Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
657
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 20:30:18 -
[61] - Quote
Murkar Omaristos wrote: ^^ THIS. Why is EVE being made soft? Forget this. If people want this enabled, a hefty Concord Tax should totally be the price.
Even ore mined should be taxed with this on. This abomination is another nail in the coffin that is content in eve.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
Cyclo Hexanol
The Dickwad Squad Slaver's Union
1
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 21:49:30 -
[62] - Quote
I, unlike everyone else, do not believe that an NPC tax should be allocated to corps that enable this. In hisec unless you are running incursions taxable income is the worst income in existence. I believe that a flat rate should be applied to corporations with this enabled at a rate of 2 million isk per member per week. Failure to pay this weekly 'bill' will cause the FF disabled system to drop and allow engagements to happen within 24 hours.
Eve is not safe and should not be safe. You are not safe in nullsec, you are not safe in lowsec, you should not be safe in hisec, and you aren't even safe in station due to scams and meta gaming. Why are we slowly turning hisec into farmville? Which update will they make it so incursion rats just fire festival launchers? |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
1335
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 22:13:04 -
[63] - Quote
CCP Devs, I have one question:
Currently, as proposed for Tranquility, changing the FF states of a corp involves a 24 hour cooldown and creates a notification for all corp members.
Good call on both of those.
But what happens if someone who has roles wants to leave before FF becomes active (or inactive for that matter)? Since they have a 24 hour cooldown before leaving corp, they will always have some period where they are "stuck" in the new FF state with no control over it.
How hard would it be to have the "drop roles" cooldown requirement be alleviated during the 24 hour period between changing FF states? And, assuming it's not too hard to implement, do you think it would be appropriate?
Thanks.
My Many Misadventures
Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I seek to create content, not become content.
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
1676
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 00:50:12 -
[64] - Quote
You are able to quit your corp and drop to an NPC corp without delay, even if you have roles (http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/team-true-grit-brings-some-changes-this-may/)
"This one time, on patch day..."
@ccp_masterplan | Team Five-0: Rewriting the law
|
|
Romick Kracken
Wolves Den Mining
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 02:48:56 -
[65] - Quote
I think that if you turn the FF option ON you should have to pay a fee. Right now to legally shoot players in high sec in a different corp, you have to pay a fee, a war dec fee. I see no reason why it should be any different if you want to shoot players in the same corp. You want to shoot players legally? Pay for it. |
DireNecessity
Mayhem-Industries
60
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 03:08:58 -
[66] - Quote
Will "Friendly Fire" settings have any consequences with regard to remote repair (and remote sensor boosting)?
Currently, all corps have "Friendly Fire" toggled on. Also currently, in corp remote repair does not generate suspect status.
If a corp chooses to toggle "Friendly Fire" off will that also toggle on suspect status when remote repairing a corp mate?
Seems a fair trade to me. I prefer meaningful choices. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1891
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 03:22:38 -
[67] - Quote
DireNecessity wrote:Will "Friendly Fire" settings have any consequences with regard to remote repair (and remote sensor boosting)?
Currently, all corps have "Friendly Fire" toggled on. Also currently, in corp remote repair does not generate suspect status.
If a corp chooses to toggle "Friendly Fire" off will that also toggle on suspect status when remote repairing a corp mate?
Seems a fair trade to me. I prefer meaningful choices. Remote Repairing a random person does not generate suspect status unless they have an LE timer or Suspect status. Why would this change? |
Kaelynne Rose
WTB Somalians
13
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 04:41:00 -
[68] - Quote
Shailagh wrote:CCP Lebowski wrote: Existing corps will find that FF is enabled by default on patch day (Nothing will change in other words). New corps will have it set to disabled unless they specify otherwise (There's a check box in the Create Corporation window). Why the different default settings please? Thank you.
Please address reasoning. Thanks |
DireNecessity
Mayhem-Industries
60
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 05:42:16 -
[69] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:DireNecessity wrote:Will "Friendly Fire" settings have any consequences with regard to remote repair (and remote sensor boosting)?
Currently, all corps have "Friendly Fire" toggled on. Also currently, in corp remote repair does not generate suspect status.
If a corp chooses to toggle "Friendly Fire" off will that also toggle on suspect status when remote repairing a corp mate?
Seems a fair trade to me. I prefer meaningful choices. Remote Repairing a random person does not generate suspect status unless they have an LE timer or Suspect status. Why would this change?
My question really only applies to a rather specific situation. It's also been awhile so I my be mistaken about what currently happens.
