Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 1526	Posted - 2014.10.31 20:45:40 - [685] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: ... I support the game as a whole and closing an odd loophole seems like a no brainer to me, not the cause for 35 pages of debate. What you call 'closing a loophole' we call nerfing a valuable content-creation mechanic. Ultimately, if closing said 'loophole' vs. status quo ultimately results in less player conflict or content creation, said change should be summarily dismissed. Period. Protect the sandbox Mike, no more nerfs. F I am honestly trying. But sometimes a surgeon has to make cuts and injure the patient to keep it alive in the long run. Nerfs are the cuts that CCP applies in hopes of keeping the game alive . . . now some of you might carry this medical analogy out and call the devs 'quacks' and 'bloodletters' who practice medicine with no clue of what is really going on. You have the right to think that. I am allowed to disagree. m And will you say "I never intended that to happen...", when down the road CCP finally boils the frog and hisec is effectively a consensual only shard, and no one still around can remember how they got there? Its not the one thing Mike, its the dismal tide. F Would you like to know more?
Mike Azariah DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited 1805	Posted - 2014.10.31 20:47:25 - [686] - Quote Mag's wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: I am allowed to disagree. m Indeed. Now then, can you provide me an answer yet? I did m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4386	Posted - 2014.10.31 20:47:53 - [687] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: No, easy to kill solo players get ganked. You sound more and more like a butthurt miner, was there a resent antimatter accident? Maybe you should just buy a permit next time. And you would be wrong. Trying your luck with standard CODE response number 17, the "you must be a victim" response. Thanks for playing, now off you go, back to helping botters and multiboxers by ganking all those pesky solo miners - or you know, incompetence, whichever it is you've decided you are doing. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 400	Posted - 2014.10.31 20:57:43 - [688] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Ima Wreckyou wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: No, easy to kill solo players get ganked. You sound more and more like a butthurt miner, was there a resent antimatter accident? Maybe you should just buy a permit next time. And you would be wrong. Trying your luck with standard CODE response number 17, the "you must be a victim" response. Thanks for playing, now off you go, back to helping botters and multiboxers by ganking all those pesky solo miners - or you know, incompetence, whichever it is you've decided you are doing. Or you can just tell us the real reason why you insist in discussing CODE. business with "Veers Belvar"-level "arguments" rather than the actual topic at hand? the Code ALWAYS wins
Anslo Scope Works 20427	Posted - 2014.10.31 21:01:18 - [689] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Ima Wreckyou wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: No, easy to kill solo players get ganked. You sound more and more like a butthurt miner, was there a resent antimatter accident? Maybe you should just buy a permit next time. And you would be wrong. Trying your luck with standard CODE response number 17, the "you must be a victim" response. Thanks for playing, now off you go, back to helping botters and multiboxers by ganking all those pesky solo miners - or you know, incompetence, whichever it is you've decided you are doing. Or you can just tell us the real reason why you insist in discussing CODE. business with "Veers Belvar"-level "arguments" rather than the actual topic at hand? Why can't it be brought up? [center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4386	Posted - 2014.10.31 21:01:52 - [690] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Ima Wreckyou wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: No, easy to kill solo players get ganked. You sound more and more like a butthurt miner, was there a resent antimatter accident? Maybe you should just buy a permit next time. And you would be wrong. Trying your luck with standard CODE response number 17, the "you must be a victim" response. Thanks for playing, now off you go, back to helping botters and multiboxers by ganking all those pesky solo miners - or you know, incompetence, whichever it is you've decided you are doing. Or you can just tell us the real reason why you insist in discussing CODE. business with "Veers Belvar"-level "arguments" rather than the actual topic at hand? Code weighed in, I weighed back, you guys are incapable of letting criticism lie and I'm more than happy to continue to point out the flaws in your claims and strategies. Besides, I'm also discussing the topic at hand. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!

Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21346	Posted - 2014.10.31 21:03:51 - [691] - Quote @ Lucas and Ima Get a room "Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar Nil mortifi sine lucre.
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2466	Posted - 2014.10.31 21:04:04 - [692] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Ima Wreckyou wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: No, easy to kill solo players get ganked. You sound more and more like a butthurt miner, was there a resent antimatter accident? Maybe you should just buy a permit next time. And you would be wrong. Trying your luck with standard CODE response number 17, the "you must be a victim" response. Thanks for playing, now off you go, back to helping botters and multiboxers by ganking all those pesky solo miners - or you know, incompetence, whichever it is you've decided you are doing. Or you can just tell us the real reason why you insist in discussing CODE. business with "Veers Belvar"-level "arguments" rather than the actual topic at hand? Because if someone criticizes or dsagrees with you, they have to be on par with veers or dinsdale.
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 402	Posted - 2014.10.31 21:10:31 - [693] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Because if someone criticizes or dsagrees with you, they have to be on par with veers or dinsdale. There is criticism and there is delusional rambling about made up facts and fantasies. It's fun when it starts, usually because the level of stupid is so surprisingly high. But it gets old very fast. the Code ALWAYS wins
Marsha Mallow 1655	Posted - 2014.10.31 21:15:17 - [694] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Besides, I'm also discussing the topic at hand. No, you're not. Shut the **** up Lucas. At least Dinsdale is funny. #unleashthebeast #freedinsdale If Code is supporting botters either accidentally or deliberately, we could argue you are too. You're part of a scrub empire that funds its SRP from renters. Don't even try to pretend some of those renter corps aren't overflowing with bots, or that anyone is unaware of it. That dirty bot ISK flows through pretty much every nullsec alliance wallet to every blobmoney in null with an SRP policy, making everyone involved participants. You're a filthy botlord Lucas, and everyone knows it. DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 222	Posted - 2014.10.31 21:21:56 - [695] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Because if someone criticizes or dsagrees with you, they have to be on par with veers or dinsdale. There is criticism and there is delusional rambling about made up facts and fantasies. It's fun when it starts, usually because the level of stupid is so surprisingly high. But it gets old very fast. Chill - not every argument needs to be met with threats of retaliation or assumptions that the person lost a ship. Some of us oppose CODE not because they can hurt us, but because we think their organization is fundamentally bad for the game and drives a lot of decent people out of it. But anyhow, let's stick to the topic here - awoxx changes, not the moral worth of CODE.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21348	Posted - 2014.10.31 21:23:52 - [696] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Chill - not every argument needs to be met with threats of retaliation or assumptions that the person lost a ship. Some of us oppose CODE not because they can hurt us, but because we think their organization is fundamentally bad for the game and drives a lot of decent people out of it. If you're an example of "decent" people, then Eve is doomed. "Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 222	Posted - 2014.10.31 21:25:15 - [697] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Chill - not every argument needs to be met with threats of retaliation or assumptions that the person lost a ship. Some of us oppose CODE not because they can hurt us, but because we think their organization is fundamentally bad for the game and drives a lot of decent people out of it. If you're an example of "decent" people, then Eve is doomed. Confirming that I have never suicide ganked, scammed, or awoxxed anyone while playing. I suppose Eve is most certainly doomed unless it has more of those activities.
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 6591	Posted - 2014.10.31 21:26:28 - [698] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: But anyhow, let's stick to the topic here - awoxx changes, not the moral worth of CODE. To be honest, until Kaarous logs back on with his threats to quit and various other amusing postings, I prefer the CODE meltdown over the awoxing drama. Mr Epeen There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 41	Posted - 2014.10.31 21:27:15 - [699] - Quote Anthar Peva wrote: Persifonne wrote: When will hisec become pvp free (except for duels and wardecs). Anyone activating weapons on player ship that you arent wardecced to, isnt flashy red or in a duel with will get concorded. Only pvp in lowsec null and wh. This day is coming. It is closer than we think. 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) Veers Belvar wrote: Personally I think awoxxing never made much sense. How does it really benefit the game? 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) They are in a nice blingy ship out there taking the risk that you can awox, gank, or think of any other way to blow up their ship, the change would only mean you now take the risk of losing your ship during the awox. We have established that the self proclaimed content creating awoxxers do not want to lose their ship. And its really really bad for Eve when the self proclaimed content creating awwoxers are risk averse.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21350	Posted - 2014.10.31 21:29:03 - [700] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Chill - not every argument needs to be met with threats of retaliation or assumptions that the person lost a ship. Some of us oppose CODE not because they can hurt us, but because we think their organization is fundamentally bad for the game and drives a lot of decent people out of it. If you're an example of "decent" people, then Eve is doomed. Confirming that I have never suicide ganked, scammed, or awoxxed anyone while playing. While I have suicide ganked, on a previous character, in the past , I've never scammed or awoxxed people either. I don't claim to be above reproach, always right, or an expert on things I know little of, unlike yourself. Quote: I suppose Eve is most certainly doomed unless it has more of those activities. That's not what I meant and you know it. "Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar Nil mortifi sine lucre.

Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 423	Posted - 2014.10.31 21:32:07 - [701] - Quote Veers, can I direct you to my other thread for a more formal discussion, away from the GD rabble? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5168350#post5168350 For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/ New Order Diplomat, contact me for all your New Order enquiries!
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 41	Posted - 2014.10.31 21:34:27 - [702] - Quote And since someone brought up isk....... CCP Recurve - Average ISK per character is steadily rising. It is very unevenly distributed. CCP Recurve - The top 20% own 89% of the ISK. It is more unbalanced on Serenity. So basically all the isk is funneling up to the few people running the Coalitions. I wonder when the majority of null will wake up and realize they are nothing but serfs in New Eden.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 129	Posted - 2014.10.31 21:35:33 - [703] - Quote Ssoraszh Tzarszh wrote: Every sandbox has walls to contain the sand, even the Sahara ends somewhere. And in this case CCP sees a need to contain the 5 year old's hitting each other with a tiny shovel to allow a few more toddlers in the sandbox. More people, less alts is a good thing and if this helps even a small bit to retain new players and actually _understand_ what this game is fundamantaly about and what it has to offer you just might see that person not hiding in High Sec anymore and joining us in w-space, Lowsec or even Nullbore. I have seen people who were dropping corp every wardec, and it took some mentoring to get them to hang around the next time it happened, but when you can make that difference that is an impact on the game. Even if only you and the little pack of newbies knows about it. Throwing sandbox around like everyone needs to play only one way is sadly not what sandbox means, Eve is not only a hard and cold awox scam but it is also the great experience with your buddies achieving something against all odds. This has for me created friendships for the last ten years with people i have never met in real life and would never have met if we did not have some common grounds. If you are upset you now have one less option to grief people, try and learn the game better. There are plenty mechanics left to grief and gank to your hearts content you only need to dig a little deeper in the sand to see them. So in stead of just awoxing some newbie or that once in two years purple raven (was also a newbie with plex btw) you can try and mentoring them to broaden their horizons give them some fire in their belly in stead of their face. Who knows, it might just get better results and help CCP to subs and yourself to some more targets(who actually would shoot back this time). Longterm vs short term thinking just killing noobs and laughing at them is not a very good strategy as people have pointed out. 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.
Anslo Scope Works 20427	Posted - 2014.10.31 21:36:23 - [704] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: And since someone brought up isk....... CCP Recurve - Average ISK per character is steadily rising. It is very unevenly distributed. CCP Recurve - The top 20% own 89% of the ISK. It is more unbalanced on Serenity. So basically all the isk is funneling up to the few people running the Coalitions. I wonder when the majority of null will wake up and realize they are nothing but serfs in New Eden. Sorry guys. I think I broke this dude like two pages ago. Woops. [center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 41	Posted - 2014.10.31 21:40:00 - [705] - Quote Anslo wrote: Syn Shi wrote: And since someone brought up isk....... CCP Recurve - Average ISK per character is steadily rising. It is very unevenly distributed. CCP Recurve - The top 20% own 89% of the ISK. It is more unbalanced on Serenity. So basically all the isk is funneling up to the few people running the Coalitions. I wonder when the majority of null will wake up and realize they are nothing but serfs in New Eden. Sorry guys. I think I broke this dude like two pages ago. Woops. CCP Falcon - IGÇÖd like to add the graphs into the minutes. These graphs are hard t o quantify into words. CCP Recurve - We can do some. In the net inflow and sinks and faucets the biggest drop was Odyssey with the SisterGÇÖs ships coming in. CCP Greyscale - Not everyone realizes that LP is a massive ISK sink.
Ralph King-Griffin Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 6331	Posted - 2014.10.31 21:41:37 - [706] - Quote mike and/or any csm or dev monitoring this thread, given that we will now be able to cue people to kick, the longest period one would need to put up with a belligerent undesirable in corp is about 23ish hours (assuming there is a director/ceo online) is this necessary? you wouldn't have people wearing nubie corps as a fashionable hat for weeks on end anymore so why the extra step? "I'm also quite confident that you are laughing and it's the kind of laugh that gives normal people shivers." =]I[=
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 41	Posted - 2014.10.31 21:42:08 - [707] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Ssoraszh Tzarszh wrote: Every sandbox has walls to contain the sand, even the Sahara ends somewhere. And in this case CCP sees a need to contain the 5 year old's hitting each other with a tiny shovel to allow a few more toddlers in the sandbox. More people, less alts is a good thing and if this helps even a small bit to retain new players and actually _understand_ what this game is fundamantaly about and what it has to offer you just might see that person not hiding in High Sec anymore and joining us in w-space, Lowsec or even Nullbore. I have seen people who were dropping corp every wardec, and it took some mentoring to get them to hang around the next time it happened, but when you can make that difference that is an impact on the game. Even if only you and the little pack of newbies knows about it. Throwing sandbox around like everyone needs to play only one way is sadly not what sandbox means, Eve is not only a hard and cold awox scam but it is also the great experience with your buddies achieving something against all odds. This has for me created friendships for the last ten years with people i have never met in real life and would never have met if we did not have some common grounds. If you are upset you now have one less option to grief people, try and learn the game better. There are plenty mechanics left to grief and gank to your hearts content you only need to dig a little deeper in the sand to see them. So in stead of just awoxing some newbie or that once in two years purple raven (was also a newbie with plex btw) you can try and mentoring them to broaden their horizons give them some fire in their belly in stead of their face. Who knows, it might just get better results and help CCP to subs and yourself to some more targets(who actually would shoot back this time). Longterm vs short term thinking just killing noobs and laughing at them is not a very good strategy as people have pointed out. 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. Its not being removed. You will just have to deal with concord now. Its your choice to remove the activity from your play list.
Carmen Electra SniggWaffe WAFFLES. 11832	Posted - 2014.10.31 21:43:30 - [708] - Quote 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? Bacon makes us stronger
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2961	Posted - 2014.10.31 21:50:44 - [709] - Quote CSM dude when is highsec reward going to be nerfed? This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 41	Posted - 2014.10.31 21:50:46 - [710] - Quote Carmen Electra wrote: 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? Yes, you missed the fact that its not being removed. They can still carry on but if the change was made they would lose their ship. The only ones choosing to remove awox are the ones carrying out the awox.

Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21351	Posted - 2014.10.31 21:55:24 - [711] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Yes, you missed the fact that its not being removed. They can still carry on but if the change was made they would lose their ship. As you've been repeatedly told, that turns it into a suicide gank, so for all intents and purposes awoxing is being removed. "Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar Nil mortifi sine lucre.
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2467	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:02:21 - [712] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Syn Shi wrote: Yes, you missed the fact that its not being removed. They can still carry on but if the change was made they would lose their ship. As you've been repeatedly told, that turns it into a suicide gank, so for all intents and purposes awoxing is being removed. So you're saying: Suicide Gank - Ship Loss = Awox Interesting......interesting.....But what if we assume that the target is a new player corp in hisec, can we replace some equivalent expressions? Suicide Gank - Risk = Awox Fascinating stuff!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4387	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:03:02 - [713] - Quote Marsha Mallow wrote: If Code is supporting botters either accidentally or deliberately, we could argue you are too. You're part of a scrub empire that funds its SRP from renters. Don't even try to pretend some of those renter corps aren't overflowing with bots, or that anyone is unaware of it. That dirty bot ISK flows through pretty much every nullsec alliance wallet to every blobmoney in null with an SRP policy, making everyone involved participants. You're a filthy botlord Lucas, and everyone knows it. You can argue what you want, I'm not the one sitting around claiming to be trying to rid highsec of bot aspirant behaviour while attacking all miners that display behaviour that is not bot aspirant. One day when I start making grandiose claims of performing the exact opposite of my actions, then you can criticise me in the same way and I might take it on board. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
beakerax Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 36	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:05:34 - [714] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: CCP Recurve - The top 20% own 89% of the ISK. It is more unbalanced on Serenity. EVE is real!
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 97	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:06:33 - [715] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: We should not remove game mechanics that drive conflict. There is no "we". You have no influence on this decision. CCP wants to drive people into lo/null, so more changes will come, to lure people there. In short: they make people like codies obsolete, who claim to have a similar target. So why that noise? Maybe its about the awox, maybe someone begins to see that cheap griefing gets reduced. The rumor about player loss about this changes are quite ... lets say funny. Elite and SC show there is highdemand for SpaceSim and EvE can and might profit from that fact to. That brings changes for all players and some might not like them. Still EvE will not turn into WoW, even when highsec gets safer. What might miners get into other areas? Less ore to mine. No reason why CCP will do nothing about belt distributions and asteroid amount. Forum Main
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 2951	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:06:36 - [716] - Quote Carmen Electra wrote: 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? No. You missed absolutely nothing. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/
Carmen Electra SniggWaffe WAFFLES. 11836	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:06:57 - [717] - Quote I don't know why y'all so mad about high sec rewards. I make ISK in high sec and then go welp shiny stuff in PVP in low and null. Bacon makes us stronger
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 41	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:08:02 - [718] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Syn Shi wrote: Yes, you missed the fact that its not being removed. They can still carry on but if the change was made they would lose their ship. 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. Awox...pretending to join a corp to shoot someone as used in the OP..and under the current rules with no consequence. If you still join that corp and pretend to be nice how does having a consequence change this fact? You still joined the corp to play nice just to shoot them....that doesn't change. The only time it becomes suicide ganking is when they aren't part of your corp.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4388	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:08:46 - [719] - Quote Ralph King-Griffin wrote: mike and/or any csm or dev monitoring this thread, given that we will now be able to cue people to kick, the longest period one would need to put up with a belligerent undesirable in corp is about 23ish hours (assuming there is a director/ceo online) is this necessary? you wouldn't have people wearing nubie corps as a fashionable hat for weeks on end anymore so why the extra step? ill further the question actually, will an individual still be allowed to financially gut a corp and run off into the sunset in say six months or is this strictly an aggression/crimewatch thing? Because it's not about the actual kill itself, it's about the behaviour the ability to aggress with no concord response supports. All the time corp aggression is possible, people that run half decent corps will more often than not put in minimum playtime/SP barriers to entry to stop throwaway awox alts. This also stop real new players engaging with other players in corps. I'd argue that this change in particular is more important than the cop kick queue, though honestly, not being able to kick a corp member because they happen to be in a timezone where they have the ability to log on right as downtime ends is pretty silly in itself. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2468	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:09:51 - [720] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Because if someone criticizes or dsagrees with you, they have to be on par with veers or dinsdale. There is criticism and there is delusional rambling about made up facts and fantasies. It's fun when it starts, usually because the level of stupid is so surprisingly high. But it gets old very fast. Funny, any time someone criticizes code, you (code and your supporters) almost always accuse them of delusional rambling. That must be convenient, I suppose. Could you provide an example where that isn't the case, please?

La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 97	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:11:16 - [721] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: I'm not the one sitting around claiming to be trying to rid highsec of bot aspirant behaviour while attacking all miners that display behaviour that is not bot aspirant. I do not understand how those people can ignore the "reality". I asked myself to, is this deliberate to drive out mining competition? Or do they really believe that nonsense? It is hard to believe for me, that those people might really be that foolish. PotatoOverdose wrote: Funny, any time someone criticizes code, you (code and your supporters) almost always accuse them of delusional rambling. That must be convenient, I suppose. Yes, very funny. Ignoring some facts like following someone and believing what he says without doubts. Not very EvE like. Forum Main
Zappity SUPREME MATHEMATICS A Band Apart. 1508	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:11:54 - [722] - Quote I just saw this in the Help channel from a noob: "[The noob] > wow... talk about a friendly game. 5 applications all rejected. Well **** you too corp finder" I'm not thrilled about highsec becoming safer but I do want noob recruitment to be easier. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2961	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:12:14 - [723] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Ralph King-Griffin wrote: mike and/or any csm or dev monitoring this thread, given that we will now be able to cue people to kick, the longest period one would need to put up with a belligerent undesirable in corp is about 23ish hours (assuming there is a director/ceo online) is this necessary? you wouldn't have people wearing nubie corps as a fashionable hat for weeks on end anymore so why the extra step? ill further the question actually, will an individual still be allowed to financially gut a corp and run off into the sunset in say six months or is this strictly an aggression/crimewatch thing? Because it's not about the actual kill itself, it's about the behaviour the ability to aggress with no concord response supports. All the time corp aggression is possible, people that run half decent corps will more often than not put in minimum playtime/SP barriers to entry to stop throwaway awox alts. This also stop real new players engaging with other players in corps. I'd argue that this change in particular is more important than the cop kick queue, though honestly, not being able to kick a corp member because they happen to be in a timezone where they have the ability to log on right as downtime ends is pretty silly in itself. Solving a psychological issue via game mechanics. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21352	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:14:17 - [724] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: So you're saying: Suicide Gank - Ship Loss = Awox Interesting......interesting.....But what if we assume that the target is a new player-corp in hisec, can we replace some equivalent expressions? Suicide Gank - Risk = Awox Fascinating stuff! Currently it's possible for the awoxer to lose his ship at the hands of the people being awoxed. There is risk involved as there isn't a guaranteed outcome. 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. "Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar Nil mortifi sine lucre.
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2468	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:15:08 - [725] - Quote La Nariz wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Ralph King-Griffin wrote: mike and/or any csm or dev monitoring this thread, given that we will now be able to cue people to kick, the longest period one would need to put up with a belligerent undesirable in corp is about 23ish hours (assuming there is a director/ceo online) is this necessary? you wouldn't have people wearing nubie corps as a fashionable hat for weeks on end anymore so why the extra step? ill further the question actually, will an individual still be allowed to financially gut a corp and run off into the sunset in say six months or is this strictly an aggression/crimewatch thing? Because it's not about the actual kill itself, it's about the behaviour the ability to aggress with no concord response supports. All the time corp aggression is possible, people that run half decent corps will more often than not put in minimum playtime/SP barriers to entry to stop throwaway awox alts. This also stop real new players engaging with other players in corps. I'd argue that this change in particular is more important than the cop kick queue, though honestly, not being able to kick a corp member because they happen to be in a timezone where they have the ability to log on right as downtime ends is pretty silly in itself. Solving a psychological issue via game mechanics. And why not? If it helps new players find a home in eve, I don't see a problem.
Marsha Mallow 1655	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:15:21 - [726] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Marsha Mallow wrote: If Code is supporting botters either accidentally or deliberately, we could argue you are too. You're part of a scrub empire that funds its SRP from renters. Don't even try to pretend some of those renter corps aren't overflowing with bots, or that anyone is unaware of it. That dirty bot ISK flows through pretty much every nullsec alliance wallet to every blobmoney in null with an SRP policy, making everyone involved participants. You're a filthy botlord Lucas, and everyone knows it. You can argue what you want, I'm not the one sitting around claiming to be trying to rid highsec of bot aspirant behaviour while attacking all miners that display behaviour that is not bot aspirant. One day when I start making grandiose claims of performing the exact opposite of my actions, then you can criticise me in the same way and I might take it on board. You could just join a CODE fleet rather than flailing about making up conspiracy theories. When you see some of the stuff the 'victims' come out with you can't help but enjoy the nerd-RP. But I suppose that requires a sense of humour. Since you so graciously concede that you are indeed a filthy botlord, I accept your surrender. See how much easier that was than 20 pages of back and forth? Btw, you snipped the most important part of my post Marsha Mallow wrote: Shut the **** up Lucas. DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 97	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:17:18 - [727] - Quote Carmen Electra wrote: 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? I think you got the gist of it. IMO those pro-awoxers and friends don't have lot of Arguments. And no good ones. Forum Main
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2468	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:18:37 - [728] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: So you're saying: Suicide Gank - Ship Loss = Awox Interesting......interesting.....But what if we assume that the target is a new player-corp in hisec, can we replace some equivalent expressions? Suicide Gank - Risk = Awox Fascinating stuff! 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. A fair point, as the equations would only hold true if some unscrupulous individuals would only target relatively new players in newbie friendly corps, ignorant of game mechanics. And we know no one would ever do that....
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4389	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:19:05 - [729] - Quote La Nariz wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Ralph King-Griffin wrote: mike and/or any csm or dev monitoring this thread, given that we will now be able to cue people to kick, the longest period one would need to put up with a belligerent undesirable in corp is about 23ish hours (assuming there is a director/ceo online) is this necessary? you wouldn't have people wearing nubie corps as a fashionable hat for weeks on end anymore so why the extra step? ill further the question actually, will an individual still be allowed to financially gut a corp and run off into the sunset in say six months or is this strictly an aggression/crimewatch thing? Because it's not about the actual kill itself, it's about the behaviour the ability to aggress with no concord response supports. All the time corp aggression is possible, people that run half decent corps will more often than not put in minimum playtime/SP barriers to entry to stop throwaway awox alts. This also stop real new players engaging with other players in corps. I'd argue that this change in particular is more important than the cop kick queue, though honestly, not being able to kick a corp member because they happen to be in a timezone where they have the ability to log on right as downtime ends is pretty silly in itself. Solving a psychological issue via game mechanics. I guess it could be seen that way. All the time the risk is there, people are going to mitigate it, and the easiest way to do that is blanket reject anyone under a certain amount of playtime. It's removes the risk but isn't new player friendly. Mechanically mitigating that risk so newer players can be embraced rather than rejected seems to be a very positive change. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2961	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:19:56 - [730] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: La Nariz wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Ralph King-Griffin wrote: mike and/or any csm or dev monitoring this thread, given that we will now be able to cue people to kick, the longest period one would need to put up with a belligerent undesirable in corp is about 23ish hours (assuming there is a director/ceo online) is this necessary? you wouldn't have people wearing nubie corps as a fashionable hat for weeks on end anymore so why the extra step? ill further the question actually, will an individual still be allowed to financially gut a corp and run off into the sunset in say six months or is this strictly an aggression/crimewatch thing? Because it's not about the actual kill itself, it's about the behaviour the ability to aggress with no concord response supports. All the time corp aggression is possible, people that run half decent corps will more often than not put in minimum playtime/SP barriers to entry to stop throwaway awox alts. This also stop real new players engaging with other players in corps. I'd argue that this change in particular is more important than the cop kick queue, though honestly, not being able to kick a corp member because they happen to be in a timezone where they have the ability to log on right as downtime ends is pretty silly in itself. Solving a psychological issue via game mechanics. And why not? If it helps new players find a home in eve, I don't see a problem. Because its a symptomatic treatment instead of treating the cause of the problem. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133

