EVE Search - [Tiamat] Corp Friendly Fire Option

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

[Tiamat] Corp Friendly Fire Option

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 10 post(s)

CCP Lebowski C C P C C P Alliance 435	Posted - 2015.01.28 17:18:20 - [1] - Quote 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! Friendly Fire (FF) allows corporation members to engage in aggressive acts with each other without fear of repercussion from CONCORD. Until now, all corporations have had this Enabled automatically, but with Tiamat we're putting the power in the hands of the corporation. With FF disabled, attacking corpmates will have all the effects that you would expect if they were a neutral (Depending on the sec status this could be a criminal timer or a good old Concor'dokken or nothing at all). Safety settings will reflect this, so having safety set to green will still avoid any accidental explosions. A CEO or director can Enable/Disable friendly fire using the Enable/Disable toggle button found in the Corporation Window in the Home -> Details tab. Doing this is always subject to a warm-up/cool-down timer of 24 hours. A notification will be sent to all members of the corporation at the start and end of this timer. The FF status of a corp will be displayed in the following places: Corporation Window -> Home -> Details tab. Corporation Ads (Not yet implemented) Join Corporation Window Corp Show Info Window -> Attributes tab Additionally, when browsing Corporation Adverts you will be able to exclude corporations that have this setting enabled. The Friendly Fire feature can now be found on Singularity & as always, any feedback is welcome, as well as bug reports on any issues found. Current Known Issues GÇóReducing the width of the show info window can cause clipping issues with 'Enabled in X' text. GÇóNotifications are not yet implemented. Thanks in advance for all your testing and feedback, CCP Lebowski \| EVE Quality Assurance \| Team Five-0 @CCP_Lebowski

Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 3101	Posted - 2015.01.28 17:31:54 - [2] - Quote What happens if I am shooting a corp mate at the exact time the 24 hour cool down expires? Assume I am in high sec with my safety green, and while my gun is cycling, the 24 hours runs out and the corp goes from allowing FF to not allowing it. Know a Frozen fan? Check this out Frozen fanfiction
tgl3 Wormhole Engineers Greater Realms 532	Posted - 2015.01.28 17:33:26 - [3] - Quote Will this be enabled by default? Twitter - TG_3 Ex EVE Blogger - posts still available at Through Newb Eyes Chat channels in-game; "RvB Spooning R US", "RvB Ganked", "Basket"
Sentient Blade Crisis Atmosphere 1480	Posted - 2015.01.28 17:34:53 - [4] - Quote Hurrar! To give reference to the Mittani article, another sacred cow massacred on the altar of user retention \o/
Ned Thomas Hellbound Turkeys Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects 692	Posted - 2015.01.28 17:35:51 - [5] - Quote How will sec status be affected by friendly fire when a corp has it disabled, if at all? Vote Sabriz!
Altrue Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective 1588	Posted - 2015.01.28 17:40:27 - [6] - Quote Could you make CONCORD take a 5% tax if its on? Would be nice for the risk versus reward philosophy, and for more content Signature Tanking - Best Tanking
tgl3 Wormhole Engineers Greater Realms 532	Posted - 2015.01.28 17:43:08 - [7] - Quote Ned Thomas wrote: How will sec status be affected by friendly fire when a corp has it disabled, if at all? From the looks of it; if Friendly Fire is disabled then all inter-corp shootings are the same as shooting random people (affected by security status/suspect status etc) Twitter - TG_3 Ex EVE Blogger - posts still available at Through Newb Eyes Chat channels in-game; "RvB Spooning R US", "RvB Ganked", "Basket"

CCP Lebowski C C P C C P Alliance 438	Posted - 2015.01.28 17:44:53 - [8] - Quote tgl3 wrote: Will this be enabled by default? Good question! Existing corps will find that this 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 (Theres a check box in the Create Corporation window). Updating the OP to reflect this. Ned Thomas wrote: How will sec status be affected by friendly fire when a corp has it disabled, if at all? Everything will work in exactly the same way it would if you were attacking a player that is not in your corporation. CCP Lebowski \| EVE Quality Assurance \| Team Five-0 @CCP_Lebowski

Ned Thomas Hellbound Turkeys Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects 693	Posted - 2015.01.28 17:52:56 - [9] - Quote CCP Lebowski wrote: Ned Thomas wrote: How will sec status be affected by friendly fire when a corp has it disabled, if at all? Everything will work in exactly the same way it would if you were attacking a player that is not in your corporation. Cool. Vote Sabriz!
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 3101	Posted - 2015.01.28 18:02:13 - [10] - 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 Asking CONCORD to allow inter-corp conflict (AKA a war dec) costs money. Maybe in the same way, asking CONCORD to allow intra-corp conflict should also cost money. That would be the exact opposite of what you suggest. Maybe we compromise on no money either way? Also, if you do not like the idea of a corp with FF turned off, join a different corp. One wonders when the "This corp can participate in wars" check box is coming. Know a Frozen fan? Check this out Frozen fanfiction


CCP Lebowski C C P C C P Alliance 438	Posted - 2015.01.28 18:02:26 - [11] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: What happens if I am shooting a corp mate at the exact time the 24 hour cool down expires? Assume I am in high sec with my safety green, and while my gun is cycling, the 24 hours runs out and the corp goes from allowing FF to not allowing it. Also a good question! Initially nothing will happen. If you were to disable and re-enable your weapons, you safety level will stop you. If your safety was turned off re-aggressing would trigger a concord response. CCP Lebowski \| EVE Quality Assurance \| Team Five-0 @CCP_Lebowski

Gilbaron Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda 1617	Posted - 2015.01.28 18:13:52 - [12] - Quote sooo, can we please get a 10% NPC ratting tax for every corp that has coward mode enabled ? Build your empire ! Rent Space in Feythabolis and Omist Contact me for details :)
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 3101	Posted - 2015.01.28 18:15:39 - [13] - Quote CCP Lebowski wrote: Vincent Athena wrote: What happens if I am shooting a corp mate at the exact time the 24 hour cool down expires? Assume I am in high sec with my safety green, and while my gun is cycling, the 24 hours runs out and the corp goes from allowing FF to not allowing it. Also a good question! Initially nothing will happen. If you were to disable and re-enable your weapons, you safety level will stop you. If your safety was turned off re-aggressing would trigger a concord response. Ah, I get it. The game only checks if a CONCORD response is needed when I turn the weapon on. It does not check each weapon cycle. Know a Frozen fan? Check this out Frozen fanfiction
tgl3 Wormhole Engineers Greater Realms 532	Posted - 2015.01.28 18:16:39 - [14] - Quote CCP Lebowski wrote: Vincent Athena wrote: What happens if I am shooting a corp mate at the exact time the 24 hour cool down expires? Assume I am in high sec with my safety green, and while my gun is cycling, the 24 hours runs out and the corp goes from allowing FF to not allowing it. Also a good question! Initially nothing will happen. If you were to disable and re-enable your weapons, you safety level will stop you. If your safety was turned off re-aggressing would trigger a concord response. Would you not have a Limited Engagement at that point? Twitter - TG_3 Ex EVE Blogger - posts still available at Through Newb Eyes Chat channels in-game; "RvB Spooning R US", "RvB Ganked", "Basket"
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 3102	Posted - 2015.01.28 18:17:17 - [15] - Quote Gilbaron wrote: sooo, can we please get a 10% NPC ratting tax for every corp that has coward mode enabled ? I doubt it, as right now many corps have a different coward mode enabled: applications by invitation only. Know a Frozen fan? Check this out Frozen fanfiction
Bobmon Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 119	Posted - 2015.01.28 18:18:19 - [16] - Quote More protection will mean that concord has to hire new Officers. This will hurt them financially. In my eyes it would be very understandable that a corporation pays more ISK to concord in order to get more protection for their corp members. GÖ¢GÖ¢Bobmon for CSM10 GÖ¢GÖ¢ #Third Party And #Loan Service GÖ¢GÖ¢ @BobmonEve

CCP Masterplan C C P C C P Alliance 1675	Posted - 2015.01.28 18:24:47 - [17] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: What happens if I am shooting a corp mate at the exact time the 24 hour cool down expires? Assume I am in high sec with my safety green, and while my gun is cycling, the 24 hours runs out and the corp goes from allowing FF to not allowing it. Exactly the same as if you were repping someone who picks up a criminal flag - on the next cycle your safety will kick in and deactivate the module, with no legal penalty to yourself. "This one time, on patch day..." @ccp_masterplan \| Team Five-0: Rewriting the law

Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 2698	Posted - 2015.01.28 18:26:49 - [18] - Quote Gilbaron wrote: sooo, can we please get a 10% NPC ratting tax for every corp that has coward mode enabled ? Do you realize how much isk null sec renters will lose because of a coward tax?
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 3102	Posted - 2015.01.28 18:26:58 - [19] - Quote Bobmon wrote: More protection will mean that concord has to hire new Officers. This will hurt them financially. In my eyes it would be very understandable that a corporation pays more ISK to concord in order to get more protection for their corp members. An yet wars, conflict that does not require a concord response and hence reduces their personnel requirements, cost money. The way I see it is CONCORD's systems are automatic, and respond to conflict the same way, always. But if the conflict involves a war, extra checks cut in the stop the automatic response. Thus it takes more effort to not respond, and hence costs more money. So any corp with FF disabled should pay a fee to CONCORD, just as if they did a war dec. But wait! A mutual war is free. Turning on FF is sort of like having a mutual war with yourself, so it should be free. Know a Frozen fan? Check this out Frozen fanfiction
Shailagh Ministry of War Amarr Empire 45	Posted - 2015.01.28 18:59:32 - [20] - Quote 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.