As I recall, if your corp is at war and you Remote Assist a corpmate who is tangling with a war target, you don't gain suspect status since your corpmate's combat didn't generate a limited engagement. At the same time I thought (and I may be mistaken) that if you Remote Assisted someone outside your corp who was tangling with one of their war targets (but not yours) you'd gain suspect status.
If the above is the case, my question is whether Remote Assisting a corpmate with Friendly Fire toggled off who is tangling with a war target will put the RRer in the second, suspect gaining situation or in the first, non suspect gaining situation. |
Terrorfrodo
Renegade Hobbits for Mordor
697
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 09:55:44 -
[70] - Quote
Romick Kracken wrote: I think that if you turn the FF option ON you should have to pay a fee. Right now to legally shoot players in high sec in a different corp, you have to pay a fee, a war dec fee. I see no reason why it should be any different if you want to shoot players in the same corp. You want to shoot players legally? Pay for it. Fee sounds good, but it should be a substantial fee for corporations which turn Friendly Fire OFF. They have to pay Concord to take care of their internal corporation security and handle transgressions that better corps would deal with internally, without causing Concord extra work. I'd call it the 'failbear tax'.
.
|
|
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
657
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 09:56:52 -
[71] - Quote
Romick Kracken wrote: I think that if you turn the FF option ON you should have to pay a fee. Right now to legally shoot players in high sec in a different corp, you have to pay a fee, a war dec fee. I see no reason why it should be any different if you want to shoot players in the same corp. You want to shoot players legally? Pay for it. Yes let's make risky eve gameplay cost you more because game should be safe. The kind of people that play eve these days... Eve USED to have content generating mechanics.
Guess what you read about on mittani eve24 and the other blogs... It's sure as hell not about how someone killed a mission rat or mined ENTIRE belt in under an hour. Not to mention none of NPC interactions really generate social interaction.
Don't go saying that incursions are social interaction because you know it's not past the point where everyone knows exactly when to press F1. On the other hand pvp never ceases to be more random.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
Fonac
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
115
|
Posted - 2015.01.31 15:58:57 -
[72] - Quote
This is a good thing.
I'm all up for Eve being harsh and relentless. However stupid mechanics, and defenceless griefing is just not fun. I've never been killing in corp but an awoxer, but i can imagine the annoyance for new guys living in high-sec, being killed by someone who think it's fun to shot at defenceless targets.
Now we just need the wardec mechanics reworked, so the so called "pvpers" Can grief without risk on new guys or corps.
\O/ |
Valterra Craven
431
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 04:13:10 -
[73] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote:Greetings Capsuleers, As mentioned in our Coming to EVE in Tiamat blog, we are introducing the option for corporations to have CONCORD intervene in internal conflicts, also know as: Friendly Fire!
Any comments as to the effect this will have on players using game mechanics to their advantage such as webbing a freighters to get them into warp faster? (I'm assuming that based on my current knowledge of Eve that if Concord intervenes for corp fire now that this will no longer be possible for corps that are using concord intervention?) |
Kaelynne Rose
WTB Somalians
15
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 15:13:03 -
[74] - Quote
Kaelynne Rose wrote:Shailagh wrote:CCP Lebowski wrote: Existing corps will find that FF is enabled by default on patch day (Nothing will change in other words). New corps will have it set to disabled unless they specify otherwise (There's a check box in the Create Corporation window). Why the different default settings please? Thank you. Please address reasoning. Thanks
Several other people have pointed this out and asked for some clarification on the reasoning on this please. Thank you for explaining your motivation behind this. |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
192
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 20:10:12 -
[75] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Adding a tax to have this turned on will just encourage players to stay in the NPC to have the same effect. It has been proven time and time again that the players who enjoy and stay with the game are those who branched out into player corporations. This player interaction leads them towards other parts of the game that does not involve leveling up their Raven. Thus equating to new blood in parts of the game everyone is wanting.
Do you not see this? Except this is not what is going to happen. There is no guarantee that new players will end up in good corps that want to support and train them. They are just as likely, or more likely to end up in a terrible corp run by other newbies, or a straight out exploitive scam corp run by a nefarious CEO with a massive tax rate.
I keep seeing this. Time to dispel it.