La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 97	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:20:04 - [731] - Quote Marsha Mallow wrote: Btw, you snipped the most important part of my post If that was the most important part, you apprarently hadn't anything to say. Forum Main
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 425	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:20:35 - [732] - Quote La Rynx wrote: Carmen Electra wrote: 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? I think you got the gist of it. IMO those pro-awoxers and friends don't have lot of Arguments. And no good ones. Wrote a piece about awoxing and corp recruitment in the Assembly hall. GD level discussions are just full of human waste products. For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/ New Order Diplomat, contact me for all your New Order enquiries!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4389	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:22:46 - [733] - Quote Marsha Mallow wrote: You could just join a CODE fleet rather than flailing about making up conspiracy theories. When you see some of the stuff the 'victims' come out with you can't help but enjoy the nerd-RP. But I suppose that requires a sense of humour. I don't need to join a fleet or make anything up. Their kills are plain to see, and the vast majority are untanked solo players many of whom react with tears when ganked. Bots don't react with tears, bots don't fly insufficiently tanked mining barges solo. Thus CODE claiming to be against bot aspirant behaviour is an outright lie or a display of incredible incompetence. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Masao Kurata Z List 124	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:23:20 - [734] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Its not being removed. You will just have to deal with concord now. 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.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 41	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:25:13 - [735] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: So you're saying: Suicide Gank - Ship Loss = Awox Interesting......interesting.....But what if we assume that the target is a new player-corp in hisec, can we replace some equivalent expressions? Suicide Gank - Risk = Awox Fascinating stuff! 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. Concord being involved doesn't determine if it is awox vs suicide gank. The term awox only refers to when both the awoxer and mark are in the same corp. And changing it so concord will respond doesn't change the fact that you and the mark are in the same corp. 37 pages and I thought the awoxxers knew what the term meant.
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2468	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:25:16 - [736] - Quote La Nariz wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: La Nariz wrote: [quote=Lucas Kell] Solving a psychological issue via game mechanics. And why not? If it helps new players find a home in eve, I don't see a problem. Because its a symptomatic treatment instead of treating the cause of the problem. In the real world symptomatic treatment saves lives. A patient with an excessively high temperature is placed into an ice bath to prevent permanent brain damage and death. A patient suffering from severe dissentry or ebola is treated with large volumes of fluids and electrolytes to prevent death by dehydration. Treating the symptoms is often no less necessary than treating the underlying cause. The same is true here.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21352	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:27:10 - [737] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: A fair point Thanks Quote: as the equations would only hold true if some unscrupulous individuals would only target relatively new players in newbie friendly corps, ignorant of game mechanics. And we know no one would ever do that.... lol I'm not denying that awoxers target newbie friendly corps, but they don't exclusively target them either. They target pretty much anybody that will recruit them, which includes corps that should know better as well as newbie friendly ones. With reference to ignorance of game mechanics, that would be the fault of whoever is leading the corp that gets awoxed. If they lack the knowledge required to protect their corp assets, and more importantly the knowledge required to teach their newbies how to protect themselves, they shouldn't be leading a corp, or recruiting newbies. "Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar Nil mortifi sine lucre.
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 97	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:27:14 - [738] - Quote "psychological issues" To keep people interested it is important to minimize unnecessary frustrating moments and give the impression of fairness. I have problems how this awoxing will teach something to new players. Moreso when the older player sits there and plays with the gamemechnics NewBros don't know. Content vs Player rention value, i would think one could let go of awoxing and not miss much. I start to think that some cerrtain group starts to realize that their end might be on the horizon. Forum Main
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2468	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:29:54 - [739] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: A fair point Thanks Quote: as the equations would only hold true if some unscrupulous individuals would only target relatively new players in newbie friendly corps, ignorant of game mechanics. And we know no one would ever do that.... lol I'm not denying that awoxers target newbie friendly corps, but they don't exclusively target them. They target pretty much anybody that will recruit them, which includes corps that should know better as well as newbie friendly ones. And those players that don't exclusively target ignorant new player corps in hisec can move on to awoxing low sec corps, awoxing npc 0.0 corps, awoxing sov corps, and awoxing wormhole corps. If they target anyone that will recruit them, then they have a cluster's worth of awoxing opportunity ahead of them.
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2961	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:30:37 - [740] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: In the real world symptomatic treatment saves lives. A patient with an excessively high temperature is placed into an ice bath to prevent permanent brain damage and death. A patient suffering from severe dissentry or ebola is treated with large volumes of fluids and electrolytes to prevent death by dehydration. Treating the symptoms is often no less necessary than treating the underlying cause. The same is true here. Apples to oranges, is EVE the real world? No it isn't treating this symptom with a hamfisted attempt is only going to make the overall cause and problem worse. Not only that it's a waste of resources when they could be working on the cause instead of trying random crap. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133

Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 41	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:32:27 - [741] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: Syn Shi wrote: Its not being removed. You will just have to deal with concord now. 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. Get your real corp mates together...tell them you are going to join a noobie corp and convince a newer player to take his best stuff out to low-sec for some level 5 mission fun. When he agrees (assuming you are actually good at infiltrating and getting them all friendly), let your rel corp mates where to meet you to drop the hammer. This is the real good part, have your corp mates also attack you....but not kill you. They let you go but you play it up as you somehow got away. If you are any good at it you could do this a few times before some caught on. Not only have you created more content for more people (your real corp), if you are any good at it you may be able to pull this off. Or you can choose to stop and play the victim. I don't even participate in this activity and it looks like I put more effort and creativity into awoxxing than the awoxxers in this thread.
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2961	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:33:23 - [742] - Quote La Rynx wrote: "psychological issues" To keep people interested it is important to minimize unnecessary frustrating moments and give the impression of fairness. I have problems how this awoxing will teach something to new players. Moreso when the older player sits there and plays with the gamemechnics NewBros don't know. Content vs Player rention value, i would think one could let go of awoxing and not miss much. I start to think that some cerrtain group starts to realize that their end might be on the horizon. You are opening a can of worms if you want to talk fairness. Highsec has been made progressively safer yet there has not been a reward nerf to it. Players remain for the content so every time you take content away you decrease player retention. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 97	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:33:37 - [743] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: I don't need to join a fleet or make anything up. Their kills are plain to see, and the vast majority are untanked solo players many of whom react with tears when ganked. Bots don't react with tears, bots don't fly insufficiently tanked mining barges solo. Thus CODE claiming to be against bot aspirant behaviour is an outright lie or a display of incredible incompetence. Another thing. Those guys are so into "it" (whatever "it" is) that they do not understand, that they themself give out those facts. Read their blog and you can see what they are really doing. It seems the codies understand only the "hurrah" part. Forum Main
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2468	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:34:32 - [744] - Quote La Nariz wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: In the real world symptomatic treatment saves lives. A patient with an excessively high temperature is placed into an ice bath to prevent permanent brain damage and death. A patient suffering from severe dissentry or ebola is treated with large volumes of fluids and electrolytes to prevent death by dehydration. Treating the symptoms is often no less necessary than treating the underlying cause. The same is true here. Apples to oranges, is EVE the real world? No it isn't treating this symptom with a hamfisted attempt is only going to make the overall cause and problem worse. Not only that it's a waste of resources when they could be working on the cause instead of trying random crap. You brought up the "symptomatic treatment" analogy, a medical term. You brought up the real world analogy, not me. Sorry I had to crush your terrible analogy like a bug. La Nariz wrote: No it isn't treating this symptom with a hamfisted attempt is only going to make the overall cause and problem worse. Not only that it's a waste of resources when they could be working on the cause instead of trying random crap. [Citation Needed]
Mike Azariah DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited 1806	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:34:42 - [745] - Quote La Nariz wrote: CSM dude when is highsec reward going to be nerfed? It isn't, too many players in other parts of the game partially finance themselves with said income. If you gutted that the ripples would go much further than you might expect. To the other person who asked about corp robbery? No I do not see that being on the chopping bl;ock in the (what was the time frame?) next six months. m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
Masao Kurata Z List 124	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:34:53 - [746] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Completely unrelated bullshit Well I guess that's one way to avoid learning any mechanics.
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2961	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:35:40 - [747] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: And those players that don't exclusively target ignorant new player corps in hisec can move on to awoxing low sec corps, awoxing npc 0.0 corps, awoxing sov corps, and awoxing wormhole corps. If they target anyone that will recruit them, then they have a cluster's worth of awoxing opportunity ahead of them. It was never about preying on new players like every pro-highsec person wants to assert. It was about preying on people with more isk than brains. Lowsec corporations were not targets as much because they were more aware of the potential for violence than the deliberately ignorant highsec corporations. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 41	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:37:03 - [748] - Quote Get your real corp mates together...tell them you are going to join a noobie corp and convince a newer player to take his best stuff out to low-sec for some level 5 mission fun. When he agrees (assuming you are actually good at infiltrating and getting them all friendly), let your real corp mates know where to meet you to drop the hammer. This is the real good part, have your corp mates also attack you....but not kill you. They let you go but you play it up as you somehow got away. If you are any good at it you could do this a few times before someone caught on. Not only have you created more content for more people (your real corp), if you are any good at it you may be able to pull this off a few times before getting the boot. Or you can choose to stop and play the victim. I don't even participate in this activity and it looks like I put more effort and creativity into awoxxing than the awoxxers in this thread.
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2963	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:37:15 - [749] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: La Nariz wrote: CSM dude when is highsec reward going to be nerfed? It isn't, too many players in other parts of the game partially finance themselves with said income. If you gutted that the ripples would go much further than you might expect. To the other person who asked about corp robbery? No I do not see that being on the chopping bl;ock in the (what was the time frame?) next six months. m Don't fix it because to fix it we'd have to fix the game. What the christ. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 97	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:38:30 - [750] - Quote La Nariz wrote: You are opening a can of worms if you want to talk fairness. Highsec ... Sorry that was unclear. I talk about meta. i am talking about the felt "fairness" when doing something, like playing a game for example. A good game will be challenging but avoid to get to frustrating. Felt Effort wants to be rewarded. IMO this is still doable without "destroying EvE" or "create a theme park". Forum Main

PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2468	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:39:49 - [751] - Quote La Nariz wrote: It was never about preying on new players like every pro-highsec person wants to assert. It was about preying on people with more isk than brains. Lowsec corporations were not targets as much because they were more aware of the potential for violence than the deliberately ignorant highsec corporations. You are ignorant of history. Awoxing began in nullsec. Nullsec and lowsec corporations were the first and primary targets of awoxing. It is fitting that it returns to a primarily nullsec/lowsec role.
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 97	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:40:07 - [752] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: To the other person who asked about corp robbery? No I do not see that being on the chopping bl;ock in the (what was the time frame?) next six months. LOL Good joke! I think you made some people a little anxious! Forum Main
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2963	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:40:33 - [753] - Quote La Rynx wrote: La Nariz wrote: You are opening a can of worms if you want to talk fairness. Highsec ... Sorry that was unclear. I talk about meta. i am talking about the felt "fairness" when doing something, like playing a game for example. A good game will be challenging but avoid to get to frustrating. Felt Effort wants to be rewarded. IMO this is still doable without "destroying EvE" or "create a theme park". I agree with you but, there are better ways than this change. Like for example changing PVE from horrible grindy mess to engaging and fun. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 426	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:40:43 - [754] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: La Nariz wrote: CSM dude when is highsec reward going to be nerfed? It isn't, too many players in other parts of the game partially finance themselves with said income. If you gutted that the ripples would go much further than you might expect. To the other person who asked about corp robbery? No I do not see that being on the chopping bl;ock in the (what was the time frame?) next six months. m This is exactly why the income needs to be gutted. Oh wait, us goons are the only idiots who make money where everyone else takes a dump. For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/ New Order Diplomat, contact me for all your New Order enquiries!
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21352	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:40:48 - [755] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: And those players that don't exclusively target ignorant new player corps in hisec If the corp leadership is ignorant of game mechanics then they shouldn't be leading a corp, and they definitely shouldn't be recruiting newbies. IMHO a corp that recruits newbies should be in a position to teach those newbies how to protect themselves, without knowledge of game mechanics they aren't in a position to do so, thus they shouldn't be recruiting newbies. Quote: can move on to awoxing low sec corps, awoxing npc 0.0 corps, awoxing sov corps, and awoxing wormhole corps. If they target anyone that will recruit them, then they have a cluster's worth of awoxing opportunity ahead of them. Post change lowsec, wh's and null will be the only places in which awoxing can happen, the leadership of corps in those areas of space tend to be more savvy than the average highsec corp and thus less likely to recruit without practising due diligence; although there are always exceptions. "Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar Nil mortifi sine lucre.
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2963	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:42:03 - [756] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: La Nariz wrote: It was never about preying on new players like every pro-highsec person wants to assert. It was about preying on people with more isk than brains. Lowsec corporations were not targets as much because they were more aware of the potential for violence than the deliberately ignorant highsec corporations. You are ignorant of history. Awoxing began in nullsec. Nullsec and lowsec corporations were the first and primary targets of awoxing. Awoxing began in nullsec. It is fitting that it returns to a primarily nullsec/lowsec role. I'm aware of that those corporations are the same as the lowsec example I provided. We're here talking about highsec. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 41	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:42:23 - [757] - Quote La Nariz wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: La Nariz wrote: CSM dude when is highsec reward going to be nerfed? It isn't, too many players in other parts of the game partially finance themselves with said income. If you gutted that the ripples would go much further than you might expect. To the other person who asked about corp robbery? No I do not see that being on the chopping bl;ock in the (what was the time frame?) next six months. m Don't fix it because to fix it we'd have to fix the game. What the christ. No, he is saying that all the null people keep asserting that hi-sec makes way more than them and they have data that shows something different. And yes, this change is specifically being looked at because of the ones who specifically target new players. YOu could read that in the minutes but I know that isn't going to happen or be accepted.
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2468	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:44:52 - [758] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: And those players that don't exclusively target ignorant new player corps in hisec If the corp leadership is ignorant of game mechanics then they shouldn't be leading a corp, and they definitely shouldn't be recruiting newbies. IMHO a corp that recruits newbies should be in a position to teach those newbies how to protect themselves, without knowledge of game mechanics they aren't in a position to do so, thus they shouldn't be recruiting newbies. [/quote] Knowledge of current game mechanics dictates that the wisest course is not recruiting players with little to no history unless you already know them out of game. That's the problem. Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Quote: can move on to awoxing low sec corps, awoxing npc 0.0 corps, awoxing sov corps, and awoxing wormhole corps. If they target anyone that will recruit them, then they have a cluster's worth of awoxing opportunity ahead of them. Post change lowsec, wh's and null will be the only places in which awoxing can happen, the leadership of corps in those areas of space tend to be more savvy than the average highsec corp and thus less likely to recruit without practising due diligence; although there are always exceptions. Awoxing began in null, without the use of any mechanics to avoid concord because there was no concord to avoid. And the null entities in question (pandemic legion and goonswarm) were among the savviest entities back then as they are now.
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2469	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:46:08 - [759] - Quote La Nariz wrote: I'm aware of that those corporations are the same as the lowsec example I provided. We're here talking about highsec. 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.
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2963	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:48:28 - [760] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: No, he is saying that all the null people keep asserting that hi-sec makes way more than them and they have data that shows something different. And yes, this change is specifically being looked at because of the ones who specifically target new players. YOu could read that in the minutes but I know that isn't going to happen or be accepted. "It isn't, too many players in other parts of the game partially finance themselves with said income. If you gutted that the ripples would go much further than you might expect." Hmm oh look at that could that mean that players outside of highsec have to use highsec as an income source. Imagine that npc alt. CCP you forgot to remove npc corps posting abilities with the new forums. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133

Lucien Visteen Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 138	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:49:08 - [761] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: And those players that don't exclusively target ignorant new player corps in hisec If the corp leadership is ignorant of game mechanics then they shouldn't be leading a corp, and they definitely shouldn't be recruiting newbies. IMHO a corp that recruits newbies should be in a position to teach those newbies how to protect themselves, without knowledge of game mechanics they aren't in a position to do so, thus they shouldn't be recruiting newbies. So a group of friends that just started the game together should not make their own corporation, if they desire, because ther are newbies? And this group of friends should not invite other players in the same boat? I can see there is a problem with player retention if the first thing a new player hears is; you should not do that. Espesially in a game where fortune favors the bold. The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't.
Marsha Mallow 1656	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:49:17 - [762] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: You are ignorant of history. Awoxing began in nullsec. Nullsec and lowsec corporations were the first and primary targets of awoxing. It is fitting that it returns to a primarily nullsec/lowsec role. Wrong. They were called assassinations or sprees before the awox tag. DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2963	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:49:20 - [763] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: La Nariz wrote: I'm aware of that those corporations are the same as the lowsec example I provided. We're here talking about highsec. 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. Yes we are, does CONCORD respond in null/low/wh? This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 41	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:49:47 - [764] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: La Nariz wrote: I'm aware of that those corporations are the same as the lowsec example I provided. We're here talking about highsec. 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. Read the minutes...it specifically talks about awox in hi-sec against noob corps and the new players. And that is what the OP referenced.
Doc Fury Furious Enterprises 7001	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:49:54 - [765] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: La Nariz wrote: I'm aware of that those corporations are the same as the lowsec example I provided. We're here talking about highsec. 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. Grrr, Highsec. Gÿ+ The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the ho's and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' and I'll look down, and whisper 'Hodor'.
Cancel Align NOW Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 161	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:50:08 - [766] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: La Nariz wrote: I'm aware of that those corporations are the same as the lowsec example I provided. We're here talking about highsec. 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. Read the CSM notes, about which this thread is based.
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 426	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:53:32 - [767] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: La Nariz wrote: CSM dude when is highsec reward going to be nerfed? It isn't, too many players in other parts of the game partially finance themselves with said income. If you gutted that the ripples would go much further than you might expect. To the other person who asked about corp robbery? No I do not see that being on the chopping bl;ock in the (what was the time frame?) next six months. m I mean seriously Mike, imagine if people went to PVP areas for the resources and income potential that was there... For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/ New Order Diplomat, contact me for all your New Order enquiries!
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2469	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:54:14 - [768] - Quote Marsha Mallow wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: You are ignorant of history. Awoxing began in nullsec. Nullsec and lowsec corporations were the first and primary targets of awoxing. It is fitting that it returns to a primarily nullsec/lowsec role. Wrong. They were called assassinations or sprees before the awox tag. Cool. looks at title I see the word awox. Go make a thread about sprees or "assassinations." Might as well bring up "bounty hunting" while you're going on about terms that are no longer relevant.
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2963	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:55:22 - [769] - Quote Amyclas Amatin wrote: I mean seriously Mike, imagine if people went to PVP areas for the resources and income potential that was there... Imagine if there were areas without concord that had limited resources that were worth the :effort: and fighting over. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Ralph King-Griffin Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 6331	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:55:35 - [770] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: To the other person who asked about corp robbery? No I do not see that being on the chopping bl;ock in the (what was the time frame?) next six months. m fair enough, cheers. any encouraging words regarding corp-corp interactions i.e. wardecs ? "I'm also quite confident that you are laughing and it's the kind of laugh that gives normal people shivers." =]I[=

PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2469	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:58:04 - [771] - Quote La Nariz wrote: Amyclas Amatin wrote: I mean seriously Mike, imagine if people went to PVP areas for the resources and income potential that was there... Imagine if there were areas without concord that had limited resources that were worth the :effort: and fighting over. Where'd you guys leave the keys to fountain, if you don't mind my asking? Seeing as it's not worth the :effort: ...
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21353	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:58:53 - [772] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Knowledge of current game mechanics dictates that the wisest course is not recruiting players with little to no history unless you already know them out of game. That's the problem. I can't say I disagree tbh. Personally I won't join a corp that doesn't run checks on recruits, it shows incompetence and laziness IMHO. Quote: Awoxing began in null, without the use of any mechanics to avoid concord because there was no concord to avoid. And the null entities in question (pandemic legion and goonswarm) were among the savviest entities back then as they are now. Correct me if I'm wrong, but awoxing back then was relatively rare and those entities have learnt from it, and embraced the practice to use against others. Nowadays it's a well publicised practice, yet people still recruit obvious awoxers without doing the most basic of checks, you only have to look at the amount of awoxs Psychotic Monk managed to pull off despite the characters he was using having killboards full of green on green shenanigans. "Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar Nil mortifi sine lucre.
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2965	Posted - 2014.10.31 23:01:13 - [773] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: La Nariz wrote: Amyclas Amatin wrote: I mean seriously Mike, imagine if people went to PVP areas for the resources and income potential that was there... Imagine if there were areas without concord that had limited resources that were worth the :effort: and fighting over. Where'd you guys leave the keys to fountain, if you don't mind my asking? Seeing as it's not worth the :effort: ... There's already a thread I made about this in the past and provided data for that shows why you are full of swap.avi on this point. -see post history. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2469	Posted - 2014.10.31 23:07:33 - [774] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Knowledge of current game mechanics dictates that the wisest course is not recruiting players with little to no history unless you already know them out of game. That's the problem. I can't say I disagree tbh. Personally I won't join a corp that doesn't run checks on recruits, it shows incompetence and laziness IMHO. Quote: Awoxing began in null, without the use of any mechanics to avoid concord because there was no concord to avoid. And the null entities in question (pandemic legion and goonswarm) were among the savviest entities back then as they are now. Correct me if I'm wrong, but awoxing back then was relatively rare and those entities have learnt from it, and embraced the practice to use against others. Nowadays it's a well publicised practice, yet people still recruit obvious awoxers without doing the most basic of checks, you only have to look at the amount of awoxs Psychotic Monk managed to pull off despite the characters he was using having killboards full of green on green shenanigans. Yes, awoxing has gotten less revenant in null sec, but every now and then it makes cnn, forbes, or the bbc.
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2469	Posted - 2014.10.31 23:10:46 - [775] - Quote La Nariz wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: La Nariz wrote: Amyclas Amatin wrote: I mean seriously Mike, imagine if people went to PVP areas for the resources and income potential that was there... Imagine if there were areas without concord that had limited resources that were worth the :effort: and fighting over. Where'd you guys leave the keys to fountain, if you don't mind my asking? Seeing as it's not worth the :effort: ... There's already a thread I made about this in the past and provided data for that shows why you are full of swap.avi on this point. -see post history. I'll read your post, but I'm not wading through 20+ pages of post history, given that most of the first 5-10 pages of your post history link back to this thread.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21354	Posted - 2014.10.31 23:13:30 - [776] - Quote Lucien Visteen wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: And those players that don't exclusively target ignorant new player corps in hisec If the corp leadership is ignorant of game mechanics then they shouldn't be leading a corp, and they definitely shouldn't be recruiting newbies. IMHO a corp that recruits newbies should be in a position to teach those newbies how to protect themselves, without knowledge of game mechanics they aren't in a position to do so, thus they shouldn't be recruiting newbies. So a group of friends that just started the game together should not make their own corporation, if they desire, because ther are newbies? And this group of friends should not invite other players in the same boat? I can see there is a problem with player retention if the first thing a new player hears is; you should not do that. Espesially in a game where fortune favors the bold. You're welcome to start a corp for fellow newbies, but I believe that it is a bad idea to do so. If a newbie wishes to do so then I feel that they should at least familiarise themselves with the consequences of doing so, such as wardecs etc, and how to act when those things occur. If corp leadership is ignorant of game mechanics then it is a case of the blind leading the blind, and more experienced players can, and will take advantage of said ignorance. Which does nothing for player retention or the lifespan of the corp. TL;DR If you want to start a corp with fellow newbies then do so, but familiarise yourself with game mechanics and the consequences of being in a player corp before you do so, even if it's only reading through resources such as the Eve Uni Wiki. "Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Marty McGigglefist State War Academy Caldari State 0	Posted - 2014.10.31 23:27:05 - [777] - Quote Yes this is an alt. Sorry. Black Pedro wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: Dave Stark wrote: a better fix would be to make corps worth being in, and fighting for, rather than locking people in to them during wardecs. Removing awoxing is part of that process. If you don't have to be paranoid of your own corp mates more than of other people, corps start being easier to be in. Right now it's easier to shoot your own corp than other people, that's just silly. If corp theft is much harder with good roles control, no easy awoxing (still suicide ganking etc), and the kick queue they are introducing, it's easier to make it harder to avoid wardecs, and to give corps things worth fighting for. If this is true than I actually support this change. Getting people out of NPC corps and into player corps that can be meaningfully wardecced (that is no longer drop/fold corp) would be a great thing and result in a net increase of conflict for highsec. But from what I am hearing that is not the case. It looks like a misguided "save the newbie" play that will just make highsec more slightly more safe. There is already the corp kick queue coming up which is a nerf to awoxing. Save this change to be part of a package of overhauls to the corporation mechanics that will get players into wardeccable player corps - nerfs/changes to being in NPC corps, better role management to reduce risks from new corp members etc. This topic clearly has people on both sides of the argument all riled up. As far as I can tell, both are correct. Awoxing is a valid form of game play in Eve, a game labeled as a sandbox style game. Awoxing does adversely affect (effect?) new players who simply don't know the many complexities of eve. Especially new players attempting to run a corp. Now as far as I can see, there is no way to really determine which is more detrimental to EVE unless CCP has some actual numbers to look over and truly see whats happening, and the likely hood of any of us getting those numbers is next to nil. So this debate can go on and on, filled with insults and the "your way of playing is wrong, clearly I play internet spaceships in the correct and intended fashion," or we can actually look at whats broken and trying to find plausible fixes to pitch to the next CSM group. I don't have many suggestions to give, but something I've been kicking around regarding wardec dodging: Corp A war dec's Corp B Corp B member wants to avoid a prolonged war/interruption to his/her preferred game play style so they opt to drop corp. Instead of instantly falling back into an NPC corp, Corp B member enters a drop queue, where they will be released from the Corp only after the initial 7 day war period has ended, or a mutual end to the war/surrender that actually works. They will be able to drop from the corp even if Corp A decides to renew the war. This seems to make dec dodging harder but not impossible while still making players experience valid game mechanics. This seems to remove the issue of having players that drop to NPC have a war following them, which seems to be something that's not possible since NPC corps cannot have any type of war against them. Though we do see this idea suggested a lot. Some might say that since its a sandbox game, nobody should be able to force you into something you do not want. True, but if that is the case, then your limiting the other players ability to play in their sandbox and shoot you. Both cannot be had. Hence the idea of trade offs. Clearly this isn't all the way thought out and may possibly be the worst idea ever. Feel free to critique/flame/ignore as you see fit.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 324	Posted - 2014.10.31 23:36:16 - [778] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: La Nariz wrote: CSM dude when is highsec reward going to be nerfed? It isn't, too many players in other parts of the game partially finance themselves with said income. If you gutted that the ripples would go much further than you might expect. Sounds like you just admitted that highsec income needs to be nerfed to me, if people who live in null/low finance themselves in highsec because the rewards are higher there.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1642	Posted - 2014.10.31 23:36:54 - [779] - Quote Marty McGigglefist wrote: I don't have many suggestions to give, but something I've been kicking around regarding wardec dodging: Corp A war dec's Corp B Corp B member wants to avoid a prolonged war/interruption to his/her preferred game play style so they opt to drop corp. Instead of instantly falling back into an NPC corp, Corp B member enters a drop queue, where they will be released from the Corp only after the initial 7 day war period has ended, or a mutual end to the war/surrender that actually works. They will be able to drop from the corp even if Corp A decides to renew the war. This seems to make dec dodging harder but not impossible while still making players experience valid game mechanics. This seems to remove the issue of having players that drop to NPC have a war following them, which seems to be something that's not possible since NPC corps cannot have any type of war against them. Though we do see this idea suggested a lot. Some might say that since its a sandbox game, nobody should be able to force you into something you do not want. True, but if that is the case, then your limiting the other players ability to play in their sandbox and shoot you. Both cannot be had. Hence the idea of trade offs. Clearly this isn't all the way thought out and may possibly be the worst idea ever. Feel free to critique/flame/ignore as you see fit. So Corp B members dock up for a week and don't play the game. You are attempting to punish people for getting Wardec'ed. It will never work. You need something in space worth fighting over. And you need the ability to get a 'fair' fight. Sure this is EVE and fights aren't set up to be fair, but if it's a one sided shooting match, forcing the other guy into it is silly. I've made a number of suggestions of things worth fighting over in the past. As have other people. But the carrot is the way to get people out in space fighting when Wardec'ed. The stick is big enough already since the aggressor gets to choose targets they are sure they can beat.
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10436	Posted - 2014.10.31 23:56:22 - [780] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: And there was a reason it was changed - because people simply harassed other people by constantly wardeccing them when they stood no change of defending themselves, making it pointless to create corps with players that undock. 2m to effectively switch off concord was way too low. Most of the aggressors might have agreed it was awesome, being super cheap PvP against easy targets, but most of thsoe target probably didn't. Horseshit. Go ahead and pull up the dev blog for that change. It specifically states that the changes were intended to buff wardecs, since they were too easy to avoid with the dec shield exploit. (but of course the risk averse shitheels of highsec found another way to cheat their way past actually playing the game) That's why it got changed. Not because of this myth that somehow PvP in highsec isn't supposed to happen. Never spout that lie again. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.

Herzog Wolfhammer Sigma Special Tactics Group 5600	Posted - 2014.11.01 00:23:20 - [781] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Syn Shi wrote: I think the bigger issue is the statement by one of the CSMs calling the person being shot dumb. How can you represent the player base when you view some of them as dumb? 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 OMG we have someone here who recognizes that not everybody is equal! To the SJW Spergmobile! Admittedly though, some players are really asking for it. Given the long thread, who is for the change (some of them I have flown with) and who is against (the usual crowd) I say this is a good change. Since the game is all about HTFU then it's time to end easy ganks. Removing AWOXing is one way to do this without punishing new players. And this is especially because I see a lot of coy excuse-making and talking out of both sides of the keyboard. Look, people will get someone to go sperging triggerlord in comms and then pass the audio around. That's the most extreme. But one reason why I always respected Herr Wilkus (who brought ganking into a level of science) was that he was bluntly honest about the entire thing. He didn't gank people out of the game and then lie about it. It's one thing to harvest noobs or victimize another player through mechanics/agro fu, but don't lie about it. If you want the game to become a niche game for "one type of person" they just say so. Then when the game is down to 10K subscriptions they can go to small fanfests and high five each other over their leetness and how well they gate camp while playing something else on another monitor. Still maybe CCP should toss a bone. How about leaving AWOX capability up to the CEO of the corporation or something that corporation heads must agree on? I think this would be good for CEOs who have a corp member who is loot stealing or spying and would want to give said miscreant a little "send off" during their termination. Like a gold watch shoved straight up the ass. Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10440	Posted - 2014.11.01 00:25:04 - [782] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: You are attempting to punish people for getting Wardec'ed. It will never work. No, they'd be attempting to get people to shoot at each other in a PvP game. If "it will never work" then quite frankly those people belong in an NPC corp. Quote: You need something in space worth fighting over. On this at least we agree. I believe that NPC corps should be sufficiently punitive for players over the age of 60 days that it makes a player corp something genuinely worth defending. Such a thing does not touch newbies, it encourages people getting out there and forming groups and interacting, and it neatly solves the problem of "leveling your Raven" players. Quote: And you need the ability to get a 'fair' fight. Sure this is EVE and fights aren't set up to be fair, but if it's a one sided shooting match, forcing the other guy into it is silly. There is no such thing as a fair fight in EVE. Interestingly, neither is there such a thing as a one sided shooting match(at least in highsec where there are not capitals anyway), as each and every player is capable of fighting back. There is no way to not have gunnery skills in this game. (and if you choose to not train them, you have made the deliberate choice to be a prey animal. Sometimes prey animals are caught and eaten, but that's literally what you chose) Quote: I've made a number of suggestions of things worth fighting over in the past. As have other people. But the carrot is the way to get people out in space fighting when Wardec'ed. The stick is big enough already since the aggressor gets to choose targets they are sure they can beat. The carrot is worthless so long as a player in an NPC corp only suffers the loss of (lol) mission bounties being taxed, and the "loss" of not being able (having) to deal with the POS system, one of the most brokenly awful mechanics in all of video gaming. As long as NPC corps offer next to no negatives AND the gigantic positive of being immune to wars, the problem will never be solved. Since you lot are so busily trying to slay my sacred cow, it's about time the guy with the cleaver takes a look at yours too. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Herzog Wolfhammer Sigma Special Tactics Group 5601	Posted - 2014.11.01 00:28:32 - [783] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: On this at least we agree. I believe that NPC corps should be sufficiently punitive for players over the age of 60 days that it makes a player corp something genuinely worth defending. Such a thing does not touch newbies, it encourages people getting out there and forming groups and interacting, and it neatly solves the problem of "leveling your Raven" players. If only NPC corps would dec each other every now and then.... It would be like a live event almost. Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10440	Posted - 2014.11.01 00:30:16 - [784] - Quote Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: On this at least we agree. I believe that NPC corps should be sufficiently punitive for players over the age of 60 days that it makes a player corp something genuinely worth defending. Such a thing does not touch newbies, it encourages people getting out there and forming groups and interacting, and it neatly solves the problem of "leveling your Raven" players. If only NPC corps would dec each other every now and then.... It would be like a live event almost. Another of my ideas is the ability to dec an NPC corp, in exchange for being locked out of that particular corp's stations/agents/etc for 30 days after the dec ends. It'd cost a lot too, of course. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Marsha Mallow 1662	Posted - 2014.11.01 00:38:20 - [785] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: As I asked before and Mags magnified on, we throw terms around without a solid base of definitions. PvP, carebear, PvE. You log on, you could argue that you are doing PvP by some folks definition. Others think it involves ships exploding. If we are ALL doing PvP then what are Carebears? PvPers just like the rest. Look at the comments. Jenn, Jonah, Mara, Nightcrawler and others state quite clearly that they are highsec players and some or all of them engage mainly in PvE. The thing that stops them from being a "Carebear" or any of the derogatory terms (I prefer zombie personally) is that they understand the environment and accept that there are (and should be) risks everywhere. I could genuinely play as a pure industrialist and never undock via outsourcing, and if I'm honest the market side will always engage me more than pew-pew because it's something I'm pretty good at solo. Don't think for a second that means I'm not aware I'm competing with other players - that's part that makes it fun. There's not that many people who are grossly intolerant of missionrunners and miners, it's usually just name calling. I don't care if people spend all their time mining whilst licking mayo off themselves and writing erotic roleplay fanfic; if calling them a bear enrages them, you can't help but laugh. But there is real hostility towards the portion of the playerbase who utterly refuse to accept the game as it stands and want a lite version. Don't forget they aren't just pushing for nerfs that will make them safer - they want the complete removal of players they consider griefers from the game, by any means possible. I don't think they realise they're engaging in PvP at that point, or that their targets are more than ready to have a slapfight. Those from that camp who post here also seem to overlap the group still ranting about Incarna being shelved and it's fairly easy to see why. They simply don't want to play EvE, they want WoW in space. That's why PCU stats, subs and retention rates have been weaponised in discussions, and it's why people persistently whinge that [whatever] game in development will kill eve. They're not doing it for altruistic reasons to improve the game for others though, because they fail to acknowledge how many people would be driven away by EvE Lite (both new and old). It's pretty obvious from the tone if the next best thing arrives, they'll jump ship like the rats they are. I'd also like to point out that most of the worst badposting in this thread is from those supporting the removal of awoxing, and that should tell you something, particularly in this context. It mirrors ingame behaviour where the majority of so-called 'griefers' are shockingly normal as people, and the 'victims' who have hysterics are already on the wrong side of deranged. Mike Azariah wrote: I did not mean the religion reference earlier as an insult but anybody who reads these forums on a regular basis KNOW that there are some fanatical supporters of specific playstyles. In that regard I am an agnostic. I support the game as a whole and closingh an odd loophole seems like a no brainer to me, not the cause for 35 pages of debate. I was just poking fun, don't take it personally, and yes there are gibberers. I don't envy any of the CSM their workload, but monitoring the forums has to be one of the worst tasks. Although being branded a fanatic with a playstyle bias purely for having a strong opinion is a bit unfair. Not all of us opposed to the removal of awoxing are doing it because we engage in it. I think it's an element that has a place, the reasons for removing it appear to be flimsy, it sets a precedent for demands for further nerfs but mainly that it fails to address more important underlying problems. I've also always imagined awoxing as a lore-quirk relating to corporate backstabbery, and if anything not being able to attack alliance members seemed the inconsistency. Why should Concord intervene to stop someone from attacking you after you recruited them? Isn't 40 pages of debate in response to part of the CSM minutes a good thing anyway? At least we're interested and engaged enough to comment. It's far from pointless if we can send a clear message to CCP (and the CSM) that safety-risk changes are considered a fundamental feature that should be adjusted with caution. There is a really clear message being conveyed here; "Don't sell the integrity of parts of the game for subs please". It's not like we're all screaming we'll unsub if changes are implemented we don't like, and it's not an unreasonable sentiment to express concern. Whether they choose to listen or not is upto them, but at least we're not waiting until after a change is implemented to ***** about it. DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
Marsha Mallow 1662	Posted - 2014.11.01 00:39:13 - [786] - Quote Heh, sorry for the long post DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
Lucien Visteen Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 138	Posted - 2014.11.01 00:40:51 - [787] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: You're welcome to start a corp for fellow newbies, but I believe that it is a bad idea to do so. If a newbie wishes to start a corp for fellow newbies then I feel that they should at least familiarise themselves with the consequences of doing so, such as wardecs etc, and how to act when those things occur. If corp leadership is ignorant of game mechanics then it is a case of the blind leading the blind, and more experienced players can, and will take advantage of said ignorance. Which does nothing for player retention or the lifespan of the corp. TL;DR If you want to start a corp with fellow newbies then do so, but familiarise yourself with game mechanics and the consequences of being in a player corp beforehand, even if it's only reading through resources such as the Eve Uni Wiki. Otherwise you're just setting yourself up to fail. Incidentally, if you want information on how to protect yourself and your corpmates from the predatory actions of others you'll find that most of the criminal element in highsec is more than willing to give advice on how to do so. A well informed newbie is a better newbie, and becomes a more challenging opponent in the long run, which equates to more fun for everybody. I strongly agree with this. So telling newbies what they shouldn't do, instead of what they can do, is counterintunitive in my opinion. But its not what this is about. Awoxing is (from what I gather in this post): I want to shoot a victim, and be able to leave with my ship intact. I can not do so in high sec, unless I am in the same corp as my victim. And in security states under high sec, there is an increased possibility that my victim is more adequately able to handle me. Since I, most likely, wont die from the action, I can fit a better ship aswell. In regards to older corps, with older players, I have no problem with this. They should by that point be aware what the main gist of EVE is about, regardless of what kind of space they inhabit. Not all new players do, so if this can help with player retention then I support it. I suspect that you will not change your behavior. CCP can not force you to change your behavior, so they have to change the mechanic. Looking through this, I get the feeling that CCP want high sec to be an area where PvP is mostly consensual(I have, of course, no data to back this up, it is just a feeling). You will still be able to do PvV as mutch as you want, just be prepared to face the consequences of that particular action. The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't.
Cancel Align NOW Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 164	Posted - 2014.11.01 00:49:49 - [788] - Quote Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Removing AWOXing is one way to do this without punishing new players. 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
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2470	Posted - 2014.11.01 01:08:33 - [789] - Quote Cancel Align NOW wrote: Removing the ability to engage in any direct PVP element without losing a ship does not directly hurt new players. This is the crux of it. Awoxing is not being removed, because awoxing does not and never has relied on any concord related mechanics because awoxxing has never been tied to hisec, and the most famous cases of awoxing (e.g. revenant) have happened in low/null. *What's being removed is the possibility* of killing another ship in hisec without losing your own ship and without direct warning for the target (as in wardecs and duels).**
Mike Azariah DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited 1810	Posted - 2014.11.01 01:09:34 - [790] - Quote It occured to me, reading Marsha's post above. Is being active in the forums a form of PvP? Especially if you are making that activity an effort to END another persons playstyle or shame them into stopping what they are doing through mockery or namecalling? m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9

Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 41	Posted - 2014.11.01 01:10:46 - [791] - Quote Cancel Align NOW wrote: Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Removing AWOXing is one way to do this without punishing new players. 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 Nothing is being removed. If anything they are adding something...its this thing called consequence. Is it hard to stick to what was said in the minutes and not argue about some statement that was never said. (removing awox)
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 1748	Posted - 2014.11.01 01:16:25 - [792] - Quote Great, more anti-content. I love that.
Remiel Pollard Layman's Terms. Don't Tell Me The Odds 5820	Posted - 2014.11.01 01:19:27 - [793] - Quote Lucien Visteen wrote: Awoxing is (from what I gather in this post): I want to shoot a victim, and be able to leave with my ship intact. I can not do so in high sec, unless I am in the same corp as my victim. And in security states under high sec, there is an increased possibility that my victim is more adequately able to handle me. Since I, most likely, wont die from the action, I can fit a better ship aswell. Maybe there are those who do it because of risk aversion. There are many things to do in this game for the risk averse, too many in my opinion, but that's not the point - if this form of 'awoxing' you've listed above is being removed simply because of risk aversion, then so too should everything else be removed that caters to risk aversion. Cloaking, warp core stabs, etc. All of it. Thing is, awoxing can be very risky as it is. A good example of awoxing is one we've done a few times ourselves - when a high sec merc corp has wardecced us in the past, and we've found they outmatched us if we go toe-to-toe, on a few occasions we've been able to infiltrate their corp and damage them from the inside not just with spies, but with fake logi that ends up repping us instead of them, amongst other things. On some occasions, they didn't even notice 'their' logi repping our stuff, which was hilarious. It would be what brought us victory against the odds on those occasions. Now, a small corp in high sec might feel 'safer' but if they wish to remain a small, safe corp against the odds in highsec, what methods do they have, aside from rolling corp, to beat a bigger, stronger enemy in a war? Awoxing is as much about risk 'aversion' as using ECM is - there is a difference between risk aversion, and risk mitigation. Risk aversion is about avoiding risk as much as possible; risk mitigation is about taking steps to reduce the risk of any given task, but still performing the risky task at hand. Leeroy Jenkins, for example, did none of the above, which is why the name is now synonymous with going 'balls deep'. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2972	Posted - 2014.11.01 01:19:44 - [794] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: I'll read your post, but I'm not wading through 20+ pages of post history, given that most of the first 5-10 pages of your post history link back to this thread. Use the search function it does not take much effort to find the thread use "highsec reward" as your term. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10443	Posted - 2014.11.01 01:19:48 - [795] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: It occured to me, reading Marsha's post above. Is being active in the forums a form of PvP? Especially if you are making that activity an effort to END another persons playstyle or shame them into stopping what they are doing through mockery or namecalling? m 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. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21367	Posted - 2014.11.01 01:23:56 - [796] - Quote Lucien Visteen wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: You're welcome to start a corp for fellow newbies, but I believe that it is a bad idea to do so. If a newbie wishes to start a corp for fellow newbies then I feel that they should at least familiarise themselves with the consequences of doing so, such as wardecs etc, and how to act when those things occur. If corp leadership is ignorant of game mechanics then it is a case of the blind leading the blind, and more experienced players can, and will take advantage of said ignorance. Which does nothing for player retention or the lifespan of the corp. TL;DR If you want to start a corp with fellow newbies then do so, but familiarise yourself with game mechanics and the consequences of being in a player corp beforehand, even if it's only reading through resources such as the Eve Uni Wiki. Otherwise you're just setting yourself up to fail. Incidentally, if you want information on how to protect yourself and your corpmates from the predatory actions of others you'll find that most of the criminal element in highsec is more than willing to give advice on how to do so. A well informed newbie is a better newbie, and becomes a more challenging opponent in the long run, which equates to more fun for everybody. I strongly agree with this. So telling newbies what they shouldn't do, instead of what they can do, is counterintunitive in my opinion. But its not what this is about. Agreed, I'm all for newbies exploring every possibility that is available to them, but also think that they should be made aware of the risk involved with those possibilities, hence the contents of my post. Education about existing mechanics rather than the removal of mechanics is a better approach in my opinion. I was trying to point out the pitfalls of newbies starting corps while being ignorant of game mechanics. Saying that newbies shouldn't do things was not my intent, I apologise if my initial post came across that way. Quote: Awoxing is (from what I gather in this post): I want to shoot a victim, and be able to leave with my ship intact. I can not do so in high sec, unless I am in the same corp as my victim. And in security states under high sec, there is an increased possibility that my victim is more adequately able to handle me. Since I, most likely, wont die from the action, I can fit a better ship aswell. In regards to older corps, with older players, I have no problem with this. They should by that point be aware what the main gist of EVE is about, regardless of what kind of space they inhabit. Precisely my point, a newbie leading other newbies generally wouldn't be aware of the gist of things, which is why I, personally, think that it's a bad idea for a newbie to lead other newbies. Learn the game first, and then impart the lessons learnt to others is a better way to go. Quote: Not all new players do, so if this can help with player retention then I support it. I suspect that you will not change your behavior. CCP can not force you to change your behavior, so they have to change the mechanic. lol I'm not a ganker* or an awoxer, I'm primarily a highsec PvE player. I do make it my business to be informed on what risks face me, and take steps to avoid them. Knowledge is power as the saying goes. Quote: Looking through this, I get the feeling that CCP want high sec to be an area where PvP is mostly consensual(I have, of course, no data to back this up, it is just a feeling). You will still be able to do PvP as mutch as you want, just be prepared to face the consequences of that particular action. I get exactly the same feeling, and it concerns me greatly. Eve was my first MMO, I've since tried others and tbh they don't compare, they lack the sense of danger that Eve has. I live in highsec and the fact that others can interfere in the way I play is paramount to my enjoyment of the game. Consequence wise I feel that any consequences for non-consensual PvP beyond those that presently exist should be provided by players, not an omnipotent NPC that you can't escape without getting banned. In my mind that's exactly the point of playing a sandbox game like Eve. "Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Doc Fury Furious Enterprises 7001	Posted - 2014.11.01 01:24:52 - [797] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: It occured to me, reading Marsha's post above. Is being active in the forums a form of PvP? Especially if you are making that activity an effort to END another persons playstyle or shame them into stopping what they are doing through mockery or namecalling? m What is the Metagame for $200 Alex. Gÿ+ The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the ho's and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' and I'll look down, and whisper 'Hodor'.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 41	Posted - 2014.11.01 01:33:53 - [798] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: It occured to me, reading Marsha's post above. Is being active in the forums a form of PvP? Especially if you are making that activity an effort to END another persons playstyle or shame them into stopping what they are doing through mockery or namecalling? m 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. In the context of the post you can still play class x in Talisman. Your last sentence shows you are only inclusive if they abide by your rules. Any free thinking, and you think it gives you the right to act like you said. Question...do you go out of your way to target naive people as friends so you can take advantage of them and tell them its for their own good?
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2470	Posted - 2014.11.01 01:46:35 - [799] - Quote La Nariz wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: I'll read your post, but I'm not wading through 20+ pages of post history, given that most of the first 5-10 pages of your post history link back to this thread. Use the search function it does not take much effort to find the thread use "highsec reward" as your term. Searching "highsec reward" and posts from La Nariz brings up the following threads: Do Level 4 missions pay too much compared to 1 through 3? (68 pages) High Sec Income vs Null Sec Income - the reality (62 pages) Tackling the problem of null-sec ratting bots. (23 pages) What would happen if CCP finally nerfed hisec? (147 pages) Specific Examples of Where Risk Should Be Inserted Successfully Into High-sec (35 pages) Yeah, I'm not sifting through all that. If you'd like to respond to my earlier post: PotatoOverdose wrote: La Nariz wrote: Imagine if there were areas without concord that had limited resources that were worth the :effort: and fighting over. Where'd you guys leave the keys to fountain, if you don't mind my asking? Seeing as it's not worth the :effort: ... Without referencing some obscure post in a long forgotten thread, be my guest. Until then, I'll assume your full of it when you say your regions aren't worth the :effort: of defending.
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10445	Posted - 2014.11.01 01:58:54 - [800] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: In the context of the post you can still play class x in Talisman. Yes, but notably only because I kick out the petty, whiny, wanna be fascists like you. If they don't want Class X, then they can go play a different game. That's the whole point. If you don't want PvP, go play butt**ing Star Trek Online then. Quote: Your last sentence shows you are only inclusive if they abide by your rules. No, by THE RULES OF THE FREAKING GAME. Not my rules, the literal rules of the game that literally everyone else has agreed to play by. You know, instead of trying to change the literal rules to benefit themselves? Get it yet? Quote:** Question...do you go out of your way to target naive people as friends so you can take advantage of them and tell them its for their own good? I expect people to read the rules of a game they agreed to play. If those rules, as Diplomacy does for example, and as Talisman does if you play certain classes, permit you to "steal" or "trick" other players, that is quite literally part of the game. If this is a deal breaker for them, then they shouldn't sit down at the table in the first place. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.