Tarpedo Incursionista 1476	Posted - 2015.01.28 19:03:28 - [21] - Quote Unexpected and interesting. Couple more changes like that (some type of wardec shield in so called "high security" space) and I can actually start recruiting people instead of being forever alone.
Bobmon Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 119	Posted - 2015.01.28 19:08:07 - [22] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: Bobmon wrote: More protection will mean that concord has to hire new Officers. This will hurt them financially. In my eyes it would be very understandable that a corporation pays more ISK to concord in order to get more protection for their corp members. An yet wars, conflict that does not require a concord response and hence reduces their personnel requirements, cost money. The way I see it is CONCORD's systems are automatic, and respond to conflict the same way, always. But if the conflict involves a war, extra checks cut in the stop the automatic response. Thus it takes more effort to not respond, and hence costs more money. So any corp with FF disabled should pay a fee to CONCORD, just as if they did a war dec. But wait! A mutual war is free. Turning on FF is sort of like having a mutual war with yourself, so it should be free. #BobmonTurnsRolePlayerModeON You pay for a war to go active so In a way you do pay for it. Also concord knows that people are in war with each other so they don't have to interfere, they are there to protect people, not war soldiers. Concord responds to the notification of fighting but if they know that these groups are fighting then this notification can simply be filtered out. FF is a way to get more protection for your corp so you will have to pay to get that. Think about it, If I go to dinner (corp) and I eat my whole plate (protection) and I still want more food (protection, FF), then I have to order more, therefor paying more. GÖ¢GÖ¢Bobmon for CSM10 GÖ¢GÖ¢ #Third Party And #Loan Service GÖ¢GÖ¢ @BobmonEve
Callic Veratar 657	Posted - 2015.01.28 19:09:09 - [23] - Quote Awoxing is great and all, but the far more entertaining stories will come from the corps where they have FF disabled and ships get concorded for webbing alts or engaging with drones instead of assisting.
Callic Veratar 657	Posted - 2015.01.28 19:15:22 - [24] - Quote Bobmon wrote: Vincent Athena wrote: Bobmon wrote: More protection will mean that concord has to hire new Officers. This will hurt them financially. In my eyes it would be very understandable that a corporation pays more ISK to concord in order to get more protection for their corp members. An yet wars, conflict that does not require a concord response and hence reduces their personnel requirements, cost money. The way I see it is CONCORD's systems are automatic, and respond to conflict the same way, always. But if the conflict involves a war, extra checks cut in the stop the automatic response. Thus it takes more effort to not respond, and hence costs more money. So any corp with FF disabled should pay a fee to CONCORD, just as if they did a war dec. But wait! A mutual war is free. Turning on FF is sort of like having a mutual war with yourself, so it should be free. #BobmonTurnsRolePlayerModeON You pay for a war to go active so In a way you do pay for it. Also concord knows that people are in war with each other so they don't have to interfere, they are there to protect people, not war soldiers. Concord responds to the notification of fighting but if they know that these groups are fighting then this notification can simply be filtered out. FF is a way to get more protection for your corp so you will have to pay to get that. Think about it, If I go to dinner (corp) and I eat my whole plate (protection) and I still want more food (protection, FF), then I have to order more, therefor paying more. Protection is not a commodity, it's a service. If I want concord to protect me, I stay in high sec. Wardecs, FF, and NPC corps are ancillary because they're still protecting you with the same level of protection. You just have the option of saying when you don't want protection (by leaving high sec, being in a war, or being in a FF or no-FF corp).
Gilbaron Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda 1617	Posted - 2015.01.28 19:46:12 - [25] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: Gilbaron wrote: sooo, can we please get a 10% NPC ratting tax for every corp that has coward mode enabled ? Do you realize how much isk null sec renters will lose because of a coward tax? why would a nullsec corp enable this ? the change does absolutely nothing for nullsec people. they can keep shooting corpmates without having to fear anything but the wrath that other players can bring upon them. Build your empire ! Rent Space in Feythabolis and Omist Contact me for details :)
Greygal Redemption Road Affirmative. 313	Posted - 2015.01.28 19:59:03 - [26] - Quote The thought occurs to me that now all the highsec wardec corporations will be able to search corporations by FF on and off, and instantly spot all the carebear corps What you do for yourself dies with you, what you do for others is immortal. Free weekly public roams & monthly NewBro new player roams! Visit Redemption Road or join mailing list REDEMPTION ROAMS for information
Marlona Sky Burning Napalm Northern Coalition. 5883	Posted - 2015.01.28 20:05:14 - [27] - Quote 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? The Paradox
Dersen Lowery Drinking in Station 1437	Posted - 2015.01.28 20:07:06 - [28] - Quote Gilbaron wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: Gilbaron wrote: sooo, can we please get a 10% NPC ratting tax for every corp that has coward mode enabled ? Do you realize how much isk null sec renters will lose because of a coward tax? why would a nullsec corp enable this ? the change does absolutely nothing for nullsec people. they can keep shooting corpmates without having to fear anything but the wrath that other players can bring upon them. Per Greygal's observation, it might be a funny way to troll some wardec corp that doesn't do their homework... Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
Elenahina Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 42	Posted - 2015.01.28 20:20:12 - [29] - Quote 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). I may have missed this as I was reading, but will NPC corps allow green on green fire following this change?
Ralph King-Griffin Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 8676	Posted - 2015.01.28 20:22:48 - [30] - Quote Gilbaron wrote: coward mode brilliant, this is what im calling it from now on. incidentally, if with coward mode Enabled i go suspect, will my corpmates still be able to shoot my drones without creating a limited engagement ? "I'm also quite confident that you are laughing and it's the kind of laugh that gives normal people shivers." =]I[=

SeneschaI Ordo Ministorum Violent Society 16	Posted - 2015.01.28 20:37:03 - [31] - Quote Callic Veratar wrote: Awoxing is great and all, but the far more entertaining stories will come from the corps where they have FF disabled and ships get concorded for webbing alts or engaging with drones instead of assisting. Did the 'duel pop up' fade from memory? Did the safety button just get forgotten in the rush to troll? I wonder who would benefit from having FF enabled?
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 538	Posted - 2015.01.28 21:50:45 - [32] - Quote 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. In either case they are are going to have a bad initial experience to the game and may quit the all the same. But the die is cast, and this thread is about feedback so all I would suggest is that if you have a option to filter ads based on whether FF is enabled, you should have a option to filter based on whether it is disabled too. Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.

CCP Masterplan C C P C C P Alliance 1675	Posted - 2015.01.28 21:55:33 - [33] - Quote Elenahina 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). I may have missed this as I was reading, but will NPC corps allow green on green fire following this change? NPC corps will be unchanged - attacking corpmates here will still be a crime. "This one time, on patch day..." @ccp_masterplan \| Team Five-0: Rewriting the law

Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 3104	Posted - 2015.01.28 22:27:42 - [34] - 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. ........ But if they stay in an NPC corp, it's absolutely guaranteed that they will not get into a good corp. For limited PvP training, there are still duels. Duels can also be used for web slinging freighters. CCP, (or anyone else), with FF off, is there any easy way to have a corp free for all? Know a Frozen fan? Check this out Frozen fanfiction
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 2698	Posted - 2015.01.28 22:34:39 - [35] - Quote If isk for CONCORD paperwork is something that is desired then I think I could agree to corps having to pay the equivalent of a war dec fee to enable/disable FF.
Sabriz Adoudel Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 4486	Posted - 2015.01.28 22:36:31 - [36] - Quote This is an outright poor decision. Tiamat will be the first release in a while that will leave EVE worse off than it was beforehand. Obviously this is aimed at increasing the safety of career highsec players (or decreasing taxes for those currently in NPC corps), as it will have no other impact. Blue-on-blue violence almost never hits new players as they have nothing worth burning an AWOX alt to hit. What this will do is: - by acting as an increased reward for highsec mission grinding, encourage people who currently perform ISK generating activities outside highsec to transfer those activities to highsec. Many will not, but some will, and this will be a major indirect blow to lowsec and low-class wormholes which are already not offering much more than highsec. - 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. - remove the single best opportunity for new players to win solo PVP engagements (with advice). On the plus side, lower opsec in recruiting (which will NOT last) will provide a brief opportunity for corp thieves. Until this corrects over time, disloyal corp members will be able to do more damage to corps than they can now - instead of killing one veteran's mission battleship or orca, a disloyal member will be able to steal entire ship replacement funds, skillbook assistance packages, or the like. Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
Ned Thomas Hellbound Turkeys Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects 697	Posted - 2015.01.29 00:15:55 - [37] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: 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. ........ But if they stay in an NPC corp, it's absolutely guaranteed that they will not get into a good corp. For limited PvP training, there are still duels. Duels can also be used for web slinging freighters. CCP, (or anyone else), with FF off, is there any easy way to have a corp free for all? You'd either have to plan the FFA at least a day in advance, or for a "hey guys, grab a frigate and meet at the sun" the easiest would be a wormhole probably. Vote Sabriz!
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 3365	Posted - 2015.01.29 00:26:57 - [38] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: What happens if I am shooting a corp mate at the exact time the 24 hour cool down expires? Assume I am in high sec with my safety green, and while my gun is cycling, the 24 hours runs out and the corp goes from allowing FF to not allowing it. If this exact use case comes to pass, I believe it will open a spatio-temporal rift from which will pour an infinite number of winged monkeys.
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 3365	Posted - 2015.01.29 00:30:46 - [39] - Quote Sabriz Adoudel wrote: This is an outright poor decision. Tiamat will be the first release in a while that will leave EVE worse off than it was beforehand. First one since Incarna perhaps? Obviously this is aimed at increasing the safety of career highsec players (or decreasing taxes for those currently in NPC corps), as it will have no other impact. Blue-on-blue violence almost never hits new players as they have nothing worth burning an AWOX alt to hit. What this will do is: - by acting as an increased reward for highsec mission grinding, encourage people who currently perform ISK generating activities outside highsec to transfer those activities to highsec. Many will not, but some will, and this will be a major indirect blow to lowsec and low-class wormholes which are already not offering much more than highsec. - 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. - remove the single best opportunity for new players to win solo PVP engagements (with advice). On the plus side, lower opsec in recruiting (which will NOT last) will provide a brief opportunity for corp thieves. Until this corrects over time, disloyal corp members will be able to do more damage to corps than they can now - instead of killing one veteran's mission battleship or orca, a disloyal member will be able to steal entire ship replacement funds, skillbook assistance packages, or the like. The change wouldn't be so bad if the 11% NPC corp tax applied to corps with this mode on. Then at least the impetus to leave dangerous space for high would be removed. First and foremost, please stop trotting out the Incarna pony. It's old, it's dead, its hair is falling out and it smells terrible. With that out of the way, how does disabling friendly fire act as an increased reward for anything? How do you figure that corps currently operating outside of highsec will suddenly decide they have to turn this setting on and move to highsec? What exactly makes you believe that the sky is falling down?

