| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 16 post(s) |
|
CCP Phantom
C C P
C C P Alliance
5257
   |
Posted - 2015.02.09 15:01:55 -
[1] - Quote
With Tiamat, to be released on February 17, we will get first improvements to the management of corporations aimed to support CEO's and directors with managing their corporations.
Regular members will also benefit from the new "Friendly Fire" toggle which allows corporations to choose (with a cooldown of 24 hours) if friendly fire within the corporation stays legal as it is now or if it should become illegal so that CONCORD will take action.
Read more about the Friendly Fire control and the corporations management improvements in CCP Punkturis' latest blog Corp Little Things & Friendly Fire Control.
CCP Phantom - Senior Community Representative - Volunteer Manager
|
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P
C C P Alliance
5653
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 15:02:55 -
[2] - Quote
o/
GÖÑ EVE Brogrammer
GÖÑ Team Five 0 GÖÑ
@CCP_Punkturis GÖÑ
|
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P
C C P Alliance
1677
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 15:03:25 -
[3] - Quote
Shoot all the greens!
"This one time, on patch day..."
@ccp_masterplan | Team Five-0: Rewriting the law
|
|
Dominique Vasilkovsky
BFG Tech
167
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 15:10:32 -
[4] - Quote
First non-dev?
Dominique Vasilkovsky EVEboard
Once known as:
Mashie Saldana sold - Anastasia Rigel sold - Monica Foulkes sold
|
|
CCP Lebowski
C C P
C C P Alliance
451
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 15:11:19 -
[5] - Quote
Turn your safetys on for Tiamat!
Or, you know, don't. I'm not the boss of you..... 
CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0
@CCP_Lebowski
|
|
big miker
Rifterlings
Point Blank Alliance
269
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 15:18:08 -
[6] - Quote
Can't wait for the roles update though 
Latest video: Ferocious 4.0 Official Release
|
|
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
4875
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 15:18:57 -
[7] - Quote
I'm obsessed with Tove Lo. Great blog!
@ccp_rise
|
|
TheSmokingHertog
TALIBAN EXPRESS
286
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 15:19:26 -
[8] - Quote
CCP wrote:Your communities keep getting bigger and more popular, with groups such as Spectre Fleet and RvB Ganked getting close to the maximum mailing list size. To enable them to keep growing, weGÇÖve upped the limit on mailing list membership from 3000 people to 5000.
So, we now upped the amount of people in a corporation limit, the limit of mailing lists, but Contracts and Market Orders stay still the same. I really dont get this.
The "What next?" looks awesome btw. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
12207
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 15:28:21 -
[9] - Quote
Dominique Vasilkovsky wrote:So by default will the safety be on or off come Fab 17th?
Existing corps will default to friendly fire being legal, since that's the way it works pre-patch.
New corps will have to choose which option they prefer at corp creation.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
|
CCP Sharq
C C P
C C P Alliance
148
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 15:33:56 -
[10] - Quote
o/
Rock & Roles!
CCP Sharq | Team Five-0
|
|
Lyron-Baktos
Future Corps
Sleeper Social Club
471
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 15:38:51 -
[11] - Quote
Hopefully the changes to roles is right around the corner |
John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force
The Kadeshi
152
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 15:42:45 -
[12] - Quote
So pretty much this is a high-sec only change because it does precisely bog all for low sec and null sec where there's no concord. Any fool can still join a corp, can still awox by running around shooting everyone in your corp, your alliance and your blue list, you still can't remove them until they've docked or logged off which in itself assumes you have a Director or CEO online because you still haven't added the option to remove people from a corporation to the Personnel Officer role, and, if they have roles, still can't remove them for 24 hours, the inevitable conclusion being that you're removed from your alliance as a precaution, are invariably trapped in what is now hostile space, having to wait for your application back to the alliance to be accepted by the Alliance leader, who, if on holiday, leaves you right up the shitter without a paddle thereby ruining the game experience for that entire corporation's members. This is not a worthwhile change. |
Andre Vauban
Quantum Cats Syndicate
370
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 15:51:45 -
[13] - Quote
"Setting friendly fire as legal or illegal"
Can you elaborate on how this will work with FW and faction standing hits? If the setting is illegal, will you take a faction standing hit (like shooting friendly militia today) or no standing hit (like shooting a FW corpmate today)? Can you also confirm that after this change that if friendly fire is legal, shooting a corp mate will continue to not incur a faction standing penalty.
QCATS is recruiting:-á
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3896299
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
512
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 15:56:06 -
[14] - Quote
...drools at the final teaser picture
in all seriousness great improvements all round, and a well stated case for the friendly fire change too!