La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2974	Posted - 2014.11.01 02:02:06 - [801] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: It occured to me, reading Marsha's post above. Is being active in the forums a form of PvP? Especially if you are making that activity an effort to END another persons playstyle or shame them into stopping what they are doing through mockery or namecalling? m Yes hence why npc alts should not be allowed to post. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Aran Hotchkiss Phoibe Enterprises 9	Posted - 2014.11.01 02:03:55 - [802] - Quote Quote: Not all of us opposed to the removal of awoxing are doing it because we engage in it. I think it's an element that has a place, the reasons for removing it appear to be flimsy, it sets a precedent for demands for further nerfs but mainly that it fails to address more important underlying problems. I've also always imagined awoxing as a lore-quirk relating to corporate backstabbery, and if anything not being able to attack alliance members seemed the inconsistency. Why should Concord intervene to stop someone from attacking you after you recruited them? So much this. In fact, the entire post. Quote: It occured to me, reading Marsha's post above. Is being active in the forums a form of PvP? Especially if you are making that activity an effort to END another persons playstyle or shame them into stopping what they are doing through mockery or namecalling? m That feels very much like a backhanded compliment. Or something not nice. :/ Idk man, I understand that CCP needs money to function and that comes from subscriptions and obviously by this change they believe this is the best choice to make... but still. As an idea for a compromise, I do like the corp aggro on/off setting, functioning very similar to tax settings as in it's visible to all and you get a notification when it changes. If we had this halfway measure my corp would probably just have aggro on all the time because well.... it seems natural to us, we're aware of the risks/ instabilities of recruiting (Hell I was told that at some point you'll recruit a theif or awoxxer, and you'll have to deal with it that you were the one who made that call) and.... I guess we feel if you're a person who is driven away from the game by awoxxing, or a CEO of a corporation that would crumble from a single awoxxer, EvE probably isn't the right game for you. Something else. People have thrown around ideas of CEO's wanting to 'show the ropes' to people but can't because 'awoxxers'... this actual example hasn't been developed very much beyond "they'd quit next week from being wardecced". Another peeve is how by making this change, awoxxing turns into suicide ganking. Noone's really said much on this point, so here's my interpretation of it. Suicide ganking is fairly.... simple. You have your ganksquad ready, maybe a scout somewhere - I'd imagine the setup differs between ganking mining barges, ganking freighters, or ganking mission runners. But it's fairly... uniform. Show up, blow the target, leave. What little insight I've had into awoxxing feels much more....personal. Infiltrating the corp, gaining the trust of corp-mates, evaluating marks - before moving onto the actual awox/ransom itself. I don't know what the proportions are, but I'm willing to argue that many awoxxers don't reallly care about the isk efficiency that much - they'd enjoy the (somewhat unusual) social interactions of the entire process, much in the same way I spend most time online chatting to corpmates and on teamspeak, laughing about stories like that one time I pretended to be gay and.... Moving on. Basically I feel there is a much larger difference between awoxxing and suicide ganking than "You don't lose your ship" I know it's not very persuasive of me to reference my own diplomat but still, if a person who's been involved in recruitment/help channels and guiding players through their early stages of the game says that it's very rare for a person to un-sub specifically from awoxxes, I don't think we're giving rookies the credit they deserve. I feel the characterizations being made on this topic are very.... simple and unrealistic. On a final note, I find it funny that I'm on the same side of this argument as A) CODE and B) Goonswarm, Parties that I normally couldn't care less for. tl;dr random waffle If you do go through with this change, enable it as a corp setting.
Tear Jar Emolgranlan Code Enforcement Branch 148	Posted - 2014.11.01 02:05:33 - [803] - Quote For highsec, Awoxing mechanics establishes and requires a certain level of trust between corpmates. If they haven't shot you yet then that says something. It also encourages you to do some background checking for members before they join. If awoxing is eliminated, I could see a lot of corps dropping the background checks or making them much lighter. For a PvE corp, there really isn't anything a basic corp member can do to harm you other than awox.
Tear Jar Emolgranlan Code Enforcement Branch 148	Posted - 2014.11.01 02:16:39 - [804] - Quote Cecil Montague wrote: It's kinda hard to run background checks to avoid Awoxing when you're part of a corp dedicated to accepting and training new players in order to help them stick with the game. The corp shouldn't have anything worth awoxing in it then. You don't need golems or orcas in corp to train new players. Preferably, you set up a separate corp in the alliance with the blingy ships.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21372	Posted - 2014.11.01 02:23:50 - [805] - Quote Aran Hotchkiss wrote: Another peeve is how by making this change, awoxxing turns into suicide ganking. Noone's really said much on this point, so here's my interpretation of it. Suicide ganking is fairly.... simple. You have your ganksquad ready, maybe a scout somewhere - I'd imagine the setup differs between ganking mining barges, ganking freighters, or ganking mission runners. But it's fairly... uniform. Show up, blow the target, leave. What little insight I've had into awoxxing feels much more....personal. Infiltrating the corp, gaining the trust of corp-mates, evaluating marks - before moving onto the actual awox/ransom itself. I don't know what the proportions are, but I'm willing to argue that many awoxxers don't reallly care about the isk efficiency that much - they'd enjoy the (somewhat unusual) social interactions of the entire process, much in the same way I spend most time online chatting to corpmates and on teamspeak, laughing about stories like that one time I pretended to be gay and.... Moving on. Basically I feel there is a much larger difference between awoxxing and suicide ganking than "You don't lose your ship" You're right there is currently a large difference and I think you've managed to nail that difference. However, I feel that by involving Concord the social engineering aspect is being somewhat diminished, I could be entirely wrong though, people may still do it regardless of Concord interference because the social engineering aspect is what they enjoy more than the actual kills. Only time will tell, and if I am wrong I'll gladly admit it. Quote: On a final note, I find it funny that I'm on the same side of this argument as A) CODE and B) Goonswarm, Parties that I normally couldn't care less for. Necessity and politics make for strange bedfellows. "Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 6594	Posted - 2014.11.01 02:24:39 - [806] - Quote Forty pages for this little thing, and there's a long list of little things left to fix. Good times indeed for those of us that like forum drama. The real fun, though, is when CCP tackles the big things. Now that's what makes being a card carrying member of the forum alt club worth the years invested in this place. Let me just say right now that my life would be a little less fulfilling if all the forumites that threaten to quit in virtually every thread actually did. But we know that will never happen. And I thank my maker every day for that. Mr Epeen There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
Adira Nictor Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 171	Posted - 2014.11.01 02:29:43 - [807] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: La Nariz wrote: Api exists and they could take 2 minutes to check to see if "ikillblues420" has killed corpmates instead of having :ccp: do it for them. So what you're saying is a new player with a blank history, like that of an alt, should be deemed an unacceptable risk to many hisec social groups? You do understand that getting the API key is the last step in the recruitment process, the interview is at very least as important as the api key if not more so. If you don't interview your recruits in addition to the api key then your doing it wrong. The biggest problem with corp recruitment isn't awxoers, or corp theifs, its a bad CEO or recruitment officer. You need to be recruiting like minded people who will fit in with your corp, and will fit in your community. If your corp isn't a community then your a bad CEO and shouldn't be running a corp to start with. It is fairly rare for an awxoer to waste the time on making a black slate alt to awox random corps, its normally something for a specific target who would otherwise spot the obvious awoxer. Between API (seeing what they spend isk on, if anyone supplied isk and asking about it, tracking any kills, etc) and an interview you can greatly reduce the likely hood of an awoxer.
Aran Hotchkiss Phoibe Enterprises 10	Posted - 2014.11.01 02:49:32 - [808] - Quote Mr Epeen wrote: Forty pages for this little thing, and there's a long list of little things left to fix. Good times indeed for those of us that like forum drama. Yeah.... I think one reason there's a large furore over this is, since both sides see it as 'trivial', they think "oh it doesn't matter much, it's a small change, and don't see why the other side would argue it - just accept it and move on. Except both sides have this. And since it's been the source of a 40-page..... um...... 'thread', maybe it isn't such a little thing. But yes, my first reaction was "huh? They're doing [i]this[i/] of all things?" So, personally I feel CCP's barking up the wrong tree but... I could be wrong.
Adira Nictor Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 173	Posted - 2014.11.01 02:57:03 - [809] - Quote Aran Hotchkiss wrote: Mr Epeen wrote: Forty pages for this little thing, and there's a long list of little things left to fix. Good times indeed for those of us that like forum drama. Yeah.... I think one reason there's a large furore over this is, since both sides see it as 'trivial', they think "oh it doesn't matter much, it's a small change, and don't see why the other side would argue it - just accept it and move on. Except both sides have this. And since it's been the source of a 40-page..... um...... 'thread', maybe it isn't such a little thing. But yes, my first reaction was "huh? They're doing [i]this[i/] of all things?" So, personally I feel CCP's barking up the wrong tree but... I could be wrong. My thing isn't so much they are stopping killing corp members, but they it removes my primary income source if they do it. I would be completely ok with this if wardecs couldn't be dodged so easily. I hate to say it but a while back I was against wardecs following people who dropped out of a corp, but at this point if this goes through then it might be something I could support if for only the reason that it would make it possible for me to continue what I do, and it would make more sense to players who don't understand the current way things are. Is my way of playing the only way? No. Will I find something else to do that is equally underhanded and fun to do? Yes. but it doesn't mean I have to like it.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 41	Posted - 2014.11.01 03:05:22 - [810] - Quote lol....many of the pro awoxxers all moved over to this thread to be inclusive and hijack another thread to talk amongst themselves about something that was never said. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=381122&find=unread

Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21374	Posted - 2014.11.01 03:23:39 - [811] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: lol....many of the pro awoxxers all moved over to this thread to be inclusive and hijack another thread to talk amongst themselves about something that was never said. (removing awoxxing) https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=381122&find=unread You appear to be suffering from selective reading. You're wrong by the way, it was actually someone in the anti-awoxing camp that hijacked the discussion and moved it onto the subject being covered in this thread. As I said over in the thread you've linked, the two threads are so closely related that Joffrey Baratheon could be their child. "Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Karl Jerr Herzack Unit 41	Posted - 2014.11.01 03:51:59 - [812] - Quote I'm not an awoxxer and pvper but I'm against an additional nerf to liberties and in-game risk/danger. The sandbox loses more and more grains over the time... World of Evecraft - Victimization Edition (tm) The next update will be space FEMA camps for the 'ebil' players...
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 2951	Posted - 2014.11.01 04:27:14 - [813] - Quote Here is an odd edge case. My corp was in a war. We had a fleet out looking for targets. At one point we stopped at a gate, and waited while the scouts looked about for targets. Eventually it was time to move on, and the FC asked for everyone to x up to show they were ready. One pilot did not x up. We tried to get his attention on coms, and everything else we could think of. After 15 minutes, we decided we needed to go, and we did not want to leave him behind, giving the enemy a kill. So we killed and podded him. It turned out he fell asleep at the keyboard. He fully accepted what we did, no hard feelings. But what if we had not been able to shoot fellow corp members? If this change happens, I think we also need a corp wide limited engagement any pilot can opt-in to. Once you join, you are shoot-able by everyone in the LE until you log and your ship disappears from space. That allows for free-for alls, and to cover the above odd case. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/
Some Rando University of Caille Gallente Federation 1227	Posted - 2014.11.01 04:38:08 - [814] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: It turned out he fell asleep at the keyboard. He fully accepted what we did, no hard feelings. This is the hero that high-sec needs. CCP has no sense of humour.
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 98	Posted - 2014.11.01 04:56:48 - [815] - Quote nothing to see here, move on! ^^; Forum Main
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 98	Posted - 2014.11.01 04:58:06 - [816] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: It occured to me, reading Marsha's post above. Is being active in the forums a form of PvP? Especially if you are making that activity an effort to END another persons playstyle or shame them into stopping what they are doing through mockery or namecalling? m Here in EvE Forums it shure is: It is even more agressive then certain Battlefield forums. When games are about fights, the forum "tone" is harsher. I have similar thoughts on the title "carebear". What is a carebear? If i follow those arguments, i come to conclusion, that especially people who call other people carebear, are most often carebears themselfes. And i didn't see one exception till now. As it is, its a title for your opponent "the others", "the enemy". Its just just for taunting. So yes, we are alll carebears. Not in the sense of "nice cudly bears" but people who like to get something the usual easy or at least known way. Compared to the Jump changes, this change is nothing. In the early years awoxing was an art and unique but that withered. The people who where hit the hardest, are the beginners. Seniors knew the dangers and how to deal with it. So why keep that mechanic. Awoxing is nothing special anymore and the only targets are beginners. So the pro-awoxers basically insist on the possibilty to punish NewBros without RISK. That sounds very carebear for me. Forum Main
Syllviaa Hole Exploitation Inc. Goonswarm Federation 24	Posted - 2014.11.01 05:05:26 - [817] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Thing is it does so by removing a stupid loophole. Can one of the opposition explain to me WHY it makes sense that I can shoot a guy in my corp but not a stranger? Why concord will react to one incident and not the other? With dual mechanics we now have ways to 'test a tank' ignoring completely sisi server for the moment. So why did the awox mechanic make sense to you? I understand it made Eve 'dangerous' and allowed a certain type of gameplay but at the bottom of it . . . is there a logic to that rule? If a guy steals a bunch of corporate stuff & is currently flying it in a freighter to the neatest trade hub, why shouldn't you be allowed to kill him & not have concord intervene? RIP Richard A. Butt
Anthar Peva Trident Guard 1	Posted - 2014.11.01 05:13:08 - [818] - Quote Syllviaa wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: Thing is it does so by removing a stupid loophole. Can one of the opposition explain to me WHY it makes sense that I can shoot a guy in my corp but not a stranger? Why concord will react to one incident and not the other? With dual mechanics we now have ways to 'test a tank' ignoring completely sisi server for the moment. So why did the awox mechanic make sense to you? I understand it made Eve 'dangerous' and allowed a certain type of gameplay but at the bottom of it . . . is there a logic to that rule? If a guy steals a bunch of corporate stuff & is currently flying it in a freighter to the neatest trade hub, why shouldn't you be allowed to kill him & not have concord intervene? Because people whinge without thinking about the negatives of what happens if they get what they want. (See: Exhumer/Barge buffs, giving us the battle Skiff.)
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 98	Posted - 2014.11.01 05:25:03 - [819] - Quote Syllviaa wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: Thing is it does so by removing a stupid loophole. Can one of the opposition explain to me WHY it makes sense that I can shoot a guy in my corp but not a stranger? Why concord will react to one incident and not the other? With dual mechanics we now have ways to 'test a tank' ignoring completely sisi server for the moment. So why did the awox mechanic make sense to you? I understand it made Eve 'dangerous' and allowed a certain type of gameplay but at the bottom of it . . . is there a logic to that rule? If a guy steals a bunch of corporate stuff & is currently flying it in a freighter to the neatest trade hub, why shouldn't you be allowed to kill him & not have concord intervene? Because the awoxer would not fly in a corporate ship. Since the awoxer works with a low sp alt he has to transport this stuff with a freighter alt anyway. Or contract Red Frog. No change here, since corporate steals are still possible. Forum Main
Mocam EVE University Ivy League 483	Posted - 2014.11.01 05:46:00 - [820] - Quote This is going to be really funny when someone accidentally shoots a logi pilot and gets concorded for the "oops" due to return targeting...

Vic Jefferson GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 75	Posted - 2014.11.01 05:53:29 - [821] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: La Nariz wrote: CSM dude when is highsec reward going to be nerfed? It isn't, too many players in other parts of the game partially finance themselves with said income. If you gutted that the ripples would go much further than you might expect. Echoing what a few others have said, why is this the case? Having an absolutely secure, inexhaustible source of income in hisec basically asphyxiates content from existing in other security bands. Part of the reason AWOXing and suicide ganking are so attractive is because HiSec is a target rich environment whereas other places are comparatively empty. People would have reason for conflict and interaction beyond HiSec if wealth were properly distributed.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1642	Posted - 2014.11.01 06:16:42 - [822] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: But what if we had not been able to shoot fellow corp members? Then your war dec opponents would have got a kill to show how much he messed up by falling asleep mid fleet without even bothering to dock up in the nearest station. Really, you try and make that a reason to keep an obscure exception to the standard PVP rules of highsec.
Aqriue Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 702	Posted - 2014.11.01 06:26:18 - [823] - Quote Threadnought keeps going, but the whining continues. Let me keep it brief Current Mechanic (yes, its a mechanic that you love to abuse) Soandso(Corp A) <-(shoot) Awoxspie(Corp A) = No CONCORD, assume its .5 system. Total safety, again, a mechanic that gives free rides and protection for you. Weird how CONCORD doesn't respond, and most likely your target will not be able to fight back because 1) Isn't trained for it 2) Cannot afford it now. Low and null is not changing, need corp aggression...go there. Changed Mechanic Soandso(Corp A) <-(shoot) Awoxspie(Corp A) = CONCORD asplodes you like a ballon, assume its .5 system. No more safety for you. The mechanic changes, to the betterment of everyone. You found your Awox spie, set corp que to kick. Rest of game didn't really change, you could adapt (but you don't and you will die), cause its so hard for you to socially engineer to gain their trust and drag them to low or null. Yes, it would be harder to gain their trust (but you are lazy as much as a highsec miner) to get them into the unsafe areas to kill them....but again no more free ride for you. You can still gank, just no more hiding in highsec with CONCORD protecting you. This is how I see the fix taking place and what it is fixing, safe combat that you call "teaching that EVE is dark, HTFU" but for you its just F1 and good bye, to run off and arouse yourself to your killmail list. EVE isn't safe, it shouldn't be safe for everyone you included....want to get that juicy kill...work harder and drag them to an area you know CONCORD won't respond. Corp aggression aside...Red vs Blue has done it for years....you can always make two corps and practice with no podding using wardecs (but again, war decs are not you get to decide to fight who you get to fight and just smash their face in just because, game is combat but there is no rule they have to fight back...but you can still shoot with CONCORD intervention). Single corps...You can always go to null/low/WH and just find a spot that's not near a warpable (again more work for you) that requires people to scan you down while you practice, without CONCORD to hide behind. Or Duel CONCORD is what it is....but it is there to prevent total chaos to the game because highsec is the last area to retreat to when you have lost it all and need to rebuild , it is not a safe area for 1v1 duels and clay pigeon shooting to jerk off to the kill mails even though you can still do that when you get retribution from them. Highsec doesn't make that much isk since its been nerfed so much, most of you just lose it faster lower areas than in the high sec area cause you suck so bad at the game and cry when the smart guy is stock piling his isk with little loss, than go lose it at his discretion and not yours.
Omar Alharazaad Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 659	Posted - 2014.11.01 06:43:31 - [824] - Quote o.0 Pretty sure those words were english. Not exactly sure what that word soup was supposed to mean, however. Blind-folded dartboard guesses... 1) go to low/null if you want pvp, because you are bad person if you do. 2) THINK OF THE CHILDREN! 3) I got nothing here. I get the vague sense that it's an anti-awox poast, but it keeps ganking my brain each reread. Personal opinion? I would be sad to see awoxing go, as it's something that's uniquely EVE. Will it hurt me and mine? Nope. Will it hurt others who have made entire careers out of it? Sure. Is it going to happen? Who knows? Until it's actually in the patch notes as a done deal it's no more of a real thing than WoD was.
Remiel Pollard Layman's Terms. Don't Tell Me The Odds 5827	Posted - 2014.11.01 06:55:59 - [825] - Quote Aqriue wrote: No more safety for you. Ironic, coming from an NPC alt. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Kaldi Tsukaya Deveron Shipyards and Technology 2	Posted - 2014.11.01 07:02:35 - [826] - Quote I have shot corp members, and also been shot. We have used the mechanic as a training tool for sparring and testing fittings and game mechanics. I also like the current mechanic as a rule-enforcer (we have a no afk policy) and will destroy anyone not responding in space. This was our founders policy and it will always be so. DO NOT TAKE THIS MECHANIC AWAY! I would STRONGLY urge a modified approach to the current mechanic: Why not leave the choice up to a corp? The politics voting mechanic is good as it allows a vote. There is a waiting period, and notifications sent out to all corp members if/when the status changes. No surprises. You could see what a corp's status is before joining, and (as a recruit) could make that informed decision. I think this would be an acceptable change for most (except those die-hard awoxers, but you will still have the opportunity to sway a corp into voting this change in). It also allows the 'scamming' type to continue, by setting their corp status to allow corp-killing, while advertising that they are not... It is Eve, after all ~K~
Omar Alharazaad Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 659	Posted - 2014.11.01 07:07:27 - [827] - Quote Kaldi Tsukaya wrote: I have shot corp members, and also been shot. We have used the mechanic as a training tool for sparring and testing fittings and game mechanics. I also like the current mechanic as a rule-enforcer (we have a no afk policy) and will destroy anyone not responding in space. This was our founders policy and it will always be so. DO NOT TAKE THIS MECHANIC AWAY! I would STRONGLY urge a modified approach to the current mechanic: Why not leave the choice up to a corp? The politics voting mechanic is good as it allows a vote. There is a waiting period, and notifications sent out to all corp members if/when the status changes. No surprises. You could see what a corp's status is before joining, and (as a recruit) could make that informed decision. I think this would be an acceptable change for most (except those die-hard awoxers, but you will still have the opportunity to sway a corp into voting this change in). It also allows the 'scamming' type to continue, by setting their corp status to allow corp-killing, while advertising that they are not... It is Eve, after all ~K~ Interesting notion. I kind of like it actually, as it makes sense in putting the choice in the hands of the individual corps rather than spraying more orange safety foam all over high sec.
McChicken Combo HalfMayo The Happy Meal 4	Posted - 2014.11.01 07:11:03 - [828] - Quote I spent some time in RvB earlier in the year and it was a lot of fun, especially for me as a new player. The lack of free-for-all combat that will result from this will hurt the popularity of the RvB community and is a nerf to content creation within the group. The bolded words are important. The mechanic change here is meant to help new players (or so it's said), yet this change hurts the very communities that are frequented by new players looking to get into PVP gameplay. Kaldi has the right idea. Corps should have a choice to enable/disable in-corp combat, pending a 24 hour delay. Modify the UI to make this obvious to new players joining corps, and have CONCORD send a mail to all corp members when the option is switched one way or another. Apologies if this has been all mentioned already. I ain't reading 42 pages.
Ama Scelesta 79	Posted - 2014.11.01 07:23:41 - [829] - Quote Kaldi Tsukaya wrote: I have shot corp members, and also been shot. We have used the mechanic as a training tool for sparring and testing fittings and game mechanics. I also like the current mechanic as a rule-enforcer (we have a no afk policy) and will destroy anyone not responding in space. This was our founders policy and it will always be so. DO NOT TAKE THIS MECHANIC AWAY! I would STRONGLY urge a modified approach to the current mechanic: Why not leave the choice up to a corp? The politics voting mechanic is good as it allows a vote. There is a waiting period, and notifications sent out to all corp members if/when the status changes. No surprises. You could see what a corp's status is before joining, and (as a recruit) could make that informed decision. I think this would be an acceptable change for most (except those die-hard awoxers, but you will still have the opportunity to sway a corp into voting this change in). It also allows the 'scamming' type to continue, by setting their corp status to allow corp-killing, while advertising that they are not... It is Eve, after all ~K~ It seems like a good suggestion. The important part being no way to immediately switch between the settings and equally important being clear visibility to potential recruits. The positive affects of the change just require both the corp leadership and the recruited to be able to gain a certain level of protection for their assets. Making it optional and visible allows the majority of new players/NPC corp players to be funneled to protected corps, while keeping the choice of being vulnerable open to corps who make extensive use of intra corp hostilities.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 18411	Posted - 2014.11.01 08:06:09 - [830] - Quote Aqriue wrote: Total safety, again, a mechanic that gives free rides and protection for you. Weird how CONCORD doesn't respond, and most likely your target will not be able to fight back because 1) Isn't trained for it 2) Cannot afford it now. Low and null is not changing, need corp aggression...go there. Not so weird how Concord doesn't respond. The Corp CEO or recruiters gave the ok when they sent an invite. You can pay 50 million ISK for Concord to ignore aggression in high-sec. Not unreasonable that Concord wouldn't respond in situations where a Corp has accepted a character as one of their own. But these are just game mechanics and justifications can be imagined to suit any point of view. Aside from that, I don't really care much about the specific mechanic. What I do care about is the challenge and freedom of Eve. It's what attracts me personally to the game. Remove the challenge and it's offers nothing over any of the thousands of other games on the market. The challenge and harshness of eve are its unique selling point to a large degree. Nowhere in space should be safe to play in. You make your own safety at an inidividual level and a Corp level. I don't personally see why this change is needed from a gameplay perspective. It's existed for 11 years. Gameplay and mechanics aren't the reason. It's purely about revenue and cow towing to the masses. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari LAGL Halloween Challenge

baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13740	Posted - 2014.11.01 08:29:29 - [831] - Quote Oh is this still going? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Reiisha Splint Eye Probabilities Inc. Dawn of Transcendence 676	Posted - 2014.11.01 09:04:56 - [832] - Quote Kaldi Tsukaya wrote: I have shot corp members, and also been shot. We have used the mechanic as a training tool for sparring and testing fittings and game mechanics. I also like the current mechanic as a rule-enforcer (we have a no afk policy) and will destroy anyone not responding in space. This was our founders policy and it will always be so. DO NOT TAKE THIS MECHANIC AWAY! I would STRONGLY urge a modified approach to the current mechanic: Why not leave the choice up to a corp? The politics voting mechanic is good as it allows a vote. There is a waiting period, and notifications sent out to all corp members if/when the status changes. No surprises. You could see what a corp's status is before joining, and (as a recruit) could make that informed decision. I think this would be an acceptable change for most (except those die-hard awoxers, but you will still have the opportunity to sway a corp into voting this change in). It also allows the 'scamming' type to continue, by setting their corp status to allow corp-killing, while advertising that they are not... It is Eve, after all ~K~ You still have gangs and duels for that.... Also, literally the only people who are negatively affected by this change are griefers who get horny over easy kills of targets who cant defend themselves. You know, the ones calling themselves 'pvp'ers' but ironically never leaving highsec because low and null are 'too dangerous'. [center]If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all...[/center]
Indahmawar Fazmarai 3174	Posted - 2014.11.01 09:26:24 - [833] - Quote This thread shows clearly that people preying on noobs are quite a large and noisy collective... The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! Ingame chat channel: The Greater Fool Bar
ISD Atomic Dove ISD Community Communications Liaisons 47	Posted - 2014.11.01 09:41:18 - [834] - Quote I've cleaned this thread up a bit, removed an off topic post and profanities. Please remember to remain civil and treat others with respect. Quote: 5. Trolling is prohibited. Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote. ISD Atomic Dove Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Kaldi Tsukaya Deveron Shipyards and Technology 8	Posted - 2014.11.01 09:52:51 - [835] - Quote Reiisha wrote: You still have gangs and duels for that.... So rather than teach a new player not to afk, i will either let the gankers kill & pod them or have to gank them myself? If this change happens, I will just kick them from corp altogether, and nobody wins. (btw, we have SRP so that's my ship I'm blowing up) Quote: Also, literally the only people who are negatively affected by this change are griefers who get horny over easy kills of targets who cant defend themselves. I am certainly not a griefer looking for easy kills. Quote: You know, the ones calling themselves 'pvp'ers' but ironically never leaving highsec because low and null are 'too dangerous'. Because pvp only happens in low and null? Seriously? We sell alot of combat ships and weapons...
Omar Alharazaad Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 662	Posted - 2014.11.01 10:15:16 - [836] - Quote If pvp was only meant to happen in null or low there would be no wardec mechanic. So yeah, that argument rings pretty hollow and has for many many moons. I worry that they might actually listen to the suddenly very vocal 'Society For The Preservation Of Bad CEO's' and do something drastic here. AWOXing has been with EVE for just about forever and it's one of those things that has made EVE both famous and infamous over the years... it's a venerable tradition worthy of some respect. To suddenly do away with it by making a sweeping change would be, well, sad IMO. If they change anything I would hope for a more even handed response, such as having the directors of individual corps and alliances be able to set the safeties for their organizations to suit their needs and/or playstyle. There should be no Easy Mode for bad CEO's. CONCORD shouldn't be automagically there to protect them from being bad at running their corp. Also... people shouldn't throw the word 'griefer' around so readily, as in EVE it has something of a different meaning than in other games.
Kaldi Tsukaya Deveron Shipyards and Technology 8	Posted - 2014.11.01 10:18:46 - [837] - Quote Looking at the statistics of 'Awox' on zkillboards, I see RvB is far and away the largest corp vs corp 'perpetrator' in hisec. I would be most interested in what they have to say about this topic.
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10452	Posted - 2014.11.01 10:23:11 - [838] - Quote Omar Alharazaad wrote: AWOXing has been with EVE for just about forever and it's one of those things that has made EVE both famous and infamous over the years. How many of us here would never have joined the game if not for having heard the story of Guiding Hand Social Club? "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Lug Muad'Dib Wise Humans Sword 9	Posted - 2014.11.01 10:29:03 - [839] - Quote Kaldi Tsukaya wrote: Looking at the statistics of 'Awox' on zkillboards, I see RvB is far and away the largest corp vs corp 'perpetrator' in hisec. I would be most interested in what they have to say about this topic. "The RvB case is the use case that are very legitimate. But not to take words from him he has recognized that its a bigger change for the community and that its a good change that has to be done. And that they will look at how to work around it."
Omar Alharazaad Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 668	Posted - 2014.11.01 10:32:11 - [840] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Omar Alharazaad wrote: AWOXing has been with EVE for just about forever and it's one of those things that has made EVE both famous and infamous over the years. How many of us here would never have joined the game if not for having heard the story of Guiding Hand Social Club? While I didn't read the story until years after I joined the game, it did help cement my opinion that this was the game for me.

Josef Djugashvilis 2639	Posted - 2014.11.01 12:20:07 - [841] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Omar Alharazaad wrote: AWOXing has been with EVE for just about forever and it's one of those things that has made EVE both famous and infamous over the years. How many of us here would never have joined the game if not for having heard the story of Guiding Hand Social Club? I have absolutely no idea, but then, neither do you. This is not a signature.
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2981	Posted - 2014.11.01 13:36:50 - [842] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: La Nariz wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: I'll read your post, but I'm not wading through 20+ pages of post history, given that most of the first 5-10 pages of your post history link back to this thread. Use the search function it does not take much effort to find the thread use "highsec reward" as your term. Searching "highsec reward" and posts from La Nariz brings up the following threads: Do Level 4 missions pay too much compared to 1 through 3? (68 pages) High Sec Income vs Null Sec Income - the reality (62 pages) Tackling the problem of null-sec ratting bots. (23 pages) What would happen if CCP finally nerfed hisec? (147 pages) Specific Examples of Where Risk Should Be Inserted Successfully Into High-sec (35 pages) Yeah, I'm not sifting through all that. If you'd like to respond to my earlier post: PotatoOverdose wrote: La Nariz wrote: Imagine if there were areas without concord that had limited resources that were worth the :effort: and fighting over. Where'd you guys leave the keys to fountain, if you don't mind my asking? Seeing as it's not worth the :effort: ... Without referencing some obscure post in a long forgotten thread, be my guest. Until then, I'll assume your full of it when you say your regions aren't worth the :effort: of defending. I've explained all of the stuff you are whining about to you before and pretty much refuted it all before too so I'm not going to spend the :effort: on some whiny constipated babby. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21381	Posted - 2014.11.01 14:09:41 - [843] - Quote Omar Alharazaad wrote: o.0 Pretty sure those words were english. Not exactly sure what that word soup was supposed to mean, however. Blind-folded dartboard guesses... 1) go to low/null if you want pvp, because you are bad person if you do. 2) THINK OF THE CHILDREN! 3) I got nothing here. I get the vague sense that it's an anti-awox poast, but it keeps ganking my brain each reread. The words were English, the content was gibberish. Aqriue wrote: Highsec doesn't make that much isk since its been nerfed I lol'd. I'd love to see an explanation from you, preferably one written by a human being and not a random text generator, about how highsec has been nerfed in terms of income. "Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 2951	Posted - 2014.11.01 14:18:50 - [844] - Quote Omar Alharazaad wrote: Kaldi Tsukaya wrote: I have shot corp members, and also been shot. We have used the mechanic as a training tool for sparring and testing fittings and game mechanics. I also like the current mechanic as a rule-enforcer (we have a no afk policy) and will destroy anyone not responding in space. This was our founders policy and it will always be so. DO NOT TAKE THIS MECHANIC AWAY! I would STRONGLY urge a modified approach to the current mechanic: Why not leave the choice up to a corp? The politics voting mechanic is good as it allows a vote. There is a waiting period, and notifications sent out to all corp members if/when the status changes. No surprises. You could see what a corp's status is before joining, and (as a recruit) could make that informed decision. I think this would be an acceptable change for most (except those die-hard awoxers, but you will still have the opportunity to sway a corp into voting this change in). It also allows the 'scamming' type to continue, by setting their corp status to allow corp-killing, while advertising that they are not... It is Eve, after all ~K~ Interesting notion. I kind of like it actually, as it makes sense in putting the choice in the hands of the individual corps rather than spraying more orange safety foam all over high sec. I know! I know! Allow corps to declare war on themselves. As it's a mutual war, it's free. Edit: BTW, as far a protecting new players goes, this rule change does nothing, due to the war mechanics. If you goal is to blow up new players, you make 2 corps, do a mutual war, invite in noobs and have the other corp right there to pop them. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/
Sol Project Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 75	Posted - 2014.11.01 14:26:40 - [845] - Quote Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: This thread shows clearly that people preying on noobs are quite a large and noisy collective... Posts like yours show that people who do not understand what this is about are quite a large and noisy collective. They also can't see beyond their selective awareness and don't care about anything except their own fake and shallow standards. I bet you have absolutely NO experience in the whole matter at all and just talk from hearsay. I bet you haven't been into at least five of these "new player friendly" corps who are more harming than anything. You do not do PvP. I know this from you. Yet, instead of accepting that you lack any actual knowledge or experience about what's going on, you think you can make such a statement that only shows that you have absolutely no insight on the matter or what this is actually about. You just parrot the same crap all the other clueless haters parrot, who do not have any actual insight into what's happening. YOUR ATTITUDE is one big reason why people love to shoot into your pretty face. People like you need to be purged from the game.
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 2951	Posted - 2014.11.01 14:27:55 - [846] - Quote Syllviaa wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: Thing is it does so by removing a stupid loophole. Can one of the opposition explain to me WHY it makes sense that I can shoot a guy in my corp but not a stranger? Why concord will react to one incident and not the other? With dual mechanics we now have ways to 'test a tank' ignoring completely sisi server for the moment. So why did the awox mechanic make sense to you? I understand it made Eve 'dangerous' and allowed a certain type of gameplay but at the bottom of it . . . is there a logic to that rule? If a guy steals a bunch of corporate stuff & is currently flying it in a freighter to the neatest trade hub, why shouldn't you be allowed to kill him & not have concord intervene? What if he was less than brain dead and dropped corp before getting into that freighter? Most corp thieves drop right away. Then free corp shooting will be useless. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/
Sol Project Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 75	Posted - 2014.11.01 14:35:32 - [847] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: Most corp thieves drop right away. Proof? Besides, you make no sense. .) There is no reason to quit, just because the theft is done. He can as well keep trying to shoot them too .) There is no need to quit at all, when intra-corp aggression is gone. That'll happen latest at the next downtime anyway.
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 2951	Posted - 2014.11.01 14:46:02 - [848] - Quote Sol Project wrote: Vincent Athena wrote: Most corp thieves drop right away. Proof? Besides, you make no sense. .) There is no reason to quit, just because the theft is done. He can as well keep trying to shoot them too .) There is no need to quit at all, when intra-corp aggression is gone. That'll happen latest at the next downtime anyway. Only personal experience. Ive been in corps that have had thieves. They all dropped right away. Even if, as a thief, I wanted to stay and cause trouble, I would not get in a freighter. That would be silly. We have two cases; Current rules: Thief drops corp before hauling, and you cannot freely shoot him. Proposed rules: Thief may or may not drop, but either way you cannot freely shoot him. End result in both cases: You cannot freely shoot him. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21382	Posted - 2014.11.01 15:03:05 - [849] - Quote Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: This thread shows clearly that people preying on noobs are quite a large and noisy collective... 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 generalisation of "preying on noobs" 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. "Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 41	Posted - 2014.11.01 16:31:14 - [850] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: This thread shows clearly that people preying on noobs are quite a large and noisy collective... 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. 43 pages and you still argue over something that was never said. At the end of the day it looks like this social experiment is coming to an end. CCP has reached the point where attracting the low hanging pvp crowd is detrimental to the game and there isn't enough new players coming in to mitigate the ones this playstyle drives away willingly...and is happy about it. I can comment on stuff that was never said as well.

Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21384	Posted - 2014.11.01 16:33:08 - [851] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: This thread shows clearly that people preying on noobs are quite a large and noisy collective... 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. 43 pages and you still argue over something that was never said. At the end of the day it looks like this social experiment is coming to an end. CCP has reached the point where attracting the low hanging pvp crowd is detrimental to the game and there isn't enough new players coming in to mitigate the ones this playstyle drives away willingly...and is happy about it. I can comment on stuff that was never said as well. Please point out in the post you've quoted where I'm arguing about something that was not said. At this stage I'm writing you off as a clueless troll who has trouble with reading. "Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Some Rando University of Caille Gallente Federation 1228	Posted - 2014.11.01 16:37:50 - [852] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: At this stage I'm writing you off as a shitposting troll who has trouble with reading comprehension. At this stage? Brother, you need your troll-detector rewired. CCP has no sense of humour.
Ralph King-Griffin Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 6336	Posted - 2014.11.01 16:43:49 - [853] - Quote Some Rando wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: At this stage I'm writing you off as a shitposting troll who has trouble with reading comprehension. At this stage? Brother, you need your troll-detector rewired. nope, its just giving screwy readings because hes bashing his head against it, i recommend shooting someone in the face to remedy the situation, preferably someone blissfully unaware. "I'm also quite confident that you are laughing and it's the kind of laugh that gives normal people shivers." =]I[=
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21387	Posted - 2014.11.01 16:46:28 - [854] - Quote Some Rando wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: At this stage I'm writing you off as a shitposting troll who has trouble with reading comprehension. At this stage? Brother, you need your troll-detector rewired. lol I have a nasty habit of giving people a chance to prove that they're not trolls, until they categorically prove otherwise, he just proved that he is. puts his troll detector in for calibration, it appears to be out of whack. Ralph King-Griffin wrote:* i recommend shooting someone in the face to remedy the situation, preferably someone blissfully unaware. I will be doing exactly that, just waiting for my shipment of ships and modules of fuckery to be delivered from Jita. My alt will be starting the "carebear to killer" training course as soon as it turns up "Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8879	Posted - 2014.11.01 16:49:59 - [855] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: This thread shows clearly that people preying on noobs are quite a large and noisy collective... 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. People like that need to believe that everyone opposed to what they are saying are in the same 'camp' because it allows them to mentally dismiss the arguments against their position. It's basically intellectual cowardice. The real truth is that there are many of us who believe that CCPs naive gradual erosion of the spirt and flavor of EVE is a bad thing that will lead to worse outcomes than just leaving things alone. The people who aleady don't like EVE (notice that the guy you replied to is Star Citizen's leading cheerleader on these forums) will never understand this till it's way too late.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21387	Posted - 2014.11.01 16:55:52 - [856] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: notice that the guy you replied to is Star Citizen's leading cheerleader on these forums 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. "Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8880	Posted - 2014.11.01 16:59:00 - [857] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: At the end of the day it looks like this social experiment is coming to an end. CCP has reached the point where attracting the low hanging pvp crowd is detrimental to the game and there isn't enough new players coming in to mitigate the ones this playstyle drives away willingly...and is happy about it. I can comment on stuff that was never said as well. This post is the most important one in the thread, as it demonstrates the underlying motivation of some (of course not all) who think this is a good idea. They never liked what EVE was in the 1st place. They like the space ships, or the futuristic setting or something. But they don't like the sandbox, they don't like tha tother people are free to do as they choose, they don't like that thier are consequences for thier choices (enforced by other people, as in real life). Basically, a game like EVE reminds such people of real life, and they don't play games to be reminded of real life, they play to escape (which us why it's odd they don't choose a themepark feel good game). That's why the new space games can' come fast enough, my (probably unrealistic) hope was that these hater types could find a game they actually like and stop crapping up EVE with thier, well, crap. But deep down I know that will never happen. The insidious nature of carebearism means that NO game about freedom and responsibilty can exist, even if no one is forced to play it and their are dozens of carebearist alternative.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 41	Posted - 2014.11.01 16:59:51 - [858] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: notice that the guy you replied to is Star Citizen's leading cheerleader on these forums 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. Only close minded people I see are the ones who think targeting the new players is beneficial for the game.
Some Rando University of Caille Gallente Federation 1230	Posted - 2014.11.01 17:04:57 - [859] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Only close minded people I see are the ones who think targeting the new players is beneficial for the game. Good thing then that targeting new players gets you banned. CCP has no sense of humour.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 41	Posted - 2014.11.01 17:11:31 - [860] - Quote Some Rando wrote: Syn Shi wrote: Only close minded people I see are the ones who think targeting the new players is beneficial for the game. Good thing then that targeting new players gets you banned. Not if you join a corp with them and do it. This whole thread is about the players who choose to target new players. If they chose to go after vets as well then this wouldn't have been brought up.

Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21389	Posted - 2014.11.01 17:13:23 - [861] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: notice that the guy you replied to is Star Citizen's leading cheerleader on these forums 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. Only close minded people I see are the ones who think targeting the new players is beneficial for the game. 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 world, 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". Now begone troll, get back under your bridge, I'll send you a couple of goats later. "Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Some Rando University of Caille Gallente Federation 1233	Posted - 2014.11.01 17:18:09 - [862] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Not if you join a corp with them and do it. Good thing then that I can't join an NPC corp and freely shoot new players. CCP has no sense of humour.
Ralph King-Griffin Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 6340	Posted - 2014.11.01 17:24:18 - [863] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: 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". id say about 1/3 will respond like this, 1/3 will be receptive if you contact them afterwards and the rest will ither block you, tell you to ** off and/or sperg vitriolic obscenity all over local or your mail/chat box now that is assuming you are not** a bellend about it and do not belittle them or act condisending. "I'm also quite confident that you are laughing and it's the kind of laugh that gives normal people shivers." =]I[=
Thanatos Marathon Phoibe Enterprises 341	Posted - 2014.11.01 17:27:15 - [864] - Quote Is AWOXing needed to keep EVE a gritty, harsh, devastating game in Hisec? I tend to think not and that Suicide Ganking, bumping, corp theft, and war decs can probably do the job just fine. I could be wrong, and perhaps removing the mechanic will lead to no improved player retention and EVE will become social club online where nothing gets blown up in highsec, but I doubt it. In addition to the AWOXing mechanics they should probably turn off dueling by default or block it in newb zones. Something to When I tried to get my wife to try out eve she got duel spammed in a newb system and didn't even know what it was or that it was a reportable offence.
Karl Jerr Herzack Unit 43	Posted - 2014.11.01 17:35:09 - [865] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: This post is the most important one in the thread, as it demonstrates the underlying motivation of some (of course not all) who think this is a good idea. They never liked what EVE was in the 1st place. They like the space ships, or the futuristic setting or something. But they don't like the sandbox, they don't like tha tother people are free to do as they choose, they don't like that thier are consequences for thier choices (enforced by other people, as in real life). Basically, a game like EVE reminds such people of real life, and they don't play games to be reminded of real life, they play to escape (which us why it's odd they don't choose a themepark feel good game). That's why the new space games can' come fast enough, my (probably unrealistic) hope was that these hater types could find a game they actually like and stop crapping up EVE with thier, well, crap. But deep down I know that will never happen. The insidious nature of carebearism means that NO game about freedom and responsibilty can exist, even if no one is forced to play it and their are dozens of carebearist alternative. Without joking, in the Elite Dangerous forums, some people began to whine against the ebil pvpers because the beta 3 included npc and player interceptions. They just forgot that the NPCs are the ones that intercept the most in ED Different game, same victims. They certainly couldn't fit in our old computing time when most of the games just spanked our asses without even saying thanks
Ned Thomas Hellbound Turkeys Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects 181	Posted - 2014.11.01 17:35:28 - [866] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Some Rando wrote: Syn Shi wrote: Only close minded people I see are the ones who think targeting the new players is beneficial for the game. Good thing then that targeting new players gets you banned. Not if you join a corp with them and do it. This whole thread is about the players who choose to target new players. If they chose to go after vets as well then this wouldn't have been brought up. 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.
Anslo Scope Works 20523	Posted - 2014.11.01 17:42:44 - [867] - Quote Sol Project wrote: Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: This thread shows clearly that people preying on noobs are quite a large and noisy collective... Posts like yours show that people who do not understand what this is about are quite a large and noisy collective. They also can't see beyond their selective awareness and don't care about anything except their own fake and shallow standards. I bet you have absolutely NO experience in the whole matter at all and just talk from hearsay. I bet you haven't been into at least five of these "new player friendly" corps who are more harming than anything. You do not do PvP. I know this from you. Yet, instead of accepting that you lack any actual knowledge or experience about what's going on, you think you can make such a statement that only shows that you have absolutely no insight on the matter or what this is actually about. You just parrot the same crap all the other clueless haters parrot, who do not have any actual insight into what's happening. YOUR ATTITUDE is one big reason why people love to shoot into your pretty face. I thought you were going to quit eve, not soap box more. [center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 41	Posted - 2014.11.01 17:43:50 - [868] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Syn Shi wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: notice that the guy you replied to is Star Citizen's leading cheerleader on these forums 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. Only close minded people I see are the ones who think targeting the new players is beneficial for the game. 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. Quote: This whole thread is about the players who choose to target new players. If they chose to go after vets as well then this wouldn't have been brought up. 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. The mechanic being discussed has been in the game for how long now......there has been lots of time to try it as you suggest. The fact that they are discussing making a change only shows that your way isn't working. As a genuine noobie...I never received a thing...your play experience doesn't apply to everyone in game. But I am sure you will say it was my fault that I didn't have the game experience you talked about. And that pretty much tells me that you see it through your experience only, so it must be that way for everyone.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 41	Posted - 2014.11.01 17:46:29 - [869] - Quote Ned Thomas wrote: Syn Shi wrote: Some Rando wrote: Syn Shi wrote: Only close minded people I see are the ones who think targeting the new players is beneficial for the game. Good thing then that targeting new players gets you banned. Not if you join a corp with them and do it. This whole thread is about the players who choose to target new players. If they chose to go after vets as well then this wouldn't have been brought up. 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. Nothing is being removed. The only change discussed was having Concord show up. Someone else who didn't read the minutes spreading misinformation.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 21390	Posted - 2014.11.01 17:58:24 - [870] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: The mechanic being discussed has been in the game for how long now......there has been lots of time to try it as you suggest. The fact that they are discussing making a change only shows that your way isn't working. Which part of I am primarily a highsec PvE player did you not understand, I've never awoxed anybody, and I'm unlikely to. Quote: As a genuine noobie...I never received a thing...your play experience doesn't apply to everyone in game. Correct, and that swings both ways. Quote: But I am sure you will say it was my fault that I didn't have the game experience you talked about. What game experience did you have? Or are you talking crap again? Quote: And that pretty much tells me that you see it through your experience only, so it must be that way for everyone. Pot meet kettle Still waiting. "Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar Nil mortifi sine lucre.

Some Rando University of Caille Gallente Federation 1234	Posted - 2014.11.01 17:59:01 - [871] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Nothing is being removed. The only change discussed was having Concord show up. That story would have never happened if CONCORD showed up, so it follows that something will be removed. CCP has no sense of humour.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 41	Posted - 2014.11.01 18:03:47 - [872] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Syn Shi wrote: The mechanic being discussed has been in the game for how long now......there has been lots of time to try it as you suggest. The fact that they are discussing making a change only shows that your way isn't working. Which part of I am primarily a highsec PvE player did you not understand, I've never awoxed anybody, and I'm unlikely to. Quote: As a genuine noobie...I never received a thing...your play experience doesn't apply to everyone in game. Correct, and that swings both ways. Quote: But I am sure you will say it was my fault that I didn't have the game experience you talked about. What game experience did you have? Or are you talking crap again? Quote: And that pretty much tells me that you see it through your experience only, so it must be that way for everyone. Pot meet kettle Still waiting. This is a perfect example of you being open minded.
Balshem Rozenzweig 24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire 74	Posted - 2014.11.01 18:04:43 - [873] - Quote Princess Scarlett wrote: Save one person from AWOX - save the world Oscar Schindler "New Player Experience is the last refuge of a scoundrel"- Samuel Johnson There's a number of quotes you can turn either way. Let's not bring IRL dramatic events down to the level of internet entertainment please. "NUTS!!!" - general McAuliffe
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 41	Posted - 2014.11.01 18:05:07 - [874] - Quote Some Rando wrote: Syn Shi wrote: Nothing is being removed. The only change discussed was having Concord show up. That story would have never happened if CONCORD showed up, so it follows that something will be removed. The story can still be written...you just choose to not write it.
Balshem Rozenzweig 24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire 74	Posted - 2014.11.01 18:08:04 - [875] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: So where do all the people whose main argument against this change find the ground to stand on . . . that by shifting a rule that made little sense (It is OK to go Postal if you are in a post office and work there) we are somehow moving away from what the game IS. It is like they are the apostles of a religion within the game but I cannot seem to find their holy book or church. Yet another attempt to stygmatise people supporting awox. This time as religious fanatics. Let me point you to your holy books then - Gevlon Goblin's and Riperd Teg''s blogs. Enjoy the company. "NUTS!!!" - general McAuliffe
Some Rando University of Caille Gallente Federation 1234	Posted - 2014.11.01 18:08:12 - [876] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: The story can still be written...you just choose to not write it. Please explain how the esteemed Ned Thomas' story would have been the same if CONCORD had shown up. CCP has no sense of humour.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 41	Posted - 2014.11.01 18:17:10 - [877] - Quote Some Rando wrote: Syn Shi wrote: The story can still be written...you just choose to not write it. Please explain how the esteemed Ned Thomas' story would have been the same if CONCORD had shown up. Link to the esteemed Ned Thomas story.
Some Rando University of Caille Gallente Federation 1235	Posted - 2014.11.01 18:18:09 - [878] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Link to the esteemed Ned Thomas story. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5170034#post5170034 CCP has no sense of humour.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4391	Posted - 2014.11.01 18:20:38 - [879] - Quote Some Rando wrote: Syn Shi wrote: Link to the esteemed Ned Thomas story. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5170034#post5170034 Where's the rest of it? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Some Rando University of Caille Gallente Federation 1235	Posted - 2014.11.01 18:23:07 - [880] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Some Rando wrote: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5170034#post5170034 Where's the rest of it? It's a short one. Even someone of your limited mental capacity shouldn't have trouble finishing it. CCP has no sense of humour.

Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 41	Posted - 2014.11.01 18:25:11 - [881] - Quote Some Rando wrote: Syn Shi wrote: Link to the esteemed Ned Thomas story. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5170034#post5170034 The story is they blew up a ship of a 5 year player...a 5 year player is a noob? And the fact that he wasn't in the corp makes it more akin to suicide ganking. The story is not even revenant to the topic.
Marsha Mallow 1674	Posted - 2014.11.01 18:26:45 - [882] - Quote Ned Thomas wrote: 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. 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. DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
Josef Djugashvilis 2639	Posted - 2014.11.01 18:27:05 - [883] - Quote This thread has descended to the point that it has just become a rant between two opposing views. See post 877 for example. This is not a signature.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 41	Posted - 2014.11.01 18:33:53 - [884] - Quote Marsha Mallow wrote: Ned Thomas wrote: 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. 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. Instead of saying it was an accident that you shot, it would have been better if you said you did it on purpose. (awoxxed) The person that was shot was a 5yr old player...when did a 5yr player become a noob? Maybe next time the story can be revenant to the topic.
Some Rando University of Caille Gallente Federation 1236	Posted - 2014.11.01 18:34:26 - [885] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: The story is they blew up a ship of a 5 year player...a 5 year player is a noob? Would you call them a noob? Syn Shi wrote: And the fact that he wasn't in the corp makes it more akin to suicide ganking. So the 5 year Orca pilot that got awoxed wasn't in the corp? How'd he get awoxed then? Syn Shi wrote: The story is not even revenant to the topic. That, at least, is true. CCP has no sense of humour.
Mike Azariah DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited 1814	Posted - 2014.11.01 18:43:12 - [886] - Quote Still reading, still collecting but not a lot of new in the past few pages. Marsha, I liked the story but aside from the original free for all most of that could be done without awox possible. Only the original shooting which was a mistake remains. I have agreed that the loss of intracorp free for alls is something that needs addressing and hope we can in the near future aside from that? Nope, still think the removal of awox or the arrival of concord or however you want to frame it, is a good thing. m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE 726	Posted - 2014.11.01 18:43:41 - [887] - Quote some of my best memories in eve are from shooting (and being shot by) corpmates, and never was it awoxing. I just wonder if the dualing system has become anymore robust since it launched? how does it handle 2v2s, 3v3s, and FFA fights? IDLE had a hangar full of t1 frigs and t1 fittings solely for the purpose of blowing each other up. also I'd say this interferes with some of RvBs activities at the same time I completely agree with that one line about if it gets more people to join corps, it could very well be a positive change. I'll join the chorus asking CCP, don't take my fancy names away from me! In the name of the Limos, the Malkuth, and the Arbalest, so help me pod - Mara Rinn
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 41	Posted - 2014.11.01 18:48:53 - [888] - Quote Some Rando wrote: Syn Shi wrote: The story is they blew up a ship of a 5 year player...a 5 year player is a noob? Would you call them a noob? Syn Shi wrote: And the fact that he wasn't in the corp makes it more akin to suicide ganking. So the 5 year Orca pilot that got awoxed wasn't in the corp? How'd he get awoxed then? Syn Shi wrote: The story is not even revenant to the topic. That, at least, is true. Being that the topic is about targeting new players I can only assume you view the 5yr player as the noob. If you cant even agree to that then what is the relevance? So far its a story about a corp who awoxxed a 5 year old player. Which if the change was made the story could still happen, The only difference would have been is that Concord showed up. And it seems that its being implied that if there was a consequence they wouldn't have done it. Summary If there is a consequence then these players choose to cease the activity.
Ned Thomas Hellbound Turkeys Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects 181	Posted - 2014.11.01 18:52:20 - [889] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Ned Thomas wrote: Syn Shi wrote: Some Rando wrote: Syn Shi wrote: Only close minded people I see are the ones who think targeting the new players is beneficial for the game. Good thing then that targeting new players gets you banned. Not if you join a corp with them and do it. This whole thread is about the players who choose to target new players. If they chose to go after vets as well then this wouldn't have been brought up. 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. Nothing is being removed. The only change discussed was having Concord show up. Someone else who didn't read the minutes spreading misinformation. Concord should not be involved in the inner workings of corps. Concord involvement would have eliminated the story I just told. Feel better?
Some Rando University of Caille Gallente Federation 1236	Posted - 2014.11.01 18:56:37 - [890] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Being that the topic is about targeting new players I can only assume you view the 5yr player as the noob. I just had a read of the OP and the topic is about awoxing, not targeting new players, so the esteemed Ned Thomas' story is entirely relevant. CCP has no sense of humour.

Good Posting Reloaded My Real Mind 11	Posted - 2014.11.01 19:03:19 - [891] - Quote All those nice stories... will be lost in time, like high sec tears in rain. Time to move to another sec... where concord won't spawn when you shoot a corpmate. NelsonHaHa.jpg
Prince Kobol 2351	Posted - 2014.11.01 19:24:33 - [892] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Still reading, still collecting but not a lot of new in the past few pages. Marsha, I liked the story but aside from the original free for all most of that could be done without awox possible. Only the original shooting which was a mistake remains. I have agreed that the loss of intracorp free for alls is something that needs addressing and hope we can in the near future aside from that? Nope, still think the removal of awox or the arrival of concord or however you want to frame it, is a good thing. m So why not remove War Dec's then? I am sure War Dec's cause a lot more people to stay in NPC Corps and lose more new players then axowing does. I have never heard of a Corp to fold because of an axower where as according to many people War dec's have and continue to do so. You can not claim that removing the ability to shoot corp mates without concord intervention will help retain newer players and encourage more people to leave the safety of NPC Corps without admitting that removing war decs would have a much great impact on these two things.
Good Posting Reloaded My Real Mind 11	Posted - 2014.11.01 19:42:03 - [893] - Quote Prince Kobol wrote: So why not remove War Dec's then? That would be so drastic but why not give them a real meaning. I'm sure ccp has something in mind and we all will rejoice the day they announce the changes.
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2981	Posted - 2014.11.01 19:49:16 - [894] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Still reading, still collecting but not a lot of new in the past few pages. Marsha, I liked the story but aside from the original free for all most of that could be done without awox possible. Only the original shooting which was a mistake remains. I have agreed that the loss of intracorp free for alls is something that needs addressing and hope we can in the near future aside from that? Nope, still think the removal of awox or the arrival of concord or however you want to frame it, is a good thing. m Or we could come up with an idea that doesn't remove content but does help new players like enhancing NPE, adding flags, and using existent features like kill rights to solve the problem. Disguising everything anti-PPP as beneficial to new players is disingenuous. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2478	Posted - 2014.11.01 19:54:40 - [895] - Quote Prince Kobol wrote: So why not remove War Dec's then? I am sure War Dec's cause a lot more people to stay in NPC Corps and lose more new players then axowing does. I have never heard of a Corp to fold because of an axower where as according to many people War dec's have and continue to do so. Don't worry, that's phase two. Phase three is the introduction of concord to low and null whence war decs will be the only way of fighting a sov war thus reintorducing and fixing war decs simultaneously. The empires have had enough of your capsuleer bullshit.
Brochan McLeod Frigateer 77	Posted - 2014.11.01 20:30:43 - [896] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Prince Kobol wrote: So why not remove War Dec's then? I am sure War Dec's cause a lot more people to stay in NPC Corps and lose more new players then axowing does. I have never heard of a Corp to fold because of an axower where as according to many people War dec's have and continue to do so. Don't worry, that's phase two. Phase three is the introduction of concord to low and null, whence war decs will be the only way of fighting a sov war thus reintorducing and fixing war decs simultaneously. The empires have had enough of your capsuleer bullshit. Peace at last... lol EDIT: Note to self: Buy some Knitting & Crochet skills in Jita Even the nicest person's patience has a limit!
Ribor Elysian. Orderly Misconduct 17	Posted - 2014.11.01 20:32:59 - [897] - Quote What the **** is high-sec?
Sol Project Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 80	Posted - 2014.11.01 20:37:25 - [898] - Quote The next generation of players will learn that in highsec, there is no non-consensual combat allowed anymore, unless you give consent by deliberately flagging yourself as a FreeForAll. They will learn that every aggression needs CONCORD to have prior knowledge about it, else they will strike. The green button being defaulted to green supports the idea of combat in highsec being a thing that is not liked to be seen. More people will come up with the stupidity of living in pvp zones, aka "If you wanna pvp go to low or null", showing ignorance of what pvp means and that there are no zones to being with. Yet, at least. No new player will be able to just try and find out if it's fun or profitable to shoot the ass of his corpmate for money, unless he can lure him into a duel in something expensive, which adds a huge amount of complexity to it. Now people will tell me that wardecs and suicide ganking are non-consensual combat and still there ... but I don't actually agree. If there is no consent with CONCORD, then the potential for aggression will always be crippled. It's crippled already even WITH consent. Consent, not from the player... but from the system. It still looks like a game that has non-consensual combat everywhere... but if asking CONCORD for allowance isn't "asking for consent" then I hope I just have issues with the language barrier....... I doubt that CCP doesn't realise the differences in perception. Well played, CCP.........
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 1540	Posted - 2014.11.01 20:42:44 - [899] - Quote Prince Kobol wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: Still reading, still collecting but not a lot of new in the past few pages. Marsha, I liked the story but aside from the original free for all most of that could be done without awox possible. Only the original shooting which was a mistake remains. I have agreed that the loss of intracorp free for alls is something that needs addressing and hope we can in the near future aside from that? Nope, still think the removal of awox or the arrival of concord or however you want to frame it, is a good thing. m So why not remove War Dec's then? I am sure War Dec's cause a lot more people to stay in NPC Corps and lose more new players then axowing does. I have never heard of a Corp to fold because of an axower where as according to many people War dec's have and continue to do so. You can not claim that removing the ability to shoot corp mates without concord intervention will help retain newer players and encourage more people to leave the safety of NPC Corps without admitting that removing war decs would have a much great impact on these two things. 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 Would you like to know more?
Christus Estnatus Hemanseh Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 11	Posted - 2014.11.01 20:49:21 - [900] - Quote Sol Project wrote: The next generation of players will learn that in highsec, there is no non-consensual combat allowed anymore, unless you give consent by deliberately flagging yourself as a FreeForAll. They will learn that every aggression needs CONCORD to have prior knowledge about it, else they will strike. The green button being defaulted to green supports the idea of combat in highsec being a thing that is not liked to be seen. More people will come up with the stupidity of living in pvp zones, aka "If you wanna pvp go to low or null", showing ignorance of what pvp means and that there are no zones to being with. Yet, at least. No new player will be able to just try and find out if it's fun or profitable to shoot the ass of his corpmate for money, unless he can lure him into a duel in something expensive, which adds a huge amount of complexity to it. Now people will tell me that wardecs and suicide ganking are non-consensual combat and still there ... but I don't actually agree. If there is no consent with CONCORD, then the potential for aggression will always be crippled. It's crippled already even WITH consent. Consent, not from the player... but from the system. It still looks like a game that has non-consensual combat everywhere... but if asking CONCORD for allowance isn't "asking for consent" then I hope I just have issues with the language barrier....... I doubt that CCP doesn't realise the differences in perception. Well played, CCP......... CONCORD is a part of the risk. Please, do not take any risk not worthy of the reward.

Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 41	Posted - 2014.11.01 20:51:18 - [901] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Prince Kobol wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: Still reading, still collecting but not a lot of new in the past few pages. Marsha, I liked the story but aside from the original free for all most of that could be done without awox possible. Only the original shooting which was a mistake remains. I have agreed that the loss of intracorp free for alls is something that needs addressing and hope we can in the near future aside from that? Nope, still think the removal of awox or the arrival of concord or however you want to frame it, is a good thing. m So why not remove War Dec's then? I am sure War Dec's cause a lot more people to stay in NPC Corps and lose more new players then axowing does. I have never heard of a Corp to fold because of an axower where as according to many people War dec's have and continue to do so. You can not claim that removing the ability to shoot corp mates without concord intervention will help retain newer players and encourage more people to leave the safety of NPC Corps without admitting that removing war decs would have a much great impact on these two things. 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 A CSM did represent you and say that awox should be left as is or maybe there is a better solution. More than one actually. But you wouldn't know that because you haven't read the CSM minutes and are just firing off at anyone out of ignorance. Just like everyone else who keeps saying it is going to be removed when the only thing that was said was...maybe concord should show up.
Marsha Mallow 1675	Posted - 2014.11.01 20:52:48 - [902] - Quote Run for CSM Feyd. I'll chuck you a few dozen votes DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
Sol Project Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 81	Posted - 2014.11.01 20:55:08 - [903] - Quote They're not changing it. They did so already. It just looks like it's not there yet and maybe never will, because as long as people can hook onto a tiny freedom they are willingly ignoring all the limitations... Ganking gives the illusion that people need to accept there is still non-consensual combat happening in highsec. The tiny freedom that blinds to all the limitations that will be forgotten eventually anyway. The part about the freedom to engage has moved away from the player to the system.
Sol Project Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 81	Posted - 2014.11.01 20:58:21 - [904] - Quote Christus Estnatus Hemanseh wrote: Sol Project wrote: The next generation of players will learn that in highsec, there is no non-consensual combat allowed anymore, unless you give consent by deliberately flagging yourself as a FreeForAll. They will learn that every aggression needs CONCORD to have prior knowledge about it, else they will strike. The green button being defaulted to green supports the idea of combat in highsec being a thing that is not liked to be seen. More people will come up with the stupidity of living in pvp zones, aka "If you wanna pvp go to low or null", showing ignorance of what pvp means and that there are no zones to being with. Yet, at least. No new player will be able to just try and find out if it's fun or profitable to shoot the ass of his corpmate for money, unless he can lure him into a duel in something expensive, which adds a huge amount of complexity to it. Now people will tell me that wardecs and suicide ganking are non-consensual combat and still there ... but I don't actually agree. If there is no consent with CONCORD, then the potential for aggression will always be crippled. It's crippled already even WITH consent. Consent, not from the player... but from the system. It still looks like a game that has non-consensual combat everywhere... but if asking CONCORD for allowance isn't "asking for consent" then I hope I just have issues with the language barrier....... I doubt that CCP doesn't realise the differences in perception. Well played, CCP......... CONCORD is a part of the risk. Please, do not take any risk not worthy of the reward. No. Risk is something you take, when you know that you might not get what you want. There is risk involved in ganking when it comes to loot drops. There is no risk involved in regards to the target. If the aggressors failed then they did it wrong. That's not "I risked my ships and failed", it's "I was too stupid to do it right. What did I miss?". There is no "Damn I hope CONCORD won't show up". CONCORD definitely WILL show up. Risks involve a gamble. It's there, but unrelated to CONCORD. CONCORD is an absolute.
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 6601	Posted - 2014.11.01 21:12:17 - [905] - Quote Well...this thread has almost run its course. You can always tell because the people backed into a corner start with the bizarro outlier examples of why the change is a bad thing. "This one in a million thing happened once to this one person this one time, so we need to keep the mechanic. You just never know when it might happen again and then you'll all be sorry!" Until the next thread, I bid you all adieu. Mr Epeen There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4391	Posted - 2014.11.01 21:13:57 - [906] - Quote Some Rando wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Some Rando wrote: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5170034#post5170034 Where's the rest of it? It's a short one. Even someone of your limited mental capacity shouldn't have trouble finishing it. Good job buddy. Feel better now you got that out of your system? Yeah, that story is dull. Combined with your desire to launch around personal attacks in it's defense, it further enforces my belief that nuking corp aggression is the right way to go. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Mike Azariah DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited 1824	Posted - 2014.11.01 21:18:11 - [907] - Quote Prince Kobol wrote: So why not remove War Dec's then? I am sure War Dec's cause a lot more people to stay in NPC Corps and lose more new players then axowing does. I have never heard of a Corp to fold because of an axower where as according to many people War dec's have and continue to do so. You can not claim that removing the ability to shoot corp mates without concord intervention will help retain newer players and encourage more people to leave the safety of NPC Corps without admitting that removing war decs would have a much great impact on these two things. Actually, I claim exactly that. Wardecs are NOT on the same slope as corp awox. One you get warning, announcements and a ramp up time. I am in favour of keeping wardecs and removing awox and I do not see any contradictions with that stand. I am NOT trying to make hisec 'safe'. I AM in favour of removing a stupid non-intuitive mechanic. m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
Sol Project Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 81	Posted - 2014.11.01 21:25:35 - [908] - Quote Mr Epeen wrote: Well...this thread has almost run its course. You can always tell because the people backed into a corner start with the bizarro outlier examples of why the change is a bad thing. "This one in a million thing happened once to this one person this one time, so we need to keep the mechanic. You just never know when it might happen again and then you'll all be sorry!" Until the next thread, I bid you all adieu. Mr Epeen That logic doesn't work. Let's remove everything a minority does, because a bigger minority thinks it's bad? It's not CCP who came up with this. It's their "data" and "exit polls", but do they really look at the issue from the individual level? Dou tfull. They see data, but can not possibly see the reasons for the actions. Saying that all the awoxxes happened because assholes want to grief noobs is outright ridiculous. Crappy new player corps are legion. Whoever says that such a bad first influence doesn't drive people out of the game too, is as much ridiculous. Who says that most awoxxes didn't happen for a good reason? This change is nuts and disconnected from reality. At least they should present why it is deemed as helpfull. Removing the symptom od the illness will not make the illness go away. Instead they more likely will remove wardecs, because of the increase in wardecs against new player corps. THIS will be their last mistake, though. These corps have potential, but it's those in charge who refuse to use it and rather tell their members to hide or use an alt. That's not EVE at all and catering to these people will cause bigger issues in the meta than CCP can imagine. I agree though... this thread has run it's course.
Two step Aperture Harmonics No Holes Barred 4791	Posted - 2014.11.01 21:28:45 - [909] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: 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 I knew Ripard Teg. Ripard Teg was an acquaintance of mine. Mike, is no Ripard Teg. CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
Marsha Mallow 1676	Posted - 2014.11.01 21:38:49 - [910] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: I am in favour of keeping wardecs and removing awox and I do not see any contradictions with that stand. I am NOT trying to make hisec 'safe'. I AM in favour of removing a stupid non-intuitive mechanic. Well, if that's your stance it does take into account the concerns people who object to the change have expressed. We can agree to disagree over this particular change, but it's good to establish that the underlying concerns are not being ignored. So not a wasted exercise, and many thanks for the replies. Just be aware that removing this mechanic will break things elsewhere (webbing freighters/JFs, accidentally auto aggroing friendly logis, corp tourneys & RvB). Saying "those can be fixed later" isn't ideal with such a massive backlog of fixes in the works. DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!

Sol Project Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 81	Posted - 2014.11.01 21:46:09 - [911] - Quote How is it non intuitive to be able to shoot someone in a game about shooting someone? It is non intuitive to have a game about nonconsensual pvp to have all these limitations and beaurocrazy around!
Kaldi Tsukaya Deveron Shipyards and Technology 12	Posted - 2014.11.01 22:03:02 - [912] - Quote Marsha Mallow wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: I am in favour of keeping wardecs and removing awox and I do not see any contradictions with that stand. I am NOT trying to make hisec 'safe'. I AM in favour of removing a stupid non-intuitive mechanic. Well, if that's your stance it does take into account the concerns people who object to the change have expressed. We can agree to disagree over this particular change, but it's good to establish that the underlying concerns are not being ignored. So not a wasted exercise, and many thanks for the replies. Just be aware that removing this mechanic will break things elsewhere (webbing freighters/JFs, accidentally auto aggroing friendly logis, corp tourneys & RvB). Saying "those can be fixed later" isn't ideal with such a massive backlog of fixes in the works. ^^this^^ the "fix" breaks alot of other things, too. But I already stated my case, and will leave it at that. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5169215#post5169215
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2985	Posted - 2014.11.01 22:09:11 - [913] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Prince Kobol wrote: So why not remove War Dec's then? I am sure War Dec's cause a lot more people to stay in NPC Corps and lose more new players then axowing does. I have never heard of a Corp to fold because of an axower where as according to many people War dec's have and continue to do so. You can not claim that removing the ability to shoot corp mates without concord intervention will help retain newer players and encourage more people to leave the safety of NPC Corps without admitting that removing war decs would have a much great impact on these two things. Actually, I claim exactly that. Wardecs are NOT on the same slope as corp awox. One you get warning, announcements and a ramp up time. I am in favour of keeping wardecs and removing awox and I do not see any contradictions with that stand. I am NOT trying to make hisec 'safe'. I AM in favour of removing a stupid non-intuitive mechanic. m Yet your justification is "it makes sense" instead of anything well reasoned. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2479	Posted - 2014.11.01 22:11:04 - [914] - Quote La Nariz wrote: Yet your justification is "it makes sense" instead of anything well reasoned. Making sense is horribly overrated.
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2986	Posted - 2014.11.01 22:16:44 - [915] - Quote "It makes sense" that highsec reward would be lower than areas with less safety but I don't see you championing that mike. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Marsha Mallow 1678	Posted - 2014.11.01 22:16:47 - [916] - Quote Two step wrote: I knew Ripard Teg. Ripard Teg was an acquaintance of mine. Mike, is no Ripard Teg. meow Two step wins thread DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
Balshem Rozenzweig 24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire 75	Posted - 2014.11.01 22:21:24 - [917] - Quote The topic started as discussion about newbie retention. I cannot imagine how a newbie could be repelled by awox. If he knows about it he already has enough tools (google?) to avoid/minimalise damage. I was a newbie just a year ago (haven't played for 3 months of that year - links in frigate pvp touched me \o/) and I can exactly remember what my feelings were back then. As a beginner in eve you cannot do anything well. People will tell you you can tackle in fleets - you can't really. You spend 3 days playing and you still have not nearly enough SP to fly a frig fast and with agility. Other players will outdo you. In anything. They won't only out-shoot you - they will also out-trade, out-mine and out-farm you. With ease. You can be an Einstein but the +50% (or more - depending on activity) will always be there. Because of that you specialize to close the gap fast. Because of specializing you are stuck in a sandbox, with only 1 thing you can do (and even that - worse than everyone else) and forced to pay IRL money to try something else (and sub the other account until you can earn enough for plex - any idea how long would that be?). This is what was infuriating for me. People would blap my silly kestrel with t2 frigs. In low sec. The honest, staying away from high sec pvp crowd tried to hurt me only because I tried and went away from high sec (lol). Then I had these missile ships and kestrels and condors I started to be bored with, and not much else, cause of support skills. How does awox come into that? It doesn't. Reading about all the fun stuff in eve actually kept me in the game. You cannot expect newbie to stay here if he's not properly instructed about the skill system, provided content while being hand held by corp mates (who, if not capable, will not be able to do that anyway). I agree with people saying than taking awox away will not change anything, just end the fun stories. I can live with that, since I'd never do such a thing (honestly). Real problem is education in an up to date and clean form. Imho newbies should be directed to wikis that as a plus give anecdotal stories about pros and cons of various activities. FW plexing? watch timer for hours and run away from full snakes, full links, booster addicted people in dare devils. Then you will become rich and get those implants, those links and that dare devil and chase those lame farmers of your plexes \o/ Mining? Get skill points into it just to put more skill points into it. You can afk though - people love reading \o/ Exploration? Kinda fun if you're ok with poor vOv People coming to eve need better presentation of content, and how to get to it. In the form of plain text. If you count on those famous PC corps good luck. I still remember a guy I met telling me to skill retriever for cash, and logi, so we could "hunt together". TL;DR imho awox is not the problem. It's part of the solution. At least the topic is grinded so much that people reading about it learn to insta undock and maybe even d scan. "NUTS!!!" - general McAuliffe
mynnna GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3826	Posted - 2014.11.01 22:31:15 - [918] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Prince Kobol wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: Still reading, still collecting but not a lot of new in the past few pages. Marsha, I liked the story but aside from the original free for all most of that could be done without awox possible. Only the original shooting which was a mistake remains. I have agreed that the loss of intracorp free for alls is something that needs addressing and hope we can in the near future aside from that? Nope, still think the removal of awox or the arrival of concord or however you want to frame it, is a good thing. m So why not remove War Dec's then? I am sure War Dec's cause a lot more people to stay in NPC Corps and lose more new players then axowing does. I have never heard of a Corp to fold because of an axower where as according to many people War dec's have and continue to do so. You can not claim that removing the ability to shoot corp mates without concord intervention will help retain newer players and encourage more people to leave the safety of NPC Corps without admitting that removing war decs would have a much great impact on these two things. 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 If you have to rely on broken, unintuitive mechanics to do your thing, you're an unimaginative, **** player and should feel bad. Sorry. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Steve Ronuken Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM 4113	Posted - 2014.11.01 22:34:22 - [919] - Quote Balshem Rozenzweig wrote: The topic started as discussion about newbie retention. I cannot imagine how a newbie could be repelled by awox. If he knows about it he already has enough tools (google?) to avoid/minimalise damage. That'd be the newbie /being/ awoxed, repelling them. Woo! CSM 9! Fuzzwork Enterprises Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Marsha Mallow 1678	Posted - 2014.11.01 22:35:01 - [920] - Quote mynnna wrote: If you have to rely on broken, unintuitive mechanics to do your thing, you're a **** player and should feel bad. Sorry. What, like accidentally forgetting to pay sov bills, cocking up corp roles, or clicking jump rather than bridge? It's fair to remove needless complexity, but don't forget that's where the content is. So add it back in. Call it a safety-sink DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!