Before Tiamat, here are the corps newbies could get into: 1) newbie friendly specific corps (EUNI, Brave, etc.) 2) really bad corps that have no concept of recruitment checks, etc. 3) scam corps 4) good corps willing to pick up and train newbies
After this change, the above list DOES NOT CHANGE. We just add to it: 5) mediocre and/or good corps who WEREN'T willing to pick up and train newbies because they are not focused on being newbie friendly and had no interest in putting themselves at risk
So there was no guarantee before that a newbie would end up in a good corp and there's no guarantee after. However, the corps who were at least smart enough pre-Tiamat not to expose themselves to the risk (aka corps that are demonstrably not THAT horribad) will now also be available, for some people, some of the time. Overall, this is a net gain.
If the logic makes no sense, I'll explain by anecdote.
Over the years I have had probably a dozen people from my gaming clan express interest in playing EVE. Every one of them pretty quickly comes to the same questions; "What's your character name/corp info?" and "Can I join your corp so we can play together?". And I say "Uh... no. I don't want to risk getting wardecced or have my freighter/mission boat popped one day. But I'll totally send you some ISK from an alt and give you all kinds of advice!" And they get all sad and lonely and don't even try it.
People like to have an identity and belong to something, especially people that have an out-of-EVE connection. My dozen gaming friends don't want to join EUNI, they want to play with ME. But I know these people would not fare well if immediately tossed into my lowsec FW corp where I wouldn't care about the risk (though most would get there eventually).
I DO, however, have a nice high sec corp where I stick my freighter alt and mission/incursion alt and whatever else I want to squirrel away for random purposes, on which I am active on at least one character often enough that I would be "around" to answer questions in corp chat, etc. and generally make these folks feel connected and part of my play. I'd be happy to setup a nice public hangar for them in this corp filled with skill books and frigates and dessies, etc.
But there's no way in hell pre-Tiamat I'd ever actually bring anyone into that corp because I'm not risking one of them turning out smart and evil enough to pop my freighter or mission boat once they figure out the mechanics of EVE.
Now, I *could* make a dedicated corp on yet another alt just for those folks. But did I? No, because I'm lazy, I don't have a free alt slot for it, and so on. But most importantly, I wouldn't ever be ONLINE on that alt, so it wouldn't help anyway. My gaming buddies would feel disconnected and abandoned because I'd never be there under that particular identity.
This is just my personal anecdote. But I do know that post-Tiamat the very first thing I'm going to do is disable FF on my highsec alt corp and then go invite about a dozen people I know from my clan to come try out EVE and join me in that corp where I can actually help them out directly. If even one of them does, I think this change will have served its purpose.
I have a sneaking suspicion that there are a LOT of one-man-highsec-corps just like me in a similar scenario. I suspect lots of people would love to be able to bring their friends into the game under that corporate identity/umbrella but can't/don't because the risk is just too high and the alternative (a dedicated buddy-friendly alt corp) is just too inconvenient and awkward. So they tell their friends to **** off and join EUNI or Brave and their friend goes "why would I play EVE if not with you?" and finds a different game. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
567
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 21:10:32 -
[76] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Black Pedro wrote:Except this is not what is going to happen. There is no guarantee that new players will end up in good corps that want to support and train them. They are just as likely, or more likely to end up in a terrible corp run by other newbies, or a straight out exploitive scam corp run by a nefarious CEO with a massive tax rate. I keep seeing this. Time to dispel it. Before Tiamat, here are the corps newbies could get into: 1) newbie friendly specific corps (EUNI, Brave, etc.) 2) really bad corps that have no concept of recruitment checks, etc. 3) scam corps 4) good corps willing to pick up and train newbies After this change, the above list DOES NOT CHANGE. We just add to it: 5) mediocre and/or good corps who WEREN'T willing to pick up and train newbies because they are not focused on being newbie friendly and had no interest in putting themselves at risk So there was no guarantee before that a newbie would end up in a good corp and there's no guarantee after. However, the corps who were at least smart enough pre-Tiamat not to expose themselves to the risk (aka corps that are demonstrably not THAT horribad) will now also be available, for some people, some of the time. Overall, this is a net gain. Sure, you add another category and thus some corps that may not have taken new players before will change their behaviour, but this will also increase number of corps in your categories 2 & 3. Will the number of new corps in your category 5 exceed the increase in number in 2 and 3 that now no longer have any risk in recruiting? Because if not, the numbers say new players are more likely to end up in terrible or scam corps and have a poor introduction to the game.
No one is saying that these changes aren't good for players like you. Wealthy, highsec players with assets will definitely benefit from this change as they now have one less way in which to lose thier shiny toys. It's just much less clear in my mind that this will actually benefit the true new player find a good corp that is really trying to help them learn the game.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
192
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 22:11:34 -
[77] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:No one is saying that these changes aren't good for players like you. Wealthy, highsec players with assets will definitely benefit from this change as they now have one less way in which to lose thier shiny toys.