CCP Habakuk C C P C C P Alliance 1198	Posted - 2015.01.29 00:37:34 - [40] - Quote Alvatore DiMarco wrote: Vincent Athena wrote: What happens if I am shooting a corp mate at the exact time the 24 hour cool down expires? Assume I am in high sec with my safety green, and while my gun is cycling, the 24 hours runs out and the corp goes from allowing FF to not allowing it. If this exact use case comes to pass, I believe it will open a spatio-temporal rift from which will pour an infinite number of winged monkeys. EVE would be full of spatio-temporal rifts given the amount of bugs and exploits which we fixed based on cases of exact timing like this - some by accident and many more by ingenious players who like to find edge cases and use them for their advantage. CCP Habakuk \| EVE Quality Assurance \| Team Gridlock Bug reporting \| Mass Testing


Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 3106	Posted - 2015.01.29 00:52:23 - [41] - Quote Does the FF setting in any way affect actions that make you a suspect, such as taking loot from a wreck made by a corp member? (My guess is No, but I might as well check.) About free for alls: Another way to do it is have an alt drop a can and everyone steals from it. You may have to deal with the locals, but if its a quiet system, and you are at a safe spot, most likely not. Know a Frozen fan? Check this out Frozen fanfiction
Ned Thomas Hellbound Turkeys Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects 698	Posted - 2015.01.29 03:23:40 - [42] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: Does the FF setting in any way affect actions that make you a suspect, such as taking loot from a wreck made by a corp member? (My guess is No, but I might as well check.) About free for alls: Another way to do it is have an alt drop a can and everyone steals from it. You may have to deal with the locals, but if its a quiet system, and you are at a safe spot, most likely not. Eh, if it's fully tied into the Crimewatch mechanics, I wouldn't be surprised if stealing from cans would be a no-no. As for FFA's: The only problem with the method you've described is the timing. If the fight lasts longer than the timers do, you're kinda screwed. Beyond that, it's a little too complicated when "let's turn the thing off and shoot each other tomorrow" is an option. Finally, it could screw up the feel of an impromptu FFA if everyone has to get within loot range of the same target first. Other than those three things, yes, that can be an option if you're willing to deal with the suspect timers. Going to lowsec would be easier. Vote Sabriz!
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 540	Posted - 2015.01.29 06:20:59 - [43] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: But if they stay in an NPC corp, it's absolutely guaranteed that they will not get into a good corp. For limited PvP training, there are still duels. Duels can also be used for web slinging freighters. CCP, (or anyone else), with FF off, is there any easy way to have a corp free for all? Why are you so sure being in an NPC corp is worse than being in a corp run by a scammer who does nothing to teach new players while collecting a 75% tax rate? Or that good corps ard not recruiting new players right now before the changes? Take a look at corp advertisements - there are dozens of corps clamoring for new players. More new players are going to be sucked up by terrible highsec corps spamming invites in starter systems stabilized by this change, and even less new blood will end up in good corps in low-, null- and highsec. As to your last question, no there is not. In fact the reason it was made a changable flag rather than just off all the time was exactly so groups that regularly have free-for-alls (RvB) and corp training events can take still do this. Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
Dave Stark 7326	Posted - 2015.01.29 07:54:17 - [44] - Quote CCP Lebowski wrote: New corps will have it set to disabled wow. just... christ. i don't even have the eloquence to express how stupid that is. also, it's inconsistent. Friendly fire won't be turned off for existing corps, but will for new corps; that ****'s inconsistent. it should just be on for everyone by default. if you don't want to get awoxed people should put in the effort of flipping the switch themselves, it's still less hassle than actually having a proper recruitment process.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 2698	Posted - 2015.01.29 12:27:00 - [45] - Quote Ralph King-Griffin wrote: Gilbaron wrote: coward mode brilliant, this is what im calling it from now on. Is it not just as cowardice to stab someone in the back? The tools to face someone openly have been there from the beginning and (hopefully) will never be removed.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 544	Posted - 2015.01.29 12:42:35 - [46] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: Ralph King-Griffin wrote: Gilbaron wrote: coward mode brilliant, this is what im calling it from now on. Is it not just as cowardice to stab someone in the back? The tools to face someone openly have been there from the beginning and (hopefully) will never be removed. Is it cowardice for a spy to go undercover in enemy country in order to disrupt their operations? Is it cowardice for a criminal to talk thier way into a museum in order to pull off a heist? Of course not. Corporate infiltration has a long and storied history in this game. This change doesn't kill that completely, but does diminish one of the game mechanism that has generated much memorable conflict and thus conflict in the past. Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 2698	Posted - 2015.01.29 12:56:18 - [47] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: Ralph King-Griffin wrote: Gilbaron wrote: coward mode brilliant, this is what im calling it from now on. Is it not just as cowardice to stab someone in the back? The tools to face someone openly have been there from the beginning and (hopefully) will never be removed. Is it cowardice for a spy to go undercover in enemy country in order to disrupt their operations? Is it cowardice for a criminal to talk thier way into a museum in order to pull off a heist? Of course not. Corporate infiltration has a long and storied history in this game. This change doesn't kill that completely, but does diminish one of the game mechanism that has generated much memorable conflict and thus conflict in the past. We are not talking about spying, it is all about AWOXing, which is why this change affects. Simply put AWOXing is a cowards act.
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 3107	Posted - 2015.01.29 14:52:36 - [48] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Vincent Athena wrote: But if they stay in an NPC corp, it's absolutely guaranteed that they will not get into a good corp. For limited PvP training, there are still duels. Duels can also be used for web slinging freighters. CCP, (or anyone else), with FF off, is there any easy way to have a corp free for all? Why are you so sure being in an NPC corp is worse than being in a corp run by a scammer who does nothing to teach new players while collecting a 75% tax rate? Or that good corps ard not recruiting new players right now before the changes? Take a look at corp advertisements - there are dozens of corps clamoring for new players. More new players are going to be sucked up by terrible highsec corps spamming invites in starter systems stabilized by this change, and even less new blood will end up in good corps in low-, null- and highsec. As to your last question, no there is not. In fact the reason it was made a changable flag rather than just off all the time was exactly so groups that regularly have free-for-alls (RvB) and corp training events can take still do this. CCP data indicates that players tend to stay with the game if they leave their started NPC corp. To me, this indicates that usually they do not get stuck in a scam corp, or of they do, they still keep with the game. Scam corps will recruit with or without the new FF rule. Reasonable ones may recruit without it, but more will recruit with it. The result: an increased chance a new player's first corp will be a reasonable one. Know a Frozen fan? Check this out Frozen fanfiction
Ralph King-Griffin Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 8683	Posted - 2015.01.29 16:16:52 - [49] - Quote waitwaitwaitwait. A CEO or director can Enable/Disable friendly fire technically you can still safari/awox if you have the roles for it. not bad, this actually adds some more incentive to get roles. "I'm also quite confident that you are laughing and it's the kind of laugh that gives normal people shivers." =]I[=
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 545	Posted - 2015.01.29 16:34:20 - [50] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: CCP data indicates that players tend to stay with the game if they leave their started NPC corp. To me, this indicates that usually they do not get stuck in a scam corp, or of they do, they still keep with the game. Scam corps will recruit with or without the new FF rule. Reasonable ones may recruit without it, but more will recruit with it. The result: an increased chance a new player's first corp will be a reasonable one. I sincerely hope you are correct. However I think a lot of new players are about to have a very poor introduction to this game. Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.