mynnna GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3826	Posted - 2014.11.01 22:43:21 - [921] - Quote Marsha Mallow wrote: mynnna wrote: If you have to rely on broken, unintuitive mechanics to do your thing, you're a ** player and should feel bad. Sorry. What, like accidentally forgetting to pay sov bills, cocking up corp roles, or clicking jump rather than bridge? Oh yes, and margin trading scams, forgot those. Actually I can make a really long list, and every one of them is a content driver - but it's exploiting unintuitive mechanics. It's fair to remove needless complexity, but don't forget that's where the content is. So add it back in. Call it a safety-sink If your idea of content is preying on the weak, stupid and helpless - props to you, this is EVE, that happens. But, I repeat - if you feel addressing a broken, unintuitive mechanic that you were leveraging impedes your ability to do that, you're an unimaginative ** player and should feel bad. Or, frankly, you may as well just consider yourself as weak, stupid and helpless as your erstwhile prey. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Josef Djugashvilis 2639	Posted - 2014.11.01 22:46:18 - [922] - Quote La Nariz wrote: "It makes sense" that highsec reward would be lower than areas with less safety but I don't see you championing that mike. Do you have any actual evidence to support your contention? Sorry, La - I'm a scientist - Nariz, I could could not resist the temptation to laugh at you This is not a signature.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1643	Posted - 2014.11.01 22:49:05 - [923] - Quote La Nariz wrote: "It makes sense" that highsec reward would be lower than areas with less safety but I don't see you championing that mike. Possibly because it actually already is, and you (And I do mean you personally here) are just trying to drive it so far down that the residents of high sec will be desperate for any scraps you give them. You just use bad statistics from biased experiments to try and claim otherwise. RvB can still brawl, it will just actually be Red vs Blue now in highsec. Want a free for all brawl, take it to low or null. Corp brawls, go to low sec. Or null sec. Plenty of low sec pockets where you only ever see 2 or 3 people and they aren't going to warp into a ball of a dozen. Webbing freighters. Duel mechanic exists. Hey look, opportunity for betrayal & ransoms if you put a little effort into getting them to trust you to web them. So awoxing is still possible in high without needing to be able to automatically shoot your corp mates. It does make sense to remove an exception from the rules of highsec that dates to pre crimewatch 2.0 and is no longer required. And it breaks nothing of significance. And gets some of those things into low sec as well.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode ISD Community Communications Liaisons 3450	Posted - 2014.11.01 23:04:04 - [924] - Quote Closed for a quick cleaning. ISD Dorrim Barstorlode Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Ama Scelesta 79	Posted - 2014.11.01 23:28:13 - [925] - Quote Balshem Rozenzweig wrote: The topic started as discussion about newbie retention. I cannot imagine how a newbie could be repelled by awox. If he knows about it he already has enough tools (google?) to avoid/minimalise damage. cut the rest The problem isn't new players per se and informing can only go so far, especially when rational calculation easily works against joining a corp. There is a reason why public education campaigns struggle to alter how people behave and this is just a game. They want to play and not listed to you preach to them and they're not staying around long enough for you to get retries. It also won't be effective, if the rational calculus isn't altered at all. The real problem with free aggression within a corp is the damage done to the ease of forming social connections, that is vital to all MMOs. Any game is more fun when you can play it with people you like and you're likely to stay subscribed longer, if you find a group you feel comfortable with. Not everyone cares about intra corp aggression, but others do. Some people form social connections easily, but some struggle even when they want to do it. Some people come from large outside social networks, some might not even have a single friend here or be socially skilled. The symptoms are too many people not interacting with others in meaningful ways, staying forever in NPC corps or player corps composed of their alts or only people they know in real life. It is bad for the players, since they won't have as much fun. It's bad for CCP, since they tend to lose those players very quickly.CCP needs to keep thinking up better ways to facilitate forming those connections as their future as a company is tied to them. Creating player corps where awoxing isn't possible will open up those all important social connections to more people previously struggling to make them. Hopefully such changes would be accompanied by security updates to corp management and corp roles too. That will allow CEOs to ensure people coming to their corp can't ruin their day just by being in their corp. In order for them to do damage, they'd have to do proper infiltration, gain trust to make the corp members and have them put themselves in a vulnerable position by their own actions. For the corp that would mean they can lower recruiting standards to include more people outside their current trusted core group. From a grunt perspective it means more opportunities to join groups, with less hassle in the joining most corps and lowering the barrier to send the application in the first place, since just joining doesn't mean giving every person in the corp the permission to fire on you without CONCORD interference. Currently it just makes the most sense in too many situations to not be in player corps you can't control. No benefits, more risks. No amount of informing will alter that fact. That calculation needs to be changed closer to the point where it makes no sense to not be in a proper player corp. There will still be people who don't think it makes sense after the changes, but effort needs to be put forth to reduce the number of people making that choice.
Marsha Mallow 1680	Posted - 2014.11.01 23:39:04 - [926] - Quote mynnna wrote: If your idea of content is preying on the weak, stupid and helpless - props to you, this is EVE, that happens. But, I repeat - if you feel addressing a broken, unintuitive mechanic that you were leveraging impedes your ability to do that, you're an unimaginative **** player and should feel bad. Or, frankly, you may as well just consider yourself as weak, stupid and helpless as your erstwhile prey. That's not even competent handbag swinging. But it is an amusing attempt. I feel thoroughly shamed and mocked now and will vent that by filing my nails vigorously and cyberbullying my corpies. flounces off DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
Balshem Rozenzweig 24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire 75	Posted - 2014.11.01 23:41:38 - [927] - Quote Steve Ronuken wrote: Balshem Rozenzweig wrote: The topic started as discussion about newbie retention. I cannot imagine how a newbie could be repelled by awox. If he knows about it he already has enough tools (google?) to avoid/minimalise damage. That'd be the newbie /being/ awoxed, repelling them. but there's shitton of things repelling them already. Why would awox be the one that requires so much attention? Awoxing at least attracts some kind of people. It did entertain me and I've never done it. I feel repulsed by people "offering duels" to newbies. They farm kills. Awoxer is a paragon of society compared to that activity. You don't go all physical with it. If there's hard data showing that newbies tend to leave because of being awoxed, and you can verify it's not a scape goat for the leaving people (cba with the game AND there's awox ) then ok. I can't believe it to be true. Devs should attempt to communicate their idea of the game better imho. That would solve a lot of crap. Maybe make people realize than loosing a ship is what the game is about, not a personal failure? Because this is what their friendly carebears will tell'em. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you that but eve has almost nothing to offer aside from pvp when it comes to instant gratification. Industry is cool, but I would imagine a niche thing. People do exploration out of boredom. It is futile currently. You can go wormhole but that's SP intensive. What do you have left? PVE? The repeatable missions? You call people sticking to that not a niche? You expect new player retention from that? I can understand how the burner missions and such (future) additions are suppose to change that. I'm really happy for that even though I probably will not bother to even try that. But for here and now you can say pve in eve is unimaginative, and the pvp/griefer crowd are the people trying to plug that hole with content creation. If I was to make newbie experience better I would do precisely what I wrote in my last post - create a series of up to date and clean articles explaining various possibilities in eve, and then some player written comments about going thru given path. There's not a problem you can't solve without a love of text. mynnna wrote: going full maternal over stuff I came to usually respect your opinion. Where did you guys get the awox idea from? What data was it? I'd like to see, for example, what percentage of people leaving game came to contact with an awoxer, how many bothered to join a corp, how successful the joint corp was. "NUTS!!!" - general McAuliffe
Lady Areola Fappington 2315	Posted - 2014.11.01 23:42:46 - [928] - Quote I do agree with the idea that awoxing as it exists currently is entirely too easy, but on the flip side, I don't think the "shooting your corpmates" should totally go away. Maybe a compromise. Add a new corp role, "security officer". THEY have the ability to shoot corpmates with no concord response. Of course, let the target return fire via limited engagement and all. Simple fix. Awoxing is made a little harder in that you need some social engineering to pull off. You can still catch out people who aren't paying attention, but there's still a degree of "protection" in there. It isn't really hard, but I think there are customers that you can lose in a good way and there's customers that you can lose in a bad way. If people come in and fundamentally don't like EVE Online, then I think that might be a good way of losing customers. . -á--CCP Soundwave
Mharius Skjem Opacity Circles 38	Posted - 2014.11.01 23:54:46 - [929] - Quote Lady Areola Fappington wrote: I do agree with the idea that awoxing as it exists currently is entirely too easy, but on the flip side, I don't think the "shooting your corpmates" should totally go away. Maybe a compromise. Add a new corp role, "security officer". THEY have the ability to shoot corpmates with no concord response. Of course, let the target return fire via limited engagement and all. Simple fix. Awoxing is made a little harder in that you need some social engineering to pull off. You can still catch out people who aren't paying attention, but there's still a degree of "protection" in there. Very good idea +1 from me. A recovering btter vet, with a fresh toon and a determination to like everything that CCP does to Eve...
Balshem Rozenzweig 24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire 76	Posted - 2014.11.02 00:00:17 - [930] - Quote Ama Scelesta wrote: ... This is actually the best answer I read so far from the anti-awox side in this thread. I personally think that requirements are there to be met. People doing all the corporation security, the mistrust to a new bro are the unique flavor of eve and add to the game. My worst MMO nightmare was getting into guilds that weren't focused and as such did nothing together/at all. Requirements usually mean the corp is filled with people that met them, ya know. If high sec corps stop inviting players cause of possible awox. Well - I have no idea what to answer for that. I guess I wish there were better corps in high sec, but that's just that - a wish. Why would they start a corporation if they are afraid to recruit though? As for chances to keep the new player in eve - I'm currently in my first week of playing darkfall. I spend most of the time in that game afk farming since, just like in eve, it's not that bad to do it. I'm not even interested in joining a clan yet. It has nothing to do with my decision if I keep subbing the game or not. First thing I have to consider is that if I will have the time and money to do it. Aside from that it comes to the game itself. If Darkfall fails to deliver content or a promise of content I will not keep playing it. If there's no hunts, no battles, no drama, no thievery, no loss and no gain I will not care enough to play another game that has elves and swords in it. I don't care if that game is safe. I care if it can be fun. Members of my non existent clan certainly won't influence my decision (not enough time atm to get into one and show some effort). I have no idea how long will I stay with the game. I expect to be without a clan for the entire first month. I will scout things out, try to do them on my own, so I can decide which activity is for me. Then I can start to talk with people about doing it in their clan. Everything totally unconnected with possibility of being betrayed/killed. "NUTS!!!" - general McAuliffe

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie The Conference Elite CODE. 1110	Posted - 2014.11.02 00:04:33 - [931] - Quote Balshem Rozenzweig wrote: Ama Scelesta wrote: ... This is actually the best answer I read so far from the anti-awox side in this thread. Agreed, Ama actually uses reasonable points to examine why awoxing can be an issue. I still wholeheartedly disagree, but think you for getting more detailed than the harassment claims from most of the community Ama. New player resources: http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Main_Page - General information http://www.evealtruist.com/p/know-your-enemy.html - Learn to PvP http://belligerentundesirables.com/ - Safaris, Awoxes, Ganking and Griefing-á
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 229	Posted - 2014.11.02 00:12:50 - [932] - Quote 44 pages later and still no one has properly addressed the key point here - how do you spur greater social engagement by new players in highsec? As I see it there are 3 reasons why no rational player should join a PvE highsec corp: 1. awoxxing 2. wardeccs 3. theft Removing one of those barriers still leaves the other 2. Another important question is what benefit do highsec PvE corps offer? From what I can tell you can do essentially all highsec activity - mining, mission running, incursions, manufacturing, etc... without a corp. So what real benefit does the corp bring you? So it seems to me that in the current setup joining a corp exposes you to terrible risks with no countervailing benefits. This makes rational highsec PvE players, such as myself, choose to stay in NPC corps or go to 1 man corps. Presumably this social isolation is bad for the game, and causes many players to quit the game. What can be done to make players actually WANT to join highsec corps, and to make them a positive force in the game? In other games it's easy and risk free to join clans/guilds, etc... because you can't do any real harm or have any real harm done to you. Is there a way to encourage that kind of positive social interaction in Eve?
La Nariz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2990	Posted - 2014.11.02 00:21:23 - [933] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: La Nariz wrote: "It makes sense" that highsec reward would be lower than areas with less safety but I don't see you championing that mike. Possibly because it actually already is, and you (And I do mean you personally here) are just trying to drive it so far down that the residents of high sec will be desperate for any scraps you give them. You just use bad statistics from biased experiments to try and claim otherwise. RvB can still brawl, it will just actually be Red vs Blue now in highsec. Want a free for all brawl, take it to low or null. Corp brawls, go to low sec. Or null sec. Plenty of low sec pockets where you only ever see 2 or 3 people and they aren't going to warp into a ball of a dozen. Webbing freighters. Duel mechanic exists. Hey look, opportunity for betrayal & ransoms if you put a little effort into getting them to trust you to web them. So awoxing is still possible in high without needing to be able to automatically shoot your corp mates. It does make sense to remove an exception from the rules of highsec that dates to pre crimewatch 2.0 and is no longer required. And it breaks nothing of significance. And gets some of those things into low sec as well. It isn't and you're late to the party mike already admitted it isn't and that they are not considering fixing it. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Good Posting Reloaded My Real Mind 15	Posted - 2014.11.02 00:23:17 - [934] - Quote Why do i see Veers with terrible standings? He's the man eve needs, i would set him +15 if i could.
Mharius Skjem Opacity Circles 38	Posted - 2014.11.02 00:25:31 - [935] - Quote Awoxing as it stands is actually an important part of life in eve, for most people it's an opportunity to wreak revenge for past misdeeds, or an opportunity to unleash the demi god within and cause some bad karma. What makes that attractive is the thought that you just might get away with it. A concord response guarantees that you won't get away with it, concord is applying the sanctions that the awoxed players should be coming up with. CCP is replacing opportunities for human interaction and human angst that drives emotional engagement with automated ones that ensure that awoxers won't get followed or hounded by the Corp mates they've betrayed. Concord shouldn't be a replacement for player punishment. A recovering btter vet, with a fresh toon and a determination to like everything that CCP does to Eve...
Brochan McLeod Frigateer 77	Posted - 2014.11.02 00:28:50 - [936] - Quote I'd be more concerned that appearantly people are leaving the game before they get a chance to get hooked on it. If that is happening on such a scale that CCP finds it unavoidable to remove a given mechanic then maybe everybody will just have to swallow and get on with it? Also, when i re-joined this game two months ago i was greeted with two Corp invites. - The first was in German, stating i needn't bother to reply if i didn't speak German. - The second one had a list of do's and don'ts as long as my flippin' arm. It ended with requiring a full API ? Yeah right. Maybe check up my arse for any hidden contraband as well? .. yes, no? If there is a Red versus Blue floating about and an Eve University and the likes, then why the hell aren't THEY out there reeling the newbies in and educating them? Offer them an education that touches all the bases and then kick em out. To get them in... make them offers they cant refuse (Reputation with chosen faction, a bunch of cash, a few nice frigats etc..) Kindof like the tutorial does but then in a more 'live' fashion. Anyway, there are probably lots of creative ways to pull people in and make em enthousiastic for the game. Questioning CCP's ability to evaluate the data and exit polls is NOT one of em... seriously, the sheer arrogance. Even the nicest person's patience has a limit!
mynnna GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3831	Posted - 2014.11.02 00:33:21 - [937] - Quote Balshem Rozenzweig wrote: mynnna wrote: going full maternal over stuff I came to usually respect your opinion. Where did you guys get the awox idea from? What data was it? I'd like to see, for example, what percentage of people leaving game came to contact with an awoxer, how many bothered to join a corp, how successful the joint corp was. Oh I'm not even addressing the whole "people leaving the game" thing. In fact, I don't really have a stake in this fight on either side. I'm mocking everyone in this thread who laughs at their victims when said victims whine to CCP to change things, and are now here whining to CCP when things were changed. I'm saying that if you, the ganker, are so unimaginative, so lazy that you can't come up with other ways to engage in your favored style of gameplay when the broken and uninuitive mechanic you've leaned on for so long is taken away from you, then you're a **** player. Do what you tell your victims to do and adapt. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1588	Posted - 2014.11.02 00:37:29 - [938] - Quote mynnna wrote: Balshem Rozenzweig wrote: mynnna wrote: going full maternal over stuff I came to usually respect your opinion. Where did you guys get the awox idea from? What data was it? I'd like to see, for example, what percentage of people leaving game came to contact with an awoxer, how many bothered to join a corp, how successful the joint corp was. Oh I'm not even addressing the whole "people leaving the game" thing. In fact, I don't really have a stake in this fight on either side. I'm mocking everyone in this thread who laughs at their victims when said victims whine to CCP to change things, and are now here whining to CCP when things were changed. I'm saying that if you, the ganker, are so unimaginative, so lazy that you can't come up with other ways to engage in your favored style of gameplay when the broken and uninuitive mechanic you've leaned on for so long is taken away from you, then you're a **** player. Do what you tell your victims to do and adapt. #rekt
Brochan McLeod Frigateer 77	Posted - 2014.11.02 00:37:31 - [939] - Quote Good Posting Reloaded wrote: Why do i see Veers with terrible standings? He's the man eve needs, i would set him +15 if i could. Why dont you good folks stop with the childish bashing? Come up with a few idea's or be out there making stuff better. How old are you anyway? Even the nicest person's patience has a limit!
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 130	Posted - 2014.11.02 00:45:39 - [940] - Quote Ama Scelest wrote: The problem isn't new players per se and informing can only go so far, especially when rational calculation easily works against joining a corp. There is a reason why public education campaigns struggle to alter how people behave and this is just a game. They want to play and not listed to you preach to them and they're not staying around long enough for you to get retries. It also won't be effective, if the rational calculus isn't altered at all. The real problem with free aggression within a corp is the damage done to the ease of forming social connections, that is vital to all MMOs. Any game is more fun when you can play it with people you like and you're likely to stay subscribed longer, if you find a group you feel comfortable with. Not everyone cares about intra corp aggression, but others do. Some people form social connections easily, but some struggle even when they want to do it. Some people come from large outside social networks, some might not even have a single friend here or be socially skilled. The symptoms are too many people not interacting with others in meaningful ways, staying forever in NPC corps or player corps composed of their alts or only people they know in real life. It is bad for the players, since they won't have as much fun. It's bad for CCP, since they tend to lose those players very quickly.CCP needs to keep thinking up better ways to facilitate forming those connections as their future as a company is tied to them. Creating player corps where awoxing isn't possible will open up those all important social connections to more people previously struggling to make them. Hopefully such changes would be accompanied by security updates to corp management and corp roles too. That will allow CEOs to ensure people coming to their corp can't ruin their day just by being in their corp. In order for them to do damage, they'd have to do proper infiltration, gain trust to make the corp members and have them put themselves in a vulnerable position by their own actions. For the corp that would mean they can lower recruiting standards to include more people outside their current trusted core group. From a grunt perspective it means more opportunities to join groups, with less hassle in the joining most corps and lowering the barrier to send the application in the first place, since just joining doesn't mean giving every person in the corp the permission to fire on you without CONCORD interference. Currently it just makes the most sense in too many situations to not be in player corps you can't control. No benefits, more risks. No amount of informing will alter that fact. That calculation needs to be changed closer to the point where it makes no sense to not be in a proper player corp. There will still be people who don't think it makes sense after the changes, but effort needs to be put forth to reduce the number of people making that choice. I get this sentiment, but this isn't going to happen. Risk-adverse players that are currently happy in NPC corps aren't going to change their mind because of this minor change - wardecs are the issue for them not awoxing. And the idea that corps will "lower their standards" and now let more risky new players in is also unrealistic. For corps operating outside highsec this awoxxing change has no effect, and for the remaining highsec corps, there are other risks associated with potential spies that are significant enough to limit the access of low SP characters that are not changed by the removal of awoxing. Serious corps interested in taking and training new players already have separate training corps set up to reduce the risk of awoxxing so this change does not alter the "rational calculus" significantly. All this will do is stimulate the proliferation of small, disorganized highsec corps that honestly do not have much to offer to a new player. We should be encouraging new players especially to join larger, organized corporations that already can manage the risk of recruitment and that have the resources to train new players. We should not protect small, we-do-everything-but-really-do-nothing corps from spamming invites risk-free in rookie systems by eliminating all the risk of taking on new members. But I agree completely that more needs to be done to get players into a social network as you say but that need is best met through changes to NPC corps and to the new player experience. Help get people into competent corps that can train them in what they are interested after they have finished the tutorials, and add some disincentives to stay in a NPC corp forever. Removing awoxing will do nothing other than make highsec even safer and needlessly remove an interesting tool from the sandbox which is not only useful in the course of training corporation members and other intra-corporation operations, but has resulted in some pretty memorable stories over the years. In fact, it could make things worse by increasing the number of rookies who end up stuck in tiny, do-nothing highsec corps where they will just get bored after a few weeks and quit the game.

Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10457	Posted - 2014.11.02 00:45:54 - [941] - Quote mynnna wrote: the broken and uninuitive mechanic Still not seeing how it's either of those things. Hell, I'm pretty sure that infiltrating and assassinating your own corpmates was a deliberate mechanic. If it were a genuine accident it would not have persisted for as long as it has, despite repeated reworks of Crimewatch. Which means that it's not broken, pretty sure it's working as it was intended to since they did not alter it in any way after revisiting the flagging and limited engagement systems so recently. I'm also not entirely sure as to why this topic has become such a big freaking deal all of a sudden. Because if you want to kill "unituitive" mechanics, I find it incredulous that something like being able to shoot your corpmates is first on the chopping block. How about the fact that we can't share bookmarks in an alliance? That seems counter intuitive to me, nevermind being a genuine problem that effects most of the game. The list goes on, as I am sure you are aware. So yeah, nothing about this fits. Not the supposed problem, not the item identified as the cause of the supposed problem, and not the drum being beaten to justify it. If you could enlighten me, I'd appreciate it. Because all I've seen so far from the "pro" camp is specious bullshit. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Marsha Mallow 1681	Posted - 2014.11.02 00:58:14 - [942] - Quote Rowells wrote: mynnna wrote: I'm mocking everyone in this thread who laughs at their victims when said victims whine to CCP to change things, and are now here whining to CCP when things were changed. Do what you tell your victims to do and adapt. #rekt That'd be a wrecking shot if it was applicable. The thread isn't dominated by people "laughing at their victims and then whining at CCP". We're debating the topic, and largely talking over the CSM who are overall being unconstructive, condescending and rude. It's a good job the majority consider you utterly irrelevant, because when you thread-storm like this you really do look like you're trying to bully people into shutting their gobs. Read the comments, before you interject with a smartarse remark. Other than a bit of clawing and biting, some of us have been working very hard to debate an interesting topic with a variety of people, without being derailed into daft nerdfights. The more interesting points raised here are by people on the fence, or fairly new players. If you can't engage except by delivering a snotty slapdown, and this includes the CSM members, nobody really cares. We'll just carry on chatting regardless. I didn't vote this year anyway because none of you were worth the effort. DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
Good Posting Reloaded My Real Mind 15	Posted - 2014.11.02 01:10:23 - [943] - Quote Brochan McLeod wrote: Good Posting Reloaded wrote: Why do i see Veers with terrible standings? He's the man eve needs, i would set him +15 if i could. Why dont you good folks stop with the childish bashing? Come up with a few idea's or be out there making stuff better. How old are you anyway? I wasn't being sarcastic, i said that because i agree with him. And why do you want to know my age? Do you want a date or something? Sure we can talk honey.
Brochan McLeod Frigateer 77	Posted - 2014.11.02 01:17:40 - [944] - Quote Good Posting Reloaded wrote: Brochan McLeod wrote: Good Posting Reloaded wrote: Why do i see Veers with terrible standings? He's the man eve needs, i would set him +15 if i could. Why dont you good folks stop with the awesome chitchat? Come up with a few idea's or be out there making stuff better. How old are you anyway? I wasn't being sarcastic, i said that because i agree with him. And why do you want to know my age? Do you want a date or something? Sure we can talk honey. There, fixed it, sorry precious. While im here, you have any thoughts on my idea?... Oh, and I know you all have large ego's but it wasnt a request for a date ... hihi Even the nicest person's patience has a limit!
Ned Thomas Hellbound Turkeys Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects 182	Posted - 2014.11.02 01:20:55 - [945] - Quote I also don't see how killing corpmates is a broken mechanic. It's the only risk inherent to recruiting someone to a corp, and I was under the impression that no action in this game should be without risk. As I tried to point out in my quick little story, there is a remarkably easy work around to the problem available to players as is. Sure, it was a fun experience for me, but it also shows that removing an awoxer is not that hard and can be fun for all involved. No, I do not believe suicide ganking and corporate theft are risks of recruiting someone. Suicide ganking is a risk of being an overpriced or easy target (and why would someone who wants to gank join a corp?), corporate theft is a risk of giving people power in your corporation. Spies are barely a risk, because any spy that is watching someone where Concord exists isn't worth their time. High sec war deccers have locator agents, watch lists, and alts that can get eyes on a target. As to the issue of retaining new players, you will not retain anyone who gets offended by an awox. That person will leave the game the moment some other nefarious individual comes along and does something "mean" to them. For that person, the reason they were offended by the game is that another living, breathing human being ruined their day. It won't matter if it's a gank, a scam, a theft, or whatever else. It's the fact that an actual person did something to them that they didn't like. I've often said, if any criminal activity in Eve were preformed by an NPC character, no one would complain. For example, belt rats in high sec are fully capable of killing mining vessels very easily without Concord intervention. To my knowledge, no one is calling for their removal or asking that they be made less difficult. As for getting people into player corps, there will always be a large number of people who join this game because they want to do things that do not involve other players. Those people will always remain in NPC corps and the most they want to do with other players is maybe an occasional conversation in local. There's also the issue, statistically, of people in player corps having alts in NPC corps (though I'm not sure how those players are looked and am talking about something I don't know here). Finally, the bigger detraction for folks in high sec to join player corps is the threat of the war dec. From my experience, the standard response to a war dec is for a player to drop corp and go back to an NPC corp until the dec blows over. Finally, the "it doesn't make sense" argument. Sure it does. Lore wise, why would Concord give a crap about two people in the same capsuleer organization doing anything to one another? We may as well give people suspect timers for looting a corp mate's wreck. Logic wise, there is a benefit to having the ability to shoot friends without consequence in that it provides for some quick and easy fleet training (such a thing will be a real pain in the ass unless duels or the dojo can provide for large engagements) and that benefit outweighs whatever risk is involved in my mind. Fun wise, the quick and easy ability to grab a frigate and fight a corp mate without having to go through a series of clicks is pleasant and a nice way to break up a slow evening. I am not an awoxer and have no interest in the play style. I understand entirely why the ability exists though, and am fully supportive of keeping it for a multitude of reasons. In no way do I think it is a broken system, that it can be some how improved upon, or that it overwhelmingly discourages player interaction and retention. Alrighty, said my peace.
Remiel Pollard Layman's Terms. Don't Tell Me The Odds 5834	Posted - 2014.11.02 01:26:25 - [946] - Quote mynnna wrote: I'm mocking everyone in this thread who laughs at their victims when said victims whine to CCP to change things, and are now here whining to CCP when things were changed. When I vote for CSM, I vote for mature, clear-headed players who know the difference between criticism and whining. That's why the only one I ever voted for was Psychotic Monk. The rest of you are like kids in the playground sandpit kicking sand in the eyes of anyone who tries to challenge you. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Marsha Mallow 1682	Posted - 2014.11.02 01:36:26 - [947] - Quote You know, Ned's awox story and mine were modded for being offtopic. As were a couple of remarks that had swearing, whilst the CSM ones were left untouched. Sorry for discussing moderation, but I'm guesing not only is the topic about to be nuked and locked, but anyone baited into answering back might earn a ballgag. It's almost like there's a concerted effort here to either shut down or derail the discussion. DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
Michele Bachmann Collapsed Out Overload Everything 102	Posted - 2014.11.02 01:40:01 - [948] - Quote Brochan McLeod wrote: [quote=Ima Wreckyou] People can play this game any way they want... i think thats why its called a sandbox. Not everyone is interested in chasing others and pretend they are the cronies of a crazed Sheriff of Nothingham-ish ganker... yelling 'I AM THE LAW'. Personally i was drawn in by the sheer endless possibilities of gathering materials, producing goods and make my own spaceships. PvP is just a thing others do and it ups the tension a bit, making it more interesting for me and the likes of me. I played in 2012 for some time and stopped because i got shot in the face at every turn. In between beeing locked up in a station cos of constant wardecs. I dont blame the CEO of that but rather the games inability to grant a somewhat safe way to do my stuff. I didnt get that so i left. (had a tiny other prob as well but hey...) And now im back... with a different toon and a different plan. Seeing the makers of EvE are finally watering the wine a bit so more folks can enjoy this great game, seems a good developement to me. If you think pvp is 'something others do' and you should be exempt in some way you belong in the the dumpster behind the loony bin.
Syllviaa Hole Exploitation Inc. Goonswarm Federation 25	Posted - 2014.11.02 01:41:25 - [949] - Quote La Rynx wrote: Syllviaa wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: Thing is it does so by removing a stupid loophole. Can one of the opposition explain to me WHY it makes sense that I can shoot a guy in my corp but not a stranger? Why concord will react to one incident and not the other? With dual mechanics we now have ways to 'test a tank' ignoring completely sisi server for the moment. So why did the awox mechanic make sense to you? I understand it made Eve 'dangerous' and allowed a certain type of gameplay but at the bottom of it . . . is there a logic to that rule? If a guy steals a bunch of corporate stuff & is currently flying it in a freighter to the neatest trade hub, why shouldn't you be allowed to kill him & not have concord intervene? Because the awoxer would not fly in a corporate ship. Since the awoxer works with a low sp alt he has to transport this stuff with a freighter alt anyway. Or contract Red Frog. No change here, since corporate steals are still possible. Lets assume here that the guy who just stole a bunch of stuff isn't awoxing (which I didn't imply in the first place). Why should the rest of the corp be allowed to shoot him without concord intervention? Why should game mechanics protect him? RIP Richard A. Butt
Syllviaa Hole Exploitation Inc. Goonswarm Federation 25	Posted - 2014.11.02 01:43:58 - [950] - Quote Syllviaa wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: Thing is it does so by removing a stupid loophole. Can one of the opposition explain to me WHY it makes sense that I can shoot a guy in my corp but not a stranger? Why concord will react to one incident and not the other? With dual mechanics we now have ways to 'test a tank' ignoring completely sisi server for the moment. So why did the awox mechanic make sense to you? I understand it made Eve 'dangerous' and allowed a certain type of gameplay but at the bottom of it . . . is there a logic to that rule? If a guy steals a bunch of corporate stuff & is currently flying it in a freighter to the neatest trade hub, why shouldn't you be allowed to kill him & not have concord intervene? Because the awoxer would not fly in a corporate ship. Since the awoxer works with a low sp alt he has to transport this stuff with a freighter alt anyway.[/quote] Lets assume here that the guy who just stole a bunch of stuff isn't awoxing (which I didn't imply in the first place). Why should the rest of the corp be allowed to shoot him without concord intervention? Why should game mechanics protect him? La Rynx wrote: Or contract Red Frog. No change here, since corporate steals are still possible. You're assuming that this is the way things always happen. It isn't. RIP Richard A. Butt

Ned Thomas Hellbound Turkeys Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects 184	Posted - 2014.11.02 01:44:04 - [951] - Quote Marsha Mallow wrote: You know, Ned's awox story and mine were modded for being offtopic. As were a couple of remarks that had swearing, whilst the CSM ones were left untouched. Sorry for discussing moderation, but I'm guesing not only is the topic about to be nuked and locked, but anyone baited into answering back might earn a ballgag. It's almost like there's a concerted effort here to either shut down or derail the discussion. Was I modded? I didn't notice. I was under the impression that we were discussing removing the ability to kill corpmates without Concord intervention and why that would or would not be a good thing. If my post was modded for some reason, I'd love to know how it did not fit into such a discussion.
Syllviaa Hole Exploitation Inc. Goonswarm Federation 26	Posted - 2014.11.02 01:50:12 - [952] - Quote Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: This thread shows clearly that people preying on noobs are quite a large and noisy collective... The amount of people that use awoxing to prey on new players are the extreme minority. Lets face facts here: You don't want this change to protect new players, you want this change to protect you. RIP Richard A. Butt
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 229	Posted - 2014.11.02 01:53:02 - [953] - Quote Syllviaa wrote: Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: This thread shows clearly that people preying on noobs are quite a large and noisy collective... The amount of people that use awoxing to prey on new players are the extreme minority. Lets face facts here: You don't want this change to protect new players, you want this change to protect you. Completely false. Unfortunately a whole group of players make it their mission to trick new players into joining their corps to blow the up for giggles. I know it sounds pathetic and sick, and the kind of thing literally only lowlives would do, but there are unfortunately some very troubled people playing the game, and this is the kind of garbage that brings them entertainment. If anthing, awoxxing bittervets is virtually impossible because they have already learned to be cynical and trust no one, always looking for the knife in the back. The natural awoxx targets are the new players, who naively assume that Eve is like other MMOs, where you can casually join up with other players with minimal risk involved.
Syllviaa Hole Exploitation Inc. Goonswarm Federation 26	Posted - 2014.11.02 01:55:46 - [954] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: This thread shows clearly that people preying on noobs are quite a large and noisy collective... 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. 43 pages and you still argue over something that was never said. At the end of the day it looks like this social experiment is coming to an end. CCP has reached the point where attracting the low hanging pvp crowd is detrimental to the game and there isn't enough new players coming in to mitigate the ones this playstyle drives away willingly...and is happy about it. I can comment on stuff that was never said as well. The only thing that CCP has acknowledged is that apparently short term income is a better idea than long term income & they have people like you to thank for it. Lets face it, how long will people like you play a boring spaceship game? RIP Richard A. Butt
Ned Thomas Hellbound Turkeys Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects 187	Posted - 2014.11.02 01:56:37 - [955] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Syllviaa wrote: Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: This thread shows clearly that people preying on noobs are quite a large and noisy collective... The amount of people that use awoxing to prey on new players are the extreme minority. Lets face facts here: You don't want this change to protect new players, you want this change to protect you. Completely false. Unfortunately a whole group of players make it their mission to trick new players into joining their corps to blow the up for giggles. I know it sounds pathetic and sick, and the kind of thing literally only lowlives would do, but there are unfortunately some very troubled people playing the game, and this is the kind of garbage that brings them entertainment. If anthing, awoxxing bittervets is virtually impossible because they have already learned to be cynical and trust no one, always looking for the knife in the back. The natural awoxx targets are the new players, who naively assume that Eve is like other MMOs, where you can casually join up with other players with minimal risk involved. I joined this game strictly because trust was something that had to be earned and at any point that trust could be betrayed. Anyone who joins up with other expectations, in my mind, aren't worth keeping and should not be in CCP's target audience.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 230	Posted - 2014.11.02 02:00:41 - [956] - Quote Ned Thomas wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Syllviaa wrote: Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: This thread shows clearly that people preying on noobs are quite a large and noisy collective... The amount of people that use awoxing to prey on new players are the extreme minority. Lets face facts here: You don't want this change to protect new players, you want this change to protect you. Completely false. Unfortunately a whole group of players make it their mission to trick new players into joining their corps to blow the up for giggles. I know it sounds pathetic and sick, and the kind of thing literally only lowlives would do, but there are unfortunately some very troubled people playing the game, and this is the kind of garbage that brings them entertainment. If anthing, awoxxing bittervets is virtually impossible because they have already learned to be cynical and trust no one, always looking for the knife in the back. The natural awoxx targets are the new players, who naively assume that Eve is like other MMOs, where you can casually join up with other players with minimal risk involved. I joined this game strictly because trust was something that had to be earned and at any point that trust could be betrayed. Anyone who joins up with other expectations, in my mind, aren't worth keeping and should not be in CCP's target audience. So the result you get is no trust, and people staying in NPC corps and 1-man corps in perpetuity. This helps gameplay how exactly?
Syllviaa Hole Exploitation Inc. Goonswarm Federation 29	Posted - 2014.11.02 02:01:05 - [957] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Syllviaa wrote: Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: This thread shows clearly that people preying on noobs are quite a large and noisy collective... The amount of people that use awoxing to prey on new players are the extreme minority. Lets face facts here: You don't want this change to protect new players, you want this change to protect you. Completely false. Unfortunately a whole group of players make it their mission to trick new players into joining their corps to blow the up for giggles. I know it sounds pathetic and sick, and the kind of thing literally only lowlives would do, but there are unfortunately some very troubled people playing the game, and this is the kind of garbage that brings them entertainment. If anthing, awoxxing bittervets is virtually impossible because they have already learned to be cynical and trust no one, always looking for the knife in the back. The natural awoxx targets are the new players, who naively assume that Eve is like other MMOs, where you can casually join up with other players with minimal risk involved. Yeah because new players are the only ones that get around in faction fit faction ships. Get over yourself. RIP Richard A. Butt
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10461	Posted - 2014.11.02 02:02:53 - [958] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: So the result you get is no trust, and people staying in NPC corps and 1-man corps in perpetuity. This helps gameplay how exactly? It does certainly give us a reference point for severely nerfing both of the above. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Bastion Arzi Mortis Angelus The Kadeshi 199	Posted - 2014.11.02 02:03:01 - [959] - Quote Syllviaa wrote: Yeah because new players are the only ones that get around in faction fit faction ships. Get over yourself. so they spent some money on plex its not unheard of
Syllviaa Hole Exploitation Inc. Goonswarm Federation 29	Posted - 2014.11.02 02:05:13 - [960] - Quote Bastion Arzi wrote: Syllviaa wrote: Yeah because new players are the only ones that get around in faction fit faction ships. Get over yourself. so they spent some money on plex its not unheard of And clearly they bought that 5 year old character that has never been sold, it's not unheard of. RIP Richard A. Butt

Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10461	Posted - 2014.11.02 02:05:17 - [961] - Quote Bastion Arzi wrote: Syllviaa wrote: Yeah because new players are the only ones that get around in faction fit faction ships. Get over yourself. so they spent some money on plex its not unheard of The question being asked is whether they should be protected from the results of such foolishness. Some people think that if you confront them with the consequences of an intensely stupid decision that they will quit, and that this is somehow a problem. Others think that such a person quitting is fundamentally inevitable, and that casting aside long standing portions of the game for the sake of short term retention of such people is folly. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Syllviaa Hole Exploitation Inc. Goonswarm Federation 32	Posted - 2014.11.02 02:07:38 - [962] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Others think that such a person quitting is fundamentally inevitable, and that casting aside long standing portions of the game for the sake of short term retention of such people is folly. Yeah if people don't like the boring spaceship game then they're going to quit for any reason. Using one reason as justification for a change isn't going to stop people from not playing. RIP Richard A. Butt
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 230	Posted - 2014.11.02 02:07:43 - [963] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: So the result you get is no trust, and people staying in NPC corps and 1-man corps in perpetuity. This helps gameplay how exactly? It does certainly give us a reference point for severely nerfing one of the above. The former, specifically. Fine, so now people join corps consisting of their alts...same result - no social interaction. And if you try to push them even harder they will just quit the game. Fact - people live in highsec because they want to avail themselves of CONCORD protection. They respond to impediments on doing so (awoxxing, wardeccs) by living in NPC Corpland. And they will respond to nerfs to those by finding new safe zones or just quitting the game. You can't force social interaction through the use of sticks. You need to use carrots, and create an environment where people can have enjoyable PvE based social interaction in highsec without consistently getting their faces smashed in and being forced to retreat to NPC corps.
Ned Thomas Hellbound Turkeys Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects 188	Posted - 2014.11.02 02:09:12 - [964] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Ned Thomas wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Syllviaa wrote: Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: This thread shows clearly that people preying on noobs are quite a large and noisy collective... The amount of people that use awoxing to prey on new players are the extreme minority. Lets face facts here: You don't want this change to protect new players, you want this change to protect you. Completely false. Unfortunately a whole group of players make it their mission to trick new players into joining their corps to blow the up for giggles. I know it sounds pathetic and sick, and the kind of thing literally only lowlives would do, but there are unfortunately some very troubled people playing the game, and this is the kind of garbage that brings them entertainment. If anthing, awoxxing bittervets is virtually impossible because they have already learned to be cynical and trust no one, always looking for the knife in the back. The natural awoxx targets are the new players, who naively assume that Eve is like other MMOs, where you can casually join up with other players with minimal risk involved. I joined this game strictly because trust was something that had to be earned and at any point that trust could be betrayed. Anyone who joins up with other expectations, in my mind, aren't worth keeping and should not be in CCP's target audience. So the result you get is no trust, and people staying in NPC corps and 1-man corps in perpetuity. This helps gameplay how exactly? The result has been I've made the effort to find people I trust and have become a very proud paying customer. I helped gameplay by adding an extra subscription and I log in every day. Next question.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 230	Posted - 2014.11.02 02:12:18 - [965] - Quote Ned Thomas wrote: The result has been I've made the effort to find people I trust and have become a very proud paying customer. I helped gameplay by adding an extra subscription and I log in every day. Next question. And the result is that vast swaths of highsec players are not interested in making that kind of effort and just play the game solo, often getting bored and quitting. Result - CCP losing a lot of money. Result - CCP nerfing awoxxes to fix that. Next question.
Marsha Mallow 1683	Posted - 2014.11.02 02:14:45 - [966] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Next question. What's next on your list of priorities to increase revenue? DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 230	Posted - 2014.11.02 02:16:19 - [967] - Quote Marsha Mallow wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Next question. What's next on your list of priorities to increase revenue? Lots of things - a more engaging nullsec sans the blue donut....more activity in lowsec beyond endless gatecamps, etc... but not going to derail this awoxxing thread into that.
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10463	Posted - 2014.11.02 02:18:48 - [968] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: You can't force social interaction through the use of sticks. Heh, wrong. The current climate of the game right now intensely disagrees with you, in fact. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Marsha Mallow 1684	Posted - 2014.11.02 02:20:02 - [969] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Marsha Mallow wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Next question. What's next on your list of priorities to increase revenue? Lots of things - a more engaging nullsec sans the blue donut....more activity in lowsec beyond endless gatecamps, etc... but not going to derail this awoxxing thread into that. I mean in relation to new player retention and highsec, as per the topic. DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 230	Posted - 2014.11.02 02:20:11 - [970] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: You can't force social interaction through the use of sticks. Heh, wrong. The current climate of the game right now intensely disagrees with you, in fact. In what way? The masses of people living in highsec NPC corps and 1 man tax evasion corps, and the others who quit the game because they weren't willing to risk joining a highsec PvE corp?

Syllviaa Hole Exploitation Inc. Goonswarm Federation 32	Posted - 2014.11.02 02:20:38 - [971] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Ned Thomas wrote: The result has been I've made the effort to find people I trust and have become a very proud paying customer. I helped gameplay by adding an extra subscription and I log in every day. Next question. And the result is that vast swaths of highsec players are not interested in making that kind of effort and just play the game solo, often getting bored and quitting. Result - CCP losing a lot of money. Result - CCP nerfing awoxxes to fix that. When you market a game with "This game is harsh, be the villan" and then change that to "This game is easy, there are no villans", you lose a lot of stable, long term revenue for unstable short term revenue that was always going to be short term anyway. RIP Richard A. Butt
Ned Thomas Hellbound Turkeys Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects 188	Posted - 2014.11.02 02:21:13 - [972] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Ned Thomas wrote: The result has been I've made the effort to find people I trust and have become a very proud paying customer. I helped gameplay by adding an extra subscription and I log in every day. Next question. And the result is that vast swaths of highsec players are not interested in making that kind of effort and just play the game solo, often getting bored and quitting. Result - CCP losing a lot of money. Result - CCP nerfing awoxxes to fix that. Next question. Anyone who unsubscribes because they get bored of missions would unsubscribe even if all forms of player conflict were removed from the games. Removing any form of player conflict would not retain anyone who is dissatisfied with the pve experience offered by Eve. The key reason being that the pve experience offered by Eve is pretty terrible, and the pvp experience is inconsequential to that. Now, if you'd like to say that non-consentual pvp as a result of someone playing for the pve experience is something that drives players away, then I would refer you to an earlier statement I made. The only thing that offends people is the fact that another person was responsible for causing them problems. It has nothing to do with whatever actual act was perpetuated against them. In order to "fix" that, you'd have to change the game in a way that would make it worthless. And if "vast swaths" of players are unsubing because of awox, then CCP deserves to go out of business for offering a product no one wants. They've survived a decade though, so I think there may be an audience for what they are selling. EDIT: Next?
Remiel Pollard Layman's Terms. Don't Tell Me The Odds 5836	Posted - 2014.11.02 02:21:27 - [973] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Ned Thomas wrote: The result has been I've made the effort to find people I trust and have become a very proud paying customer. I helped gameplay by adding an extra subscription and I log in every day. Next question. And the result is that vast swaths of highsec players are not interested in making that kind of effort and just play the game solo, often getting bored and quitting. Result - CCP losing a lot of money. Result - CCP nerfing awoxxes to fix that. Next question. The thing about the EVE that I play is, it requires effort, so if you're not willing to put any in, you're doomed to fail. Which means those players getting bored and quitting are not EVE's target audience anyway, so there's no loss. They were always going to quit anyway. If CCP wanted a money machine, they would have made something based on a more popular, proven model. They didn't though, they made something unique, unlike anything else available on the market, and it is still unique in that regard. If you want an easymode spaceship game, there are plenty of those around, but EVE is not for you. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 230	Posted - 2014.11.02 02:22:32 - [974] - Quote Marsha Mallow wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Marsha Mallow wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Next question. What's next on your list of priorities to increase revenue? Lots of things - a more engaging nullsec sans the blue donut....more activity in lowsec beyond endless gatecamps, etc... but not going to derail this awoxxing thread into that. I mean in relation to new player retention and highsec, as per the topic. Well I laid out the three issues that dissuade me from joining a highsec PvE corp, and why I suggest that others avoid doing so as well. 1. Awoxxing 2. Wardeccs 3. Theft And also the fact that these corps add no value to the game because all of their PvE activities can be done solo or with non-corp fleets. So nerfing awoxxing is one step in the process, but obviously a lot more needs to be done before highsec PvE corps have any value and are even worth considering joining.
Old Man Parmala Talons Co. 0	Posted - 2014.11.02 02:23:44 - [975] - Quote So a proper kicking mechanic woundn't work better than this... this hurts the abilities for fleets to perform corp PvP training excersise in groups more than it helps defend against AWOXers. it's just an excuse for lazy recruiter who will get hit by corp thieves, spies, and the like.
Marsha Mallow 1684	Posted - 2014.11.02 02:25:44 - [976] - Quote Btw, Kaarous or KnowusbytheDead if either of you have time, I have an awox target for you. He offended me with some grotesque mailspam then instafolded his corp when I jokingly threatened to come slap him about (ingame). Pretty sure he's an Orca pilot, I'll pay for a successful gank. If anyone is interested, let me know & I'll forward the mail tomorrow. Better slip it in before it's too late (I was going to leave it a year or two til he forgot, oh well). DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!
Brochan McLeod Frigateer 77	Posted - 2014.11.02 02:26:48 - [977] - Quote Michele Bachmann wrote: Brochan McLeod wrote: [quote=Ima Wreckyou] People can play this game any way they want... i think thats why its called a sandbox. Not everyone is interested in chasing others and pretend they are the cronies of a crazed Sheriff of Nothingham-ish ganker... yelling 'I AM THE LAW'. Personally i was drawn in by the sheer endless possibilities of gathering materials, producing goods and make my own spaceships. PvP is just a thing others do and it ups the tension a bit, making it more interesting for me and the likes of me. I played in 2012 for some time and stopped because i got shot in the face at every turn. In between beeing locked up in a station cos of constant wardecs. I dont blame the CEO of that but rather the games inability to grant a somewhat safe way to do my stuff. I didnt get that so i left. (had a tiny other prob as well but hey...) And now im back... with a different toon and a different plan. Seeing the makers of EvE are finally watering the wine a bit so more folks can enjoy this great game, seems a good developement to me. If you think pvp is 'something others do' and you should be exempt in some way you belong in the the dumpster behind the loony bin. I dont recall stating i should be exempt in any way.... i just wanted to explain how i (as a relative new player) am able to play how i like. Further more i find the remark about me belonging in a dumpster extremely insulting and completely out of proportion. Have a nice day, creep! Even the nicest person's patience has a limit!
Remiel Pollard Layman's Terms. Don't Tell Me The Odds 5837	Posted - 2014.11.02 02:27:02 - [978] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Marsha Mallow wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Marsha Mallow wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Next question. What's next on your list of priorities to increase revenue? Lots of things - a more engaging nullsec sans the blue donut....more activity in lowsec beyond endless gatecamps, etc... but not going to derail this awoxxing thread into that. I mean in relation to new player retention and highsec, as per the topic. Well I laid out the three issues that dissuade me from joining a highsec PvE corp, and why I suggest that others avoid doing so as well. 1. Awoxxing 2. Wardeccs 3. Theft And also the fact that these corps add no value to the game because all of their PvE activities can be done solo or with non-corp fleets. So nerfing awoxxing is one step in the process, but obviously a lot more needs to be done before highsec PvE corps have any value and are even worth considering joining. So other players should avoid corps based on the same reasons you do? Who are you, exactly, that anyone should care what you're afraid of? You are a narcissist, you know that right? Just because you're afraid of joining corps doesn't mean anyone else should be. Explain to us all, please, what makes a PVE corp worth joining in a PVP game even WITH the removal of the three things you mentioned. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Ned Thomas Hellbound Turkeys Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects 188	Posted - 2014.11.02 02:27:15 - [979] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Marsha Mallow wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Marsha Mallow wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Next question. What's next on your list of priorities to increase revenue? Lots of things - a more engaging nullsec sans the blue donut....more activity in lowsec beyond endless gatecamps, etc... but not going to derail this awoxxing thread into that. I mean in relation to new player retention and highsec, as per the topic. Well I laid out the three issues that dissuade me from joining a highsec PvE corp, and why I suggest that others avoid doing so as well. 1. Awoxxing 2. Wardeccs 3. Theft And also the fact that these corps add no value to the game because all of their PvE activities can be done solo or with non-corp fleets. So nerfing awoxxing is one step in the process, but obviously a lot more needs to be done before highsec PvE corps have any value and are even worth considering joining. If awox is a reason not to join a high sec PVE corp, then why is suicide ganking not a larger deterant? If CCP wants to make high sec PVE corps more attractive, then they should make the game's PVE experience more interesting and group based. Again, incursions are a great example of this. Making such activities safer is a terrible way to go about things.
ISD Ezwal ISD Community Communications Liaisons 2558	Posted - 2014.11.02 02:29:06 - [980] - Quote Thread locked. I need stronger binoculars to still see the dust it left behind when rolling downhill. Yes, that low. Sadly. ISD Ezwal Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 33 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.