Well I'm not a "wealthy highsec player". I'm an "EVE player". Major issue on the forums to try and simplify everyone into a single playstyle and then deride it. I do/have done null life, I do/have done WH's (though not c5/c6), I do/have done mfg and industry, I do/have done lowsec piracy and FW, I do/have done highsec ganking, I do/have done missions and incursions, I do/have done "self-directed RP content that fits no category, makes no sense, but amuses the hell out of me". And so on. This change isn't just a benefit to my wealthy highsec player face; it's a benefit across all my facets because I can bring people I know into the game in a way that increases the chance they'll enjoy the game, which is a net benefit to all of EVE and every playstyle across the board.
Black Pedro wrote:It's just much less clear in my mind that this will actually benefit the true new player find a good corp that is really trying to help them learn the game.
Well I just showed that it will help between one and twelve people who are truly new find decent corps where they will get personal attention to help learn the game. Up to twelve people who 1) want to play with a friend, 2) don't want to be a faceless entity in EUNI, and 3) I would not in a million years bring into my high-sec corp pre-Tiamat.
I simply don't buy the argument that the #2 category is going to somehow expand explosively out of proportion to the new #5 category. I expect quite the opposite. Especially since I see basically NO REASON for the #2 category to change at all; the number of clueless corps should remain constant. Every single new corp willing to recruit is going to be a #5, not a #2, because if they were smart enough NOT to recruit pre-Tiamat they are pretty much guaranteed not to be a #2.
And what is the basis for your assertion that the number of scam corps (#3) will increase? I can honestly see no compelling argument as to why that would occur. Scam corps are 100% about personal interaction and abuse of trust; the state of the FF flag is going to have no effect on the % of people that get suckered into those confidence schemes. The people experienced enough to see the FF option as a red-flag are already the same people who would never have joined a random scam corp in the first place, and everyone else is naive enough that it's not going to matter either way.
"oh, yeah, we turned FF off but the corp info hasn't updated yet, don't worry"
"FF is on because we don't want to look weak and get wardecced; don't worry we would never shoot you!"
Or maybe you just mean that people will join 75% tax, FF off corps and get nothing out of it? Like how they pay 20% tax in the NPC corp and get nothing right now (or whatever the NPC tax rate is, I have no idea)? But even if the number of people sucked into that particular niche case goes up, I can't actually see this having a net-negative impact on the game. It's basically the same effect as if CCP just increased the NPC tax rate. Plus, maybe having that identity is worth 75% tax to them and they'll stay longer as a result. Bottom line with this group is that you can lead a horse to water and all that, but these are not people that any amount of corp changes will ever help. But it sure isn't somehow funneling these people AWAY from the good corps either. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
567
|
Posted - 2015.02.01 22:40:33 -
[78] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote: I simply don't buy the argument that the #2 category is going to somehow expand explosively out of proportion to the new #5 category. I expect quite the opposite. Especially since I see basically NO REASON for the #2 category to change at all; the number of clueless corps should remain constant. Every single new corp willing to recruit is going to be a #5, not a #2, because if they were smart enough NOT to recruit pre-Tiamat they are pretty much guaranteed not to be a #2.
And what is the basis for your assertion that the number of scam corps (#3) will increase? I can honestly see no compelling argument as to why that would occur. Scam corps are 100% about personal interaction and abuse of trust; the state of the FF flag is going to have no effect on the % of people that get suckered into those confidence schemes. The people experienced enough to see the FF option as a red-flag are already the same people who would never have joined a random scam corp in the first place, and everyone else is naive enough that it's not going to matter either way.
First let me say I cannot predict the future. But what I can say, that in my experience there are a scary number of objectively terrible highsec corps currently in the game. Often the CEO means well, but he lacks the experience, resources and even basic understanding of game mechanics to run a proper highsec training corp. These corps suck in new players to grow by spamming invites in rookie systems, but often are incapable of supporting them and they languish there until the corp implodes, they quit the corp, or quit the game entirely. Ask around - I bet you don't have to go far to find someone whose introduction to Eve was exactly this.
In the past, these terrible corps were kept in check by the threat of awoxers which would "filter out" these terrible corps which would often fold at the first hint of trouble after recruiting a bad guy. This served as a small bar for CEO competence to do basic background checks on new recruits. Now these corps will be stabilized, and will have no fear of new comers blowing them up so even more of these small, just-for-fun corps are going to be around, and more will be created every day. I don't really care if established players want to form objectively terrible corps that do nothing well in the game, but they will now have no reason not to aggressively spam invites at new players and will grab them away from bigger, more serious and organized training corps and this does not sit well with me.