Marlona Sky Burning Napalm Northern Coalition. 5887	Posted - 2015.01.29 18:28:10 - [51] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Vincent Athena wrote: CCP data indicates that players tend to stay with the game if they leave their started NPC corp. To me, this indicates that usually they do not get stuck in a scam corp, or of they do, they still keep with the game. Scam corps will recruit with or without the new FF rule. Reasonable ones may recruit without it, but more will recruit with it. The result: an increased chance a new player's first corp will be a reasonable one. I sincerely hope you are correct. However I think a lot of new players are about to have a very poor introduction to this game. Not being stabbed in the back by a corp mate losing your ship sounds more appealing to me. Or am I missing something? The Paradox
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1889	Posted - 2015.01.29 19:21:32 - [52] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Is it cowardice for a spy to go undercover in enemy country in order to disrupt their operations? Is it cowardice for a criminal to talk thier way into a museum in order to pull off a heist? Of course not. Corporate infiltration has a long and storied history in this game. This change doesn't kill that completely, but does diminish one of the game mechanism that has generated much memorable conflict and thus conflict in the past. Except all the memorable awoxing has actually taken place in low or null or wh space. Not in High sec. High sec awoxing is paraded by a few people who only care about their green killboard as some kind of holy grail of an achievement, yet is not what has made the news about EVE. So the reality is this change does almost nothing in terms of awoxing news, while doing things to people who's only interest is padding their killboard for epeen purposes. All in all, a good result.
Masao Kurata Z List 185	Posted - 2015.01.29 21:31:13 - [53] - Quote Okay, so now we can talk about this without the thread getting locked? For quick reference, here are the current forms of ship to ship PVP (meta PVP isn't relevant to this topic) possible in highsec: Dueling (consensual) Suspect baiting (consensual) Mutual war (consensual) War (non-consensual, provides ample notice, costs aggressor, easily opted out of by most defenders) Suicide ganking (non-consensual, costs the aggressors the full value of their ships and fittings, very strict time limits, security penalty, killrights given) Engaging criminals and suspects (non-consensual). Note that I mean suspects who aren't baiting here, e.g. because of killright activation or looting a wreck for profit. Practice fights using the intracorporation pvp rule (consensual) Joining a corporation for a safari or betraying your existing corporation (non-consensual) Recruiting players to your own corporation, a reverse safari (non-consensual) (I have left some extremely rare forms out that would require too much explanation or qualification.) Notice that there are only five non-consensual items on that list. One requires the pilot to become globally flagged and is thus trivially avoided by a risk averse player. One requires successfully recruiting a player to your own corporation, which is a very high barrier. Another gives a full day of notice to the corporation, and you are in this thread announcing the effective removal of one of the remaining two options, leaving only suicide ganking (with its myriad problems usually not acknowledged by victims nor practitioners, for different reasons) for surprise attacks. A lot of players absolutely never leave highsec because of fear instilled by either early experiences before understanding basic game mechanics and/or fearmongering by veterans who have spent their entire EVE careers doing PVE in highsec. The most effective way to change their outlook on security zones is by killing them in space that they consider to be "safe". After this, many players become bolder, leaving highsec or engaging in highsec pvp of their own will. The fear of non-consensual pvp is less paralysing after actually being on the receiving end. At this point I'd like to note that awoxers were explicitly referred to on the o7 show as "griefers". It's one thing when some players call a whole playstyle griefplay, but when CCP does it that is very concerning. Non-consensual PVP is absolutely core to EVE. Trust and the abuse of trust are core to EVE, weakening this directly reduces the unique appeal of EVE in addition to the indirect effects on the ecosystem. The excuse that this is "unintuitive" was mentioned in the minutes, but highsec should not be intuitive. If you want a simple life where you don't have to think about engagement rules before shooting, live in lowsec. Highsec is the home of codified pvp, and offers a unique experience because of this. The people who don't know that corpmates are legal targets also don't know about limited engagements, the consequences of being criminal and having low security status, the lengths of any timers, wardec details etc. In other words they are completely ignorant of the very laws that keep them ridiculously safe. Antimatter is the best educational tool. I don't want to say much on the subject of roleplaying since I think it should always be a secondary concern at best, but internally policed corporations are very fitting for dystopic SF. Now I'd like to talk about the elephant in the room. The actual reason that day old alts can be unstoppable killing machines, making recruiting new players risky: unflagged neutral logistics. First I'm going to note that this is easy to change, and I can say this with confidence despite having not seen any of the code in question. How can I say that? Because logi are already flagged suspect for repping awoxers if the corporation is in any wars. This is probably unintended behaviour, but it is absolutely desirable behaviour. Just make this code path the default and everything is fine. The main issue with awoxing gameplay is that there are very few stories of the corporation successfully defending its members and killing the awoxer. An awoxer backed by unflagged neutral logi is just too hard to kill, the best you can normally do is jam him, which is a very unsatisfying outcome for everyone. Some people will say that if the logi are flagged they'll just magically produce a T3 (because we all have T3s on standby everywhere we pvp in the whole galaxy, right?) and start killing them when engaged, but this is actually only a tactic employed when the logi is in the first place intended as bait, not to keep a combat ship alive. Of course sometimes the logi would indeed have a combat ship at hand, but that only means that the fight just got more interesting, and ultimately the corporation would still fundamentally have the upper hand as they are many while the awoxer is alone and any logi who reshipped are globally flagged so they can get any outside assistance they can muster. Without unflagged neutral logistics, I can say that many more awoxers would awox on their mains rather than low SP alts. Logistics would still be prevalent, but buffer and local reps would become more common, and more awoxers will die, giving the corporation a morale boost. Please don't go ahead with this plan. I know it's too late to ask for that and you've made your decision, but you weren't listening to any feedback before now, which to me says that you do honestly know it's wrong. This won't fix retention in the way you're hoping, it'll just make EVE a more boring game. Fix awoxing, don't remove it.
Jake Makbema Viziam Amarr Empire 30	Posted - 2015.01.30 04:05:38 - [54] - Quote Well, there goes another piece of emergent gameplay that makes EVE interesting.This is just replacing brains and caution with an easy protection button that people who don't bother to check their applicants can use and be safe. CEOs need to learn to survive on their own without CONCORD to safeguard their recruitment policy. Joseph Askold > In space nobody will hear you talk to yourself. Except Amarrians and Concord because they bugged your ship but thats another story. -á-á I support James 315 and the New Order of Highsec. Read more at www.minerbumping.com
Deekz Duck University 0	Posted - 2015.01.30 05:38:39 - [55] - Quote This is the first time I have ever posted on the forums. I have seen many changes come to EVE that I didn't agree with, but this time it really hits hard because I believe it goes against what EVE is meant to stand for. I think "be the villain" was a tagline for some promotional material a while back. I give some credit to CCP because they have a business to run and they want members. Player retention is very important, I agree, but this is not the way to do it. A major point that comes up in almost every discussion I've seen on the topic of awoxing is that it causes new players to stay in the NPC corp or makes them quit the game. In my experience, this has not been the case, and it doesn't make much sense to me that this is the assumption. Awoxers generally have one goal in mind: blow up shiny ships. Every awoxer I have met has been extremely helpful and happy to spend the time to make a new player understand more about the game and how to have fun with EVE. In fact, a very well-known awoxer, Psychotic Monk, spent many hours writing on his blog, providing support in-game, and even doing training sessions with young players to teach them more about his profession. Of course, there are instances when new players might get blown up and feel like this isn't the game for them. Maybe they even stay in the NPC corp and quit EVE because they don't want to get awoxed. However, this has to be rare considering the goal of an awox and the generosity I have seen among the dozens of awoxers I have met. High security in EVE is changing. Most of the time for the worse. CCP makes changes to other parts of space, eg w-space and null, with "creating content" or "encouraging fights," but for some reason, high sec has to get closer and closer to perfect safety. I wish we could get some changes that encourage new players to experiment with pvp in high sec or to be exposed to what EVE is really about. Stop crippling your new players by changing mechanics. Stop giving new players a false sense of security that makes them risk-averse and unwilling to experience the entire game. Start making changes with things like missions and mining that will increase player retention because those activities are what kills the fun for many EVE players. This is the wrong way to try and improve player retention. It will not work the way you expect.
Petrified TOG - The Older Gamers TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 210	Posted - 2015.01.30 09:42:39 - [56] - Quote Sentient Blade wrote: Hurrar! To give reference to the Mittani article, another sacred cow massacred on the altar of user retention \o/ Because user retention is such a bad thing. At least they have not completely removed Friendly Fire from the game and I am certain the more wily awoxers will manager to get it turned on.
Sir Livingston Club Deadspace 323	Posted - 2015.01.30 13:35:37 - [57] - Quote I don't agree with this. EVE Online videos to inform and inspire http://www.youtube.com/JonnyPew
Basil Pupkin Why So Platypus 108	Posted - 2015.01.30 16:58:59 - [58] - Quote It's a very good change, and if easymode awoxing of mining barges is the only thing which kept you in eve, wow welcomes you, nothing of value would be lost. Don't hit the door on the way out. 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.
Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 657	Posted - 2015.01.30 20:17:05 - [59] - Quote Risk vs reward anyone? All corps should have concord tax for enabling this. at least 5% but not over 11% Also screw CCP destroying core gameplay mechanics and sandbox. EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Murkar Omaristos The Alabaster Albatross Eternal Pretorian Alliance 60	Posted - 2015.01.30 20:21:30 - [60] - Quote Arya Regnar wrote: Risk vs reward anyone? All corps should have concord tax for enabling this. at least 5% but not over 11% Also screw CCP destroying core gameplay mechanics and sandbox. ^^ THIS. Why is EVE being made soft? Forget this. If people want this enabled, a hefty Concord Tax should totally be the price.

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.