:golfclap: |
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P
C C P Alliance
1680
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 15:59:09 -
[15] - Quote
Andre Vauban wrote:"Setting friendly fire as legal or illegal"
Can you elaborate on how this will work with FW and faction standing hits? If the setting is illegal, will you take a faction standing hit (like shooting friendly militia today) or no standing hit (like shooting a FW corpmate today)? Can you also confirm that after this change that if friendly fire is legal, shooting a corp mate will continue to not incur a faction standing penalty.
If both characters are in the same faction:
* A legal attack on a corpmate will not incur any faction penalty
* An illegal attack on a corpmate will incur a faction penalty
Limited engagements and other cases will always make an attack legal, regardless of the corp setting.
"This one time, on patch day..."
@ccp_masterplan | Team Five-0: Rewriting the law
|
|
Shailagh
WTB Somalians
76
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 16:00:47 -
[16] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Dominique Vasilkovsky wrote:So by default will the safety be on or off come Fab 17th? Existing corps will default to friendly fire being legal, since that's the way it works pre-patch. New corps will have to choose which option they prefer at corp creation.
You left out that for new corps that "choose", the defaulted option is FF Off... |
Shailagh
WTB Somalians
76
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 16:14:06 -
[17] - Quote
It says in the corp search, you can filter out all the evil FF-ON corps.
Will you be giving us the option to filter out the risk-adverse FF-OFF corps? And only search for FF Enabled corps??
If not, why the disparity? |
|
CCP Lebowski
C C P
C C P Alliance
451
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 16:15:25 -
[18] - Quote
John McCreedy wrote:So pretty much this is a high-sec only change because it does precisely bog all for low sec and null sec where there's no concord. Any fool can still join a corp, can still awox by running around shooting everyone in your corp [...] Correct! These friendly fire changes only affect the 'legality' of an offensive act against corp mates, so will mostly only affect actions in high sec. This is completely intentional.
John McCreedy wrote: [...] you still can't remove them until they've docked or logged off which in itself assumes you have a Director or CEO online because you still haven't added the option to remove people from a corporation to the Personnel Officer role, and, if they have roles, still can't remove them for 24 hours, the inevitable conclusion being that you're removed from your alliance as a precaution, are invariably trapped in what is now hostile space, having to wait for your application back to the alliance to be accepted by the Alliance leader, who, if on holiday, leaves you right up the shitter without a paddle thereby ruining the game experience for that entire corporation's members. This is not a worthwhile change. That seems to be a really specific set of circumstances that have lead to that situation!
There's also a really good reason you can't kick someone while they are logged on in space, as this could lead to all manner of war dec and crimewatch explotation (Just one off the top of my head: Guy joins legal ff corp, directer tells guy to shoot him, director kicks guys before he opens fire, guy opens fire and suffers a swift death at the hands of concord) As we mentioned in the blog, the work Five 0 are doing on the roles system is underway, and concerns such as yours about the personnel manager will be taken into account, but the work is currently not ready to be discussed so please bear with us and watch out for more communication from Five 0 in the future!
Additionally, you may not be aware but we've recently added a corp auto kick queue that ensures unwanted members are kicked from the corp at the next downtime, which does a small amount to mitigate your problem.
John McCreedy wrote:How would you like me to take a job in CCP, bring a Cricket bat with me and start tearing up the place, smashing the computers and knocking seven bells out of the staff and laugh as it takes you twenty four hours to get rid of me assuming Hilmar is at work that day? That's what it is to be a CEO in low sec/null sec in Eve. I'm no expert on the subject but I'm fairly sure our hiring process would mitigate this concern, maybe yours should too? 
CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0
@CCP_Lebowski
|
|
Shailagh
WTB Somalians
76
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 16:19:31 -
[19] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote: I'm no expert on the subject but I'm fairly sure our hiring process would mitigate this concern, maybe yours should too? Lol
Lol if bears were capable of doing so, this change wouldnt be necessary. Dont we all wish their corps could have standards to hiring but come on man, we dont live in Neverland. This is eve where ceos just randomly click Accept and need to be protected from their actions by you devs |
Shailagh
WTB Somalians
76
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 16:30:07 -
[20] - Quote
Seriously why cant we search only for corps with FF Enabled (legal)??? |
l0rd carlos
TURN DOWN.
The Camel Empire
1149
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 16:31:02 -
[21] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I'm obsessed with Tove Lo. Great blog!
Mmmm, the Hippie Sabotage Remix from Habits (Stay High) is pretty nice.
German blog about smallscale lowsec pvp: http://friendsofharassment.wordpress.com
|
|
CCP Lebowski
C C P
C C P Alliance
453
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 16:35:28 -
[22] - Quote
Shailagh wrote:You left out that for new corps that "choose", the defaulted option is FF Off... Saying that the option is default off is not quite fair as it's simply a check-box in the 'Create Corporation' window and can be changed before the Corp is created.
Here's the window for reference.
Shailagh wrote:It says in the corp search, you can filter out all the evil FF-ON corps.
Will you be giving us the option to filter out the risk-adverse FF-OFF corps? And only search for FF Enabled corps??
If not, why the disparity? This was simply done in the same way that the current 'Exclude Corporations in Alliances' checkbox works, and was not intentionally meant to only provide one option and not the other. I agree with you on this, it might be best to give both options, and Ill see if the team agrees and if its feasible for Tiamat.
CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0
@CCP_Lebowski
|
|
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys
Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
808
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 16:47:45 -
[23] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote:John McCreedy wrote:How would you like me to take a job in CCP, bring a Cricket bat with me and start tearing up the place, smashing the computers and knocking seven bells out of the staff and laugh as it takes you twenty four hours to get rid of me assuming Hilmar is at work that day? That's what it is to be a CEO in low sec/null sec in Eve. I'm no expert on the subject but I'm fairly sure our hiring process would mitigate this concern, maybe yours should too?
Yeah, like CCP would hire someone brandishing something as timid as a cricket bat.
Vote Sabriz!
|
|
CCP Lebowski
C C P
C C P Alliance
453
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 16:48:13 -
[24] - Quote
Damn son, you're not wrong!
CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0
@CCP_Lebowski
|
|
Jakob Anedalle
Aideron Robotics
78
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 16:55:16 -
[25] - Quote
I notice that in some screenshots the values for Friendly Fire was "Legal / Illegal" and in some it was "Enable/Disable"
Recommend using one value pair for consistency.
Trying out all the things to do here in Eve - it's quite a checklist.
So I made a blog Jakob's Eve Checklist
|
|
CCP Lebowski
C C P
C C P Alliance
454
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 16:59:14 -
[26] - Quote
Jakob Anedalle wrote:I notice that in some screenshots the values for Friendly Fire was "Legal / Illegal" and in some it was "Enable/Disable"
Recommend using one value pair for consistency. Well spotted! This has been changed to "Legal/Illegal" in all cases now, if you do notice any inconsistencies on Singularity or after Tiamat hits TQ feel free to submit a bug report and I'll make sure its fixed.
CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0
@CCP_Lebowski
|
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3171
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 17:00:46 -
[27] - Quote
how much does concord protection cost?
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
|
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
252
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 17:07:18 -
[28] - Quote
AWOXing simply meant tackling someone in a shiny ship and cynoing / jumping a hostile fleet on top of them to kill them. Nowadays it is used for pretty much any blue-on-blue spy-related incident.
Please allow the tackling of corp members 
The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans.
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg
|
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
13999
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 17:13:34 -
[29] - Quote
Shooting myself you say... 
GÿàGÿàGÿà Secure 3rd party service GÿàGÿàGÿà
Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar'
Twitter @Chribba
|
|
Soko99
Repercussus
Goonswarm Federation
74
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 17:13:43 -
[30] - Quote
So what's the cost of this beautiful CONCORD protection?
After all, everything should have a price. If there's no COST to turning friendly fire OFF, then why would any HS corp ever turn it ON?
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3132
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 17:19:19 -
[31] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote:John McCreedy wrote:How would you like me to take a job in CCP, bring a Cricket bat with me and start tearing up the place, smashing the computers and knocking seven bells out of the staff and laugh as it takes you twenty four hours to get rid of me assuming Hilmar is at work that day? That's what it is to be a CEO in low sec/null sec in Eve. I'm no expert on the subject but I'm fairly sure our hiring process would mitigate this concern, maybe yours should too?
Comparing hiring in the real world with Eve is a poor idea. In the real world I cannot instantly create a new "me" that totally hides any and all previous bad behavior or criminal activity.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
|
CCP Lebowski
C C P
C C P Alliance
454
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 17:22:41 -
[32] - Quote
X posting from the forum feedback thread as its relevant:
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.
CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0
@CCP_Lebowski
|
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3132
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 17:23:56 -
[33] - Quote
So whats the cost of the CEO turning FF on, thereby giving himself a corp full of free, legal targets?
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Soko99
Repercussus
Goonswarm Federation
74
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 17:35:33 -
[34] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote:X posting from the forum feedback thread as its relevant: 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 still don't see how the fear of being AWOXED locks people into solo play? If you're so risk averse that