As for the scam corps, who knows. Mike Azariah said they are already a problem, and this change only makes them even safer. Now, there is absolutely no disincentive not to farm new players for taxes. I have also heard the proposal for a "newbie farm corp scam" from multiple people in the more darker corners of New Eden where I sometimes frequent. I have no idea if any or many of them will put these scam into practice, but I can only see this change making that problem worse.
Will the number of new, good corps recruiting outweigh the increase in bad/scam corps? I cannot say. But what I would like to have seen along with this change, or now see in the future, are new game mechanisms to get new players in good corporations that are willing and able to train them. In any case though, I hope CCP keeps an eye on how new players fare in good corps vs. bad/scam corps and be willing to make changes if too many new players are ending up quitting the game because of the corp they initially end up in.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Alruan Shadowborn
InterSun Freelance SONS of BANE
28
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 05:22:48 -
[79] - Quote
Altrue wrote:Could you make CONCORD take a 5% tax if the protection is on? Would be nice for the risk versus reward philosophy, and for more content
This argument is stupid
There is risk still, the exact same risk as shooting or being shot by anyone in hisec in fact.
Why would it make any sense for it to be ok for someone in the same company as you to be allowed to shoot you?
Where is the Risk v Reward for the Awoxer? they get all reward with no risk as it stands |
Masao Kurata
Z List
188
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 13:18:22 -
[80] - Quote
Alruan Shadowborn wrote:Where is the Risk v Reward for the Awoxer? they get all reward with no risk as it stands
Only because of the unflagged neutral logi situation. Apart from that, they're outnumbered and should absolutely be outgunned.
|
|
Kaelynne Rose
WTB Somalians
17
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 17:51:06 -
[81] - Quote
Kaelynne Rose wrote:Kaelynne Rose wrote:Shailagh wrote:CCP Lebowski wrote: Existing corps will find that FF is enabled by default on patch day (Nothing will change in other words). New corps will have it set to disabled unless they specify otherwise (There's a check box in the Create Corporation window). Why the different default settings please? Thank you. Please address reasoning. Thanks Several other people have pointed this out and asked for some clarification on the reasoning on this please. Thank you for explaining your motivation behind this.
Why is this being ignored? ? |
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
109
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 02:05:14 -
[82] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Alruan Shadowborn wrote:Where is the Risk v Reward for the Awoxer? they get all reward with no risk as it stands Only because of the unflagged neutral logi situation. Apart from that, they're outnumbered and should absolutely be outgunned.
Name a ship outgunned by a retriever. Then we'll talk.
The awoxer carries no risk, because he knows exactly what he is dealing with, and free to choose an appropriate ship and appropriate moment to completely nullify risk.
Neutral logi is just a pathetic excuse in most awox scenarios I can imagine. The only scenario it is really needed in is when you get to fight a fleet, which in hisec is an incursion-only business, in which case there are actual designated fleet logi, and newb awoxer isn't going to achieve much against them. Awoxing a single mission boat is easily done solo. Awoxing a mining op is easily done solo. But the gankbears are probably the most risk-averse chickens we have in eve, so they will bring neutral logi just to have even less risk than none, and will chicken out of the manly solo attempt without neutral logi, hence the neutral logi excuse we keep hearing about - because without it, awox seems oh-so-risky-only-99%-chance-to-win and oh-so-scary-I-might-lose-my-10-hours-of-alt-training - this makes them actually convinced that removing neutral logi, which lowers 100% chance to 99% chance to win, would balance the issue. No, it won't. Glad CCP doesn't listen to them.
Now don't take me wrong. I completely agree that creative AWOX is content. Even corp theft can be done creatively. Most AWOXes, however, aren't creative. Most corp thefts... check the eve uni stories on that topic, you'll get the picture. Those are not content, just plain abuse of either new players, or 5% least bright ones, which is not worth 5 cents a dozen, since even my dog could probably do it.
So stop being sore and start being creative. Volunteer to be a watchman and convince a shiny mission boat owner he can take that lowsec L4 or stotyline. Create a Red Freight Frog corp and start "delivering". Go blap yourself in a wh and ask you victim to go in a sturdy ship (cuz sleepers still there) and pick up your loot. It's a golden opportunity for creative AWOX, because let's face it, corp entry process will get a lot easier with this.