Altrue Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective 1599	Posted - 2015.02.04 16:53:48 - [91] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: To be blunt, it's a terrible idea to make it optimal to lock yourself into solo play. Everyone loses if we build mechanics like that. Taxes are also a fairly ineffective method for influencing choices since they apply heavily to some activities while not applying at all to other activities. Interesting, I never thought about it this way! So you think that, even though friendly fire has been enabled for 11 years, now that it can be disabled, even a slight bounty tax would push people out of corps? I completely understand the incentive for players to look for ways to optimize their profits, I never envisionned it would be such a deterrent. Also I completely agree with you about taxes, it doesn't work for all activities. I just wish there was a way to create a difference between enabled and disabled FF though. Because the way I see it, everyone will just turn the protection on. Except maybe people who web their freighters, if they are too lazy to duel. Signature Tanking - Best Tanking
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 3121	Posted - 2015.02.04 17:42:41 - [92] - Quote Altrue wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: To be blunt, it's a terrible idea to make it optimal to lock yourself into solo play. Everyone loses if we build mechanics like that. Taxes are also a fairly ineffective method for influencing choices since they apply heavily to some activities while not applying at all to other activities. Interesting, I never thought about it this way! So you think that, even though friendly fire has been enabled for 11 years, now that it can be disabled, even a slight bounty tax would push people out of corps? I completely understand the incentive for players to look for ways to optimize their profits, I never envisionned it would be such a deterrent. Also I completely agree with you about taxes, it doesn't work for all activities. I just wish there was a way to create a difference between enabled and disabled FF though. Because the way I see it, everyone will just turn the protection on. Except maybe people who web their freighters, if they are too lazy to duel. They already get some: It becomes hard to have a spontaneous corp free-for-all, you need to do duels for tank testing, you need to do duels for web-slinging. as you already noted. There are enough min-maxers in the game that yes, any tax will have an effect. Know a Frozen fan? Check this out Frozen fanfiction
Bienator II madmen of the skies 3162	Posted - 2015.02.04 18:13:50 - [93] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: 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. thats off topic since its already in game and called wardec. This feature is about concord protection within a corp and doesn't even discuss inter corp relationships. Currently there is no gameplay choice associated with it. Unless you are RvB you have no reason to not request concord protection which is very boring from gameplay perspective and reminds me on clone upgrades, which had no meaningful gameplay choices too. 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
Shailagh Ministry of War Amarr Empire 70	Posted - 2015.02.04 19:24:45 - [94] - Quote CCP Fozzie 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 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. I thought mechanics where there is only one clear choice were bad? Like how medical clones/skill point loss, etc were removed? If the only sane option is to set FF to illegal, wheres the choice? Where the balance? Wheres the risk vs reward?
Greygal Redemption Road Affirmative. 318	Posted - 2015.02.04 19:25:47 - [95] - Quote Altrue wrote: I just wish there was a way to create a difference between enabled and disabled FF though. Because the way I see it, everyone will just turn the protection on. Except maybe people who web their freighters, if they are too lazy to duel. I think that FF being turned off is going to be used less than a lot of people expect. Within my own little circle of friends, none of the CEOs I know are planning on turning FF off. Granted, most of them are PVP and/or new player corps, and it's a small sampling (about 40 corps), but overwhelmingly they see FF being turned off as a hindrance to their normal operations and something that will eventually lead to "oops!" moments. Almost universally, the people I know find the benefits of FF on far outweigh the potential "safety" of FF turned off. IMHO, leaving FF on is actually safer than leaving it off. All it takes is one forgetting to pay attention to the dual timer when webbing a freighter, or not having their safety set to green in highsec when they jokingly tackle a corp mate, for internal tears to flow. FF turned off saves nobody from awoxing. It just means that Concord will get involved in awoxing. Awoxing will still happen... and likely will generate even more tears than it already does. I am glad that CCP is making the choice available to CEOs to turn FF on or off, but I also believe that it creates - much like Concord and high sec itself - a false sense of security. Any CEO who believes that they are creating a "safer" corp by turning FF off is ultimately fooling themselves. Needless to say, I'll be leaving FF on in Redemption Road. Easy choice :) Just my two bytes. What you do for yourself dies with you, what you do for others is immortal. Free weekly public roams & monthly NewBro new player roams! Visit Redemption Road or join mailing list REDEMPTION ROAMS for information
Basil Pupkin Why So Platypus 109	Posted - 2015.02.04 22:46:52 - [96] - Quote Greygal wrote: Altrue wrote: I just wish there was a way to create a difference between enabled and disabled FF though. Because the way I see it, everyone will just turn the protection on. Except maybe people who web their freighters, if they are too lazy to duel. I think that FF being turned off is going to be used less than a lot of people expect. Within my own little circle of friends, none of the CEOs I know are planning on turning FF off. Granted, most of them are PVP and/or new player corps, and it's a small sampling (about 40 corps), but overwhelmingly they see FF being turned off as a hindrance to their normal operations and something that will eventually lead to "oops!" moments. Almost universally, the people I know find the benefits of FF on far outweigh the potential "safety" of FF turned off. IMHO, leaving FF on is actually safer than leaving it off. All it takes is one forgetting to pay attention to the duel timer when webbing a freighter, or not having their safety set to green in highsec when they jokingly tackle a corp mate, for internal tears to flow. FF turned off saves nobody from awoxing. It just means that Concord will get involved in awoxing. Awoxing will still happen... and likely will generate even more tears than it already does. I am glad that CCP is making the choice available to CEOs to turn FF on or off, but I also believe that it creates - much like Concord and high sec itself - a false sense of security. Any CEO who believes that they are creating a "safer" corp by turning FF off is ultimately fooling themselves. Needless to say, I'll be leaving FF on in Redemption Road. Easy choice :) And I admit, I'm glad it's my choice. Just my two bytes. Thank you for this stealth tear post contribution to my bucket. Use or safety setting properly, there will be no OOPS. There is nothing wrong with setting it to green/yellow while in hisec, it doesn't disturb any of the normal leet peeveepee activities, while helping you to avoid getting concordokken by mistake. FF turned off saves from dumbmode awoxing, because it won't be awoxing, it'll be just your average suicide **, done by a person you have invited in your corp. The only potential benefit compared to average suicide ** is possibility of being in a fleet with target, giving you a way to warp directly to target, which isn't hard to achieve in average suicide wanking either. Turning FF off does create a safer corp. While I am not among CEOs who think too highly of hisec safety (I consider having to pass Uedama a certain death scenario, knowing for a fact that the only thing saving me is gankbears being lazy risk-averse bad at eve players who do it only because it's super easy), I know for sure it removes the self-wardec every newcomer in your corp has on you, which does increase safety pretty considerably to never turn FF on again. Awoxing would still happen of course, however I am extremely satisfied that the creepiest variety of it, known as "spam apps till accepts, kill peeps till kick", is going into "good riddance" case of eve history locker. 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.
Chi'Nane T'Kal Interminatus Aeterna Anima 305	Posted - 2015.02.05 10:19:26 - [97] - Quote FF in fleets will still be a thing, right? (For the mentioned freighter webbing purpose..)

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 12196	Posted - 2015.02.05 10:37:04 - [98] - Quote Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote: FF in fleets will still be a thing, right? (For the mentioned freighter webbing purpose..) That hasn't been a thing since 2008. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/

Darkblad Hilf Dir selbst in EVE 662	Posted - 2015.02.05 11:20:11 - [99] - Quote Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote: FF in fleets will still be a thing, right? (For the mentioned freighter webbing purpose..) Or to put it short: Fleet doesn't change anything in regards of aggression rules. (Though "approved" might be a less misleading term in that notification) EVE Infolinks GÇó Mining Handbuch GÇó Colortags/Timer
Slepers Drunken astronauts 8	Posted - 2015.02.06 08:02:59 - [100] - Quote disgusting innovation

Pud Li Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 5	Posted - 2015.02.07 09:42:15 - [101] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: 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. What? Did not think this had anything really to with people choosing to stay in NPC corp or being 1 man corp. I thought this new measure was all about helping corps grow faster by protecting against ninja gankers joining hi sec corps. Those recruiting nightmares spend all their play time shooting corp ships especially Orcas and freighters and leading attacks on expensive PVE fits. Typically acting withCONCORD immunity while no or only a few PVP equipped corpmates were in that system. Such protection from internal ambushes would then free up recruiting to be more liberal and not so "retentive". Get people into hi sec corp easier especially folk returning after long absence. (Some gankers rotate alts and accounts over long periods so that bad KM stop appearing. Leading to suspicions as to why the absence?) Also reduce reasons for Corp to have full API on new recruits. Reviewing for security concerns via API is just time consuming and tedious when used properly. But sometimes that currently justified access is abused by CEO who knows exactly what you have when demanding all assets be committed to corp use and telling you what you can afford to fly in wardec. Most people want some privacy about their degree of corp commitment at least in early experience. Or in horror cases a Merc corp kicks member without provocation and proceeds to blockade their main stash of ships etc for fun. So this change improves game experience for corp officers and eliminates the lose of privacy and rare risk of harassment that new corp applicants might otherwise suffer jsut to get into a new corp. (yeah API access need still exists for preventing corp thieves. But CCP is fixing that corp security issue in the not too distant future right? And meantime corps worried about thieves do have security options for thievery by new members even if its not very flexible versus getting new members fully involved in all corp operations.)
Belinda HwaFang Coreli Corporation The Kadeshi 41	Posted - 2015.02.08 10:22:34 - [102] - Quote +1 good change to allow highsec corps to recruit more easily.
Lugh Crow-Slave 688	Posted - 2015.02.08 13:08:18 - [103] - Quote Belinda HwaFang wrote: +1 good change to allow highsec corps to recruit more easily. you mean with no risk Fuel block colors
Basil Pupkin Why So Platypus 112	Posted - 2015.02.08 19:04:40 - [104] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Belinda HwaFang wrote: +1 good change to allow highsec corps to recruit more easily. you mean with no risk You mean with the same risk awoxing had before this change. 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.
Victoria Ramsay BOVRIL bOREers Mining CO-OP Brave Collective 8	Posted - 2015.02.08 21:29:12 - [105] - Quote Welp.....this will certainly make it safer and more enticing for people to stay in hisec forever. I still think a tax should apply to this.......
Basil Pupkin Why So Platypus 112	Posted - 2015.02.09 01:33:18 - [106] - Quote Victoria Ramsay wrote: Welp.....this will certainly make it safer and more enticing for people to stay in hisec forever. I still think a tax should apply to this....... "nuuuuuuuu less peeps for the BRAVE newbie farm, bad change" 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.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 32662	Posted - 2015.02.09 03:45:06 - [107] - Quote Poor change in my view. If people want to be the CEO of a Corp, they should manage the risks associated with the members of their Corp. Switching the risk from the CEO to the awoxer is wrong for several reasons: 1. Eve is unique in the gaming community for its harshness. It provides a gaming opportunity for people not attracted to the many vanilla games that exist. Each of these changes just makes Eve more like the rest of them. It might attract more players for a bit, but not players that will stick around in the long term. They'll move from one flavour of vanilla to another and Eve will be the poorer for it 2. This move will just give rise to bad Corps and more recruitment scams. The exit survey data, or whatever data source CCP have used to evaluate this as the right move to promote Corp recruitment is just wrong. CEOs that are risk averse aren't going to suddenly change because of this. The awoxers will though. The risk will remain the same and the only thing affected will be the appearance of Eve turning soft. 3. Many CEOs deserve to have their Corp awoxed. Safari's bring a net benefit to the community in many cases. All this move does is make it easy for the unethical CEO to be unethical. 4. It will only encourage people to remain in highsec and never venture beyond that. Making highsec safer creates a larger gap between the safety of highsec systems and low/null systems. 5. Where is the consequence of chosing to use Concord for intracorp aggression? At least add a tax to turn friendly fire off. At the moment it's a no brainer. Why would a Corp have it on? Where is the benefit to taking more risk? The only answer is, they wouldn't have it on because there is no benefit. It's the same as the clone tax just removed from the game. CCP made a good argument for the uselessness of that system and have turned around and introduced a new one immediately. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Theon Severasse Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 127	Posted - 2015.02.09 14:56:54 - [108] - Quote CCP Lebowski wrote: tgl3 wrote: Will this be enabled by default? Good question! Existing corps will find that this 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 (Theres a check box in the Create Corporation window). Updating the OP to reflect this. I, and I think many other players, am of the opinion that Friendly Fire should be the default option, and that the CEO should be choosing to turn it off, rather than the other way around. Also, there should be a heavy tax penalty on corps that have the option turned on, maybe set it at the value of NPC corps (since they currently have FF turned off (AFAIK). This tax should go to an NPC rather than the corp wallet obviously.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1361	Posted - 2015.02.10 01:22:48 - [109] - Quote Theon Severasse wrote: CCP Lebowski wrote: tgl3 wrote: Will this be enabled by default? Good question! Existing corps will find that this 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 (Theres a check box in the Create Corporation window). Updating the OP to reflect this. I, and I think many other players, am of the opinion that Friendly Fire should be the default option, and that the CEO should be choosing to turn it off, rather than the other way around. Also, there should be a heavy tax penalty on corps that have the option turned on, maybe set it at the value of NPC corps (since they currently have FF turned off (AFAIK). This tax should go to an NPC rather than the corp wallet obviously. Since not being able to shoot people in a given corp without consequence in highsec is free already, what reason is there to attach a cost to it?
Basil Pupkin Why So Platypus 112	Posted - 2015.02.10 06:21:34 - [110] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: Poor change in my view. If people want to be the CEO of a Corp, they should manage the risks associated with the members of their Corp. Switching the risk from the CEO to the awoxer is wrong for several reasons: 1. Eve is unique in the gaming community for its harshness. It provides a gaming opportunity for people not attracted to the many vanilla games that exist. Each of these changes just makes Eve more like the rest of them. It might attract more players for a bit, but not players that will stick around in the long term. They'll move from one flavour of vanilla to another and Eve will be the poorer for it 2. This move will just give rise to bad Corps and more recruitment scams. The exit survey data, or whatever data source CCP have used to evaluate this as the right move to promote Corp recruitment is just wrong. CEOs that are risk averse aren't going to suddenly change because of this. The awoxers will though. The risk will remain the same and the only thing affected will be the appearance of Eve turning soft. 3. Many CEOs deserve to have their Corp awoxed. Safari's bring a net benefit to the community in many cases. All this move does is make it easy for the unethical CEO to be unethical. 4. It will only encourage people to remain in highsec and never venture beyond that. Making highsec safer creates a larger gap between the safety of highsec systems and low/null systems. 5. Where is the consequence of chosing to use Concord for intracorp aggression? At least add a tax to turn friendly fire off. At the moment it's a no brainer. Why would a Corp have it on? Where is the benefit to taking more risk? The only answer is, they wouldn't have it on because there is no benefit. It's the same as the clone tax just removed from the game. CCP made a good argument for the uselessness of that system and have turned around and introduced a new one immediately. 1. Now it is harsh on the awoxer as well, and Fozzie be my witness they really needed some difficulty instead of free safari rides. Good change. 2. All corps will be able to recruit more easily, so this is a good change. Recruitment scams won't get higher since there's no change whatsoever to their routine. 3. "I could threaten my CEO with destruction of corp freighter and now I can't, qq". I think unethical players in general lose more with this change than they win, so it's a good change. 4. Current state of hisec, with free suicide ganking, receiving buff after buff, is very unsafe - the only thing keeping anyone alive in there is the gankbears risk-averse behavior, laziness and badness. This change doesn't do anything to this - you can still suicide gank your mates, just now it FINALLY has consequences for the awoxer, which he had absolutely none before. How do you call it in your baseless superiority complex world, HTFU? Man up and suicide gank them, it's super easy, if you consider that too hard, well, maybe eve isn't for you. 5. Consequences are for actions, and the active side is an awoxer, so he should get them, which was finally fixed. You want targets? Pay for it. Now I don't say there should be no non-consensual combat in hisec. But the special part of it is that non-consensual combat in hisec has consequences. Awoxing didn't have consequences until now, it was fixed. Taxing corps for it makes no sense, since the price of having targets should be paid by awoxer. As dev blog stated, the only reason it is optional is because RvB wanted free-for-alls and some me-and-my-alts corps wanted to keep their freighter webbing bots, otherwise it would've been removed completely, as it should've been, on the moment crimewatch hit Tranquility. 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.

Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 32774	Posted - 2015.02.10 10:23:13 - [111] - Quote http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2vaz9e/my_first_experience_with_a_corporation/ This is exactly why awoxing should stay. If there were some requirements for people to be CEOs of Corps and all Corps had the best interests of their players at heart, I could totally get on board with this change. But there is nothing that prevents jerks from forming Corps and being more of a negative influence on other players than any awoxer ever is. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 32774	Posted - 2015.02.10 10:47:04 - [112] - Quote Basil Pupkin wrote: 2. All corps will be able to recruit more easily, so this is a good change. Recruitment scams won't get higher since there's no change whatsoever to their routine. You clearly don't understand the concept of reverse safari. Awoxers will adjust to this change. People who want to generate content always do. Reverse safari will remain the best option to awox members of a Corp. So recruitment scams and reverse safaris remain tools available to awoxers in order to awox. This change won't be a sudden 'Corps can recruit easier' solution. Risk averse carebears will remain risk averse carebears and just find other excuses not to recruit. Meanwhile awoxers will continue to use the mechanics available to awox. They'll just do it as CEOs instead of Corp members. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Basil Pupkin Why So Platypus 112	Posted - 2015.02.10 19:49:16 - [113] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: Basil Pupkin wrote: 2. All corps will be able to recruit more easily, so this is a good change. Recruitment scams won't get higher since there's no change whatsoever to their routine. You clearly don't understand the concept of reverse safari. Awoxers will adjust to this change. People who want to generate content always do. Reverse safari will remain the best option to awox members of a Corp. So recruitment scams and reverse safaris remain tools available to awoxers in order to awox. This change won't be a sudden 'Corps can recruit easier' solution. Risk averse carebears will remain risk averse carebears and just find other excuses not to recruit. Meanwhile awoxers will continue to use the mechanics available to awox. They'll just do it as CEOs instead of Corp members. I clearly understand the concept of reverse safari, I just pity the real newbs who get it, because it's kinda worse than horrible corps you all speak about, but can't give a single example. Though, if old dumbmode awoxers are going to list corps with FF on and join them on application spam like they normally would, and get awoxed instead, that would be totally hilarious, which is an extra reason to thank CCP for this change, as now two types of those risk-averse players can find each other easier. I am totally ok with awoxers adjusting to this change. I welcomed them to create content a few times in this thread already, and acknowledged that creative awox is content (while bashing that dumbmode awox isn't, and it really isn't). I also noted they are getting more opportunities in this world of new, more relaxed recruiting, for being creative in their scams. So far, however, it's cry-cry-cry "god forbid people would disable FF pls pls CCP tax them so they don't, etc, qq". I can't really see this as a good adaption drive, more like a bunch of pussies who told people to HTFU on the daily basis, being self-proclaimed oh-so-bad-villains, are now crying like little girls they are, instead of following their own advice. The tools to awox are still there, of course, I just noted that recruitment scams won't increase - nothing else. The only thing being removed is "yay they accepted, it's safari time" variety, which is 0/10 content and a good riddance. 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.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 32820	Posted - 2015.02.10 21:01:33 - [114] - Quote Basil Pupkin wrote: ..., I just pity the real newbs who get it, because it's kinda worse than horrible corps you all speak about, but can't give a single example. Look at the link directly two posts above. It's direct evidence that your statement is wrong. But of course, it will be ignored like it already has been because it doesn't fit the dialogue you want to push. That CEO deserves to be awoxed. Quote: I am totally ok with awoxers adjusting to this change. I welcomed them to create content a few times in this thread already, and acknowledged that creative awox is content (while bashing that dumbmode awox isn't, and it really isn't). I also noted they are getting more opportunities in this world of new, more relaxed recruiting, for being creative in their scams. BS. You just hide your complete disdain for the playstyle behind a veil of 'yeah good for them'. Quote: So far, however, it's cry-cry-cry Same old dumb argument. Goes both ways and is never productive to a discussion. Carebears cry. HTFUers cry. Forumers cry. On and on. Gets nowhere fast. It's the most ridiculous thing to include in a discussion because it totally closes off any possibility of further discussion by relegating other views to nothing more than tears. It's a mentally weak approach. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 32821	Posted - 2015.02.10 21:12:58 - [115] - Quote Basil Pupkin wrote: 4. Current state of hisec, with free suicide ganking, receiving buff after buff, is very unsafe - the only thing keeping anyone alive in there is the gankbears risk-averse behavior, laziness and badness. This change doesn't do anything to this - you can still suicide gank your mates, just now it FINALLY has consequences for the awoxer, which he had absolutely none before. How do you call it in your baseless superiority complex world, HTFU? Man up and suicide gank them, it's super easy, if you consider that too hard, well, maybe eve isn't for you. 5. Consequences are for actions, and the active side is an awoxer, so he should get them, which was finally fixed. You want targets? Pay for it. You might want to go and check my killboard before making assumptions about my own playstyle too. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Basil Pupkin Why So Platypus 112	Posted - 2015.02.11 02:09:07 - [116] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: Look at the link directly two posts above. It's direct evidence that your statement is wrong. It doesn't fit the dialogue you want to push. That CEO deserves to be awoxed. I don't see anything wrong with the way CEO handled this. If this guy wanted a lowsec corp and joined a hisec one, well, wrong choice, the hisec corp lives by hisec rules. The CEO were completely right to be offended because if you venture too much into lowsec space some bears call their own and they see you are a newbie, there is a high risk of a grief dec, which takes 24 hours, all assets relocation, and POS unanchoring/anchoring PITA to mitigate. Thus I see CEO being offended as justified, as he worked at minimizing the needless risk. And don't call me risk-averse, I'll take the risk if there's suitable reward, but I will never even think of taking risk for nothing, which this guy did. If he needed to finish an escalation, me and a few mates would go with him. If he wanted to explore, I'd recommend against it, but still teach him how to stay safe... outside of my corp. In your example, however, there is a clean violation of corp rules, and a remorseless one as well - this is an offense, which is why CEO was offended, and expulsion for it is justified, since no remorse has been shown. If you don't like corp rules, either plea to change them, or get another corp, it's not rocket science. What you want to say is "bawww how dare this CEO play the game differently, my way is the only right way and gods must punish anyone doing it wrong". Which is not even original, since pretty much every grief-centric playstyle followers bash each other out with this argument. Scipio Artelius wrote: BS. You just hide your complete disdain for the playstyle behind a veil of 'yeah good for them'. Stop putting words in my mouth. I said what I said, and not what you think I said. Yes, I despise the "playstyle" of 10 hour heroes (of any actual age) spamming apps then killing whatever they can until they are kicked. It's not content, just risk-averse pew, and I'm glad to see it gone. I haven't asked for any other change, I do enjoy a good read of a successful and creative infiltration, I treat it courteously, as comedy is a tragedy plus time. My first and only loss were in the second week of eve and was a lesson on jetcan theft mechanics which I didn't know at the time. It was an awful thing to do to a newbie, as I were left practically penniless, and deprived from the mining income, since the griefer followed me for days ready to flip again (as if I were going to, what a douchebag), and it was before I learned to mine into GSC (which is obsolete now after barges rebalance). This led to me trying to learn other forms of PvE and promptly losing a few ships to tackling rogue drones in the drone anoms(they ain't there anymore), which made me drop eve for a few months, which wasn't really good for the game since my sub wasn't there for it anymore. But this is all a comedy now, when people desperately dig killboards in order to peck me, find this loss, and ask me if I'm still mad at losing cheap ass T1 hauler ~5 years ago, I can laugh in their faces pretty sincerely. So, stop putting words in my mouth. Disdain you mentioned exists purely in your imagination. Scipio Artelius wrote: Same old dumb argument. Goes both ways and is never productive to a discussion. Carebears cry. HTFUers cry. Forumers cry. On and on. Gets nowhere fast. Opinions aren't tears. It's the most ridiculous thing to include in a discussion because it totally closes off any possibility of further discussion by relegating other views to nothing more than a whine. It's a mentally weak approach and it becomes pointless to try to discuss any aspects further. We'll just have to wait until the next request for a nerf. Then maybe discussion can continue, hopefully without the 'cry-cry-cry' idiocy. Opinions aren't tears. Tears are tears. Tears of people who self-entitle their playstyle to be the only true one are delicious. Thank you. Scipio Artelius wrote: You might want to go and check my killboard before making assumptions about my own playstyle too. "You" in this post weren't addressing you personally, please treat it as a generic "He who wants targets in hisec must pay for it". 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.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 32849	Posted - 2015.02.11 02:31:05 - [117] - Quote Basil Pupkin wrote: don't see anything wrong with the way CEO handled this. If this guy wanted a lowsec corp and joined a hisec one, well, wrong choice, the hisec corp lives by hisec rules. Except that the Corp approached the player, not the other way around. Corporations are not well explained at all as part of the NPE. New players in particular are 'vulnerable' (not physical sense, but in terms of their lack of knowledge and experience) to influence from Corps. As a result, experienced CEOs and recruiters should be taking the responsibility to properly explain their Corp and ensure that they only recruit people with like views. Corps certainly shouldn't be so bad that the guy has to ask: "Did anyone else have bad experience with their first corporation?" Awoxing at least provided a mechanism to address that sort of issue. That you see no problem with giving bad experiences to new players is a little sad for the game really. Does demonstrate where the personal interest in this lies though. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Basil Pupkin Why So Platypus 113	Posted - 2015.02.11 04:40:29 - [118] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: Basil Pupkin wrote: don't see anything wrong with the way CEO handled this. If this guy wanted a lowsec corp and joined a hisec one, well, wrong choice, the hisec corp lives by hisec rules. Except that the Corp approached the player, not the other way around. Corporations are not well explained at all as part of the NPE. New players in particular are 'vulnerable' (in terms of their lack of knowledge and experience) to influence from Corps. As a result, experienced CEOs and recruiters should be taking the responsibility to properly recruit and ensure that those they recruit are a good match. Corps certainly shouldn't be so bad that the guy has to ask: "Did anyone else have bad experience with their first corporation?" Awoxing at least provided a mechanism to address that sort of issue. That you see no problem with giving bad experiences to new players is a little sad for the game really. Does demonstrate where the personal interest in this lies though. The corp approaches players with their rules, players either join and accept, or refuse them. I agree that if the rules weren't stated clearly during recruiting, it's the recruiter's fault, but they were stated clearly in the corp bulletin, which should have given the guy a clue. Newbie is not supposed to be familiar with the corp etiquette of eve, but he's got the right to ask. That said, CEO is still innocent and right in my opinion. Thus, resorting to awoxing is wrong, it's not a solution, because there is no problem, other than a bad recruiter, which can be sorted out rather quickly, without the need to condemn anyone. 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.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 32859	Posted - 2015.02.11 07:41:30 - [119] - Quote Basil Pupkin wrote: Newbie is not supposed to be familiar with the corp etiquette of eve, but he's got the right to ask. Shifting the responsibility from the experienced players (CEO and recruiters and ultimately the CEO for all decisions made within the Corp) to the new player is exactly the type of poor leadership that has the potential to do way more harm to new players than a ship loss. CEOs are leaders. They put themselves into a position of leadership. Unfortunately, for many Corps, that leadership is very lacking. The CEO has ultimate accountability for the way his Corp, through poor recruiting and his own behaviour, resulted in that opinion. Unfortunately there are no requirements to open a Corp and lead it. Any fool can do it. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Basil Pupkin Why So Platypus 114	Posted - 2015.02.11 09:02:44 - [120] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: Basil Pupkin wrote: Newbie is not supposed to be familiar with the corp etiquette of eve, but he's got the right to ask. Shifting the responsibility from the experienced players (CEO and recruiters and ultimately the CEO for all decisions made within the Corp) to the new player is exactly the type of poor leadership that has the potential to do way more harm to new players than a ship loss. CEOs are leaders. They put themselves into a position of leadership. Unfortunately, for many Corps, that leadership is very lacking. The CEO has ultimate accountability for the way his Corp, through poor recruiting and his own behaviour, resulted in that opinion. Unfortunately there are no requirements to open a Corp and lead it. Any fool can do it. FCs are leaders. CEOs are the users of what is basically an economy and convenience tools in hisec - corporation mechanics. They are not leaders. They are not always experienced players. They just use the goddamn tool, because apparently, nobody else in the said group, which needed a user of this tool, wanted to do it. It is always like that. Fleet needs a logi - somebody is chosen to do it. Corp needs a CEO - somebody is chosen to do it. Honestly, I don't think you can expect them to act as leaders when they aren't. This is where I think the quality of life changes for recruiting should lay. You want a corp with an active FC, who leads 15 roams a week, you should be able to find them. You want a corp with an active Foreman running gathering ops and paying out ISK for working bees, you should be able to find those too. Right now you can pretty much only differentiate between high/low/null corps, and not perfectly. The general idea is, you want to fix bad corps, don't ban them. Eve player has a right to be a villain. But tell me, if you show people in the recruitment UI that this CEO is a villain, would he recruit much? Good, now you just need to prove he's a villain. Make recruiting corps compete in activity, so that all those inactive ghost corps, corps with poor coordination, and even reverse safari corps, would have to work to make their recruits come to them. What's common among all those ideas? They are completely unrelated to FF. Back on the original track. FCs are combat leaders. Alliance commanders are strategic leaders. Mining foremans are industry leaders. CEOs are just tools. They are what logi to the fleet are. No logi = no fleet, bad logi = bad fleet, but they aren't FCs in the shiny command ships, they are just logi. A corp is a tool, like a fleet UI panel, nothing more. At least in hisec. So don't blame CEO. They guy did right. Recruiter is wrong, but this can be fixed, if addressed properly from a purely human standpoint. If the corp doesn't have a leader, and you need one, you have joined the wrong corp. Maybe you should consider alliances - unlike corps, those are actually supposed to have proper leadership. 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.

Tetsel Heretic Army Overload Everything 147	Posted - 2015.02.11 11:52:52 - [121] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: To be blunt, it's a terrible idea to make it optimal to lock yourself into solo play. Everyone loses if we build mechanics like that. Taxes are also a fairly ineffective method for influencing choices since they apply heavily to some activities while not applying at all to other activities. I'll be sooo glad you to explain us how the mandatory 11% tax in NPC corp, isn't it a "fairly ineffective method for influencing choices" ??? Where is you God now Mr Fozzie ??!!! Why carebears shouldn't pay for an extra CONCORD service ? Loyal servent to Mother Amamake. @EVE_Tetsel
Basil Pupkin Why So Platypus 114	Posted - 2015.02.11 12:59:26 - [122] - Quote Tetsel wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: To be blunt, it's a terrible idea to make it optimal to lock yourself into solo play. Everyone loses if we build mechanics like that. Taxes are also a fairly ineffective method for influencing choices since they apply heavily to some activities while not applying at all to other activities. I'll be sooo glad you to explain us how the mandatory 11% tax in NPC corp, isn't it a "fairly ineffective method for influencing choices" ??? Where is you God now Mr Fozzie ??!!! Why carebears shouldn't pay for an extra CONCORD service ? Why gankbears shouldn't pay for an extra CONCORD bypassing service? This is not extra CONCORD protection service - this is a fix for free CONCORD removal service. You are not entitled to bypass CONCORD in hisec for free, this is a design strategy that has been there since CONCORD appearance, so this is not extra protection, it's just fixing things to how they are supposed to be. All mandatory 11% tax in NPC corps does is making people play in me-and-my-alts player corps, and only do so when they do taxable activity. I call that fairly ineffective. 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.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 32903	Posted - 2015.02.11 20:54:41 - [123] - Quote Basil Pupkin wrote: You people have the wrong perspective on this whole issue Don't be such a prat. No one's perspective is wrong. Each is just as valid as the other. That your's in this instance is in agreement with the direction that CCP had chosen to go is fine. Many of us have a different view. Those views aren't wrong and we are right to express them because we are all stakeholders in this game. If all we are to do is nod our head in agreement all the time, then this game would be much worse for everyone being yes men and not providing meaningful and honest feedback and perspectives. It is a feedback forum after all. TL;DR: **** off with your smugness. What goes around comes around and I'm sure there are often decisions you don't agree with. Guess it'll just be tears when you want to express those views right? Argue the ideas not the people. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Basil Pupkin Why So Platypus 115	Posted - 2015.02.12 01:59:00 - [124] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: Basil Pupkin wrote: You people have the wrong perspective on this whole issue Don't be such a prat. No one's perspective is wrong. Each is just as valid as the other. That your's in this instance is in agreement with the direction that CCP had chosen to go is fine. Many of us have a different view. Those views aren't wrong and we are right to express them because we are all stakeholders in this game. If all we are to do is nod our head in agreement all the time, then this game would be much worse for everyone being yes men and not providing meaningful and honest feedback and perspectives. It is a feedback forum after all. TL;DR: **** off with your smugness. What goes around comes around and I'm sure there are often decisions you don't agree with. Guess it'll just be tears when you want to express those views right? Yeah, it probably will be tears. At least it was, when Fozzie ruined mining in Odyssey. Though I think he had learned his lesson and won't touch industry again, as it took 5 buffs for the mining to recover to 75% of pre-odyssey levels, while being dominated by bots when their limits were Fozzified in Odyssey. Guess I'm just being vengeful, finding the "change" (actually, bugfix) I completely agree with, and dishing out every HTFU I took on changes I don't agree with, back at whoever is bitter. You can't disagree though that many of the "opinions" against this change are awfully tear-jerking. But criers be crying, I guess. Imagine this, someday CCP fixes POS hangars (ok, yeah, just humor me and imagine they did) and will remove another hack - storing items in ship arrays. And though it will offer no substantial benefit with fixed hangars, wormholers will object to this change, maybe because it'll take them too much time and effort to review their POS setups and haul new additional hangars, enough so they'd rather drop POS and quit. Imaginary CCP listens and gives them a switch in corp info which allows them to register as wormhole corp, and keep storing stuff in ship arrays. Next thing I know is people like crybabies in this thread arguing there should be a tax for this "extra utility", because "wormhole corps don't rely on bounties anyway,but those (insert generic dehumanizing term with insulting meaning, i.e. "carebears") deserve to pay for extra utility". Would that be tears? Tears indeed. And jealousy. "CCP gives other boys something but not me". Which is why, addressing reasoning like this, I'm keeping my smugness. A bugfix happened. Things went to how they were supposed to be. And some cry because they loved exploiting the bug to give themselves a free ride on it. No more. CCP has already listened to their tears and, as an exception among exceptions, given them the switch, which covers every valid use case they brought into discussion - and what? Now they want to penalize everyone for not being as exceptional as they are. You know the right answer to this? Because I do: cry me a retriever. 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.
Deekz Defining Harassment 6	Posted - 2015.02.12 22:04:10 - [125] - Quote Where is CCP and why aren't they having a discussion with the people who have a stake in this? There have been no discussions about this with the people in EVE who are affected by it. Changing playstyles is a big deal and CCP should be considering how we all feel about it before making this change. The very few responses by CCP have not be productive to the discussion, nor have they taken any of our concerns into consideration. There are many good arguments here for and against the change. Can we please get some feedback CCP?
Basil Pupkin Why So Platypus 115	Posted - 2015.02.13 07:26:06 - [126] - Quote Deekz wrote: Where is CCP and why aren't they having a discussion with the people who have a stake in this? There have been no discussions about this with the people in EVE who are affected by it. Changing playstyles is a big deal and CCP should be considering how we all feel about it before making this change. The very few responses by CCP have not be productive to the discussion, nor have they taken any of our concerns into consideration. There are many good arguments here for and against the change. Can we please get some feedback CCP? It was ran with CSM, and honestly, CCP is being extremely considerate on the matter. The correct way were just equalize NPC corps with player corps so it was both "FF illegal". But tears were shed about RvB freeforalls (which are, arguably, but content), and about people who wanted to keep their freighter webbing bots functional without going thru pain of updating them with dueling the freighter. CCP went extra length and delayed the removal of corp aggression hack to implement the switch, which covered each and every, however crazy, use-case cons have brought into discussion. Now I can understand their answers too. Should they say what I say, every freighter in the new eden would be needed to counter the tear flood. They cannot publicly admit that the whole AWOX snafu was a bug, and it's getting fixed, and instead cover the issue with "player retention" and "meaningful choices", and other various unrelated stuff. I know you feel they lie to you and get agitated, but the truth will call #eveisdying and #evegonesoft tear-nado of incredible proportions from people who made it their "playstyle" to enjoy every bug which gives them stuff without trying. Check this thread, we're hearing all kinds of completely hypocritical rationalizations like "some people deserve to be awoxed" or "I haven't been asked" or downright "bawww noobs are getting extra protection what am I going to do without free targets?". Bottom line: The change is a bugfix, a hack removal. CCP were super extra considerate to your concerns, and delayed removing this hack for more than a year to give you a switch, in order to be able to bypass an iron rule "no FREE non-consensual pvp in hisec" (there's still a crap lot more of it in hisec, despite being not free, than in any other place). Switch has covered every valid use-case CSM and their respondents could think of. You want dialogue - become CSM member or enlist with one (just not Sabriz and Tora, two cretins are just trolling and sabotaging the whole point of CSM) and become his respondent, because that's how dialog were had, because that's how you got the switch instead of just hack removal, and not even happy with this gift. Shame on you. 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.
Claud Tiberius Fidelas Constans 94	Posted - 2015.02.13 11:06:56 - [127] - Quote Deekz wrote: Where is CCP and why aren't they having a discussion with the people who have a stake in this? There have been no discussions about this with the people in EVE who are affected by it. Changing playstyles is a big deal and CCP should be considering how we all feel about it before making this change. The very few responses by CCP have not be productive to the discussion, nor have they taken any of our concerns into consideration. There are many good arguments here for and against the change. Can we please get some feedback CCP? More often than not, the Dev Blogs will have CCP's opinion. There is a whole page dedicated to Friendly Fire. Once upon a time the Golem had a Raven hull and it looked good. Then it transformed into a plataduck. The end.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [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.