AWOX even my dog can do is not worth keeping, and CCP is right in removing it, there is no need to even bring a topic of player retention or imaginary bad corps in it, here's your reason why.
A crap ton equals 1000 crap loads in metric, and roughly 91 shit loads 12 bull shits and 1 puppy's unforeseen disaster in imperial.
|
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
82
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 02:25:59 -
[83] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Obviously this is aimed at increasing the safety of career highsec players (or decreasing taxes for those currently in NPC corps) Then perhaps asking why it proposed by CSM Sion from Null Sec. Obvious not initiated by highsec players themselves.
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Blue-on-blue violence almost never hits new players as they have nothing worth burning an AWOX alt to hit. New Players? From the same New Order that organised in August last year a contest to kill Ventures, a new player's ship?
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:- by acting as an increased reward for highsec mission grinding So... when FF is not allowed, NPC agents will increase their rewards. Where do you see this in the notes? Please explain.
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:encourage people who currently perform ISK generating activities outside highsec to transfer those activities to highsec. Even after Corbex said no, you still want to trot this out? Lets go with people that operate outside of high-sec generally as permanent home usually have a healthy dose of self preservation. Watch Local, D-scan, scout and mostly likely run paranoia as a modus operandi when it comes to corp admission. Whether they are low, null, WH or high - that paranoia persists. High-sec local is full of neutrals, and that is scary.
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:- result in more 'tax scam' corps - those corps that mass recruit newbies, do nothing for them and then leech tax from them. Currently AWOXing results in most of those corps dying, and the game is better every time one of them does. Someone has published some stats while I was not looking? Or did you just build up a nice strawman, then light match. How does an AWOXer know that the target corp is in need of "liberating the repressed"? Chaining Smoking just means applying to as many corps as possible in the hope that one will be stupid and say yes. Not a lot research in that now. Much like your comments. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3160
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 23:36:37 -
[84] - Quote
concord protection service should cost something. Make it a 5% NPC bounties tax. There should be a reason why you would NOT enable it. Remember, good gameplay choices etc. Don't do something like clone upgrades again.
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
Noriko Mai
2056
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 02:51:48 -
[85] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:concord protection service should cost something. Make it a 5% NPC bounties tax. There should be a reason why you would NOT enable it. Remember, good gameplay choices etc. Don't do something like clone upgrades again. Do you mean removing clone cost? It was the best change ever! There was exactly zero choice.
Come On Everybody, support Dark Opaque theme
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3119
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 04:40:23 -
[86] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:concord protection service should cost something. Make it a 5% NPC bounties tax. There should be a reason why you would NOT enable it. Remember, good gameplay choices etc. Don't do something like clone upgrades again. Nope, it should be the other way around. It costs money to shoot people in a different corp (war dec), it should cost to shoot people in your own corp. You want targets? Pay for it.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
12183
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 16:25:44 -
[87] - Quote
Kaelynne Rose wrote:Shailagh wrote:CCP Lebowski wrote: Existing corps will find that FF is enabled by default on patch day (Nothing will change in other words). New corps will have it set to disabled unless they specify otherwise (There's a check box in the Create Corporation window). Why the different default settings please? Thank you. Please address reasoning. Thanks
It's simple.
FF will default to legal for existing corps because we don't want to change the behavior of existing corps in a way that could surprise people who didn't read the patch notes. Existing corps will simply need to hit the switch to start the 24h process of making FF illegal if they wish.
The FF checkbox state will default to illegal in the new corp creation UI because that is expected to be the most popular option and we don't want to make people fight the UI for the most common use cases. If you want your new corp to have legal FF you just need to press one button during creation and you don't even need any waiting period.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1599
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 16:40:33 -
[88] - Quote
Is any thought being given to giving Friendly Fire protection a little malus, or giving corps that do not use the protection a little bonus?
You know, risk versus reward, offering people the opportunity to do riskier things for more profit, that kind of stuff.
Signature Tanking - Best Tanking
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
12185
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 16:45:54 -
[89] - Quote
To be blunt, it's a terrible idea to make optimal play solo play. Everyone loses if we build mechanics like that.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Masao Kurata
Z List
188
|
Posted - 2015.02.04 16:53:18 -
[90] - Quote
Chat channels, mailing lists and fleets are all fine social tools. Corporations need to offer more than this, and for highsec pve players they really don't. That's why players choose to stay in npc corps or make one man corporations rather than expose themselves to war. This isn't the fix you're looking for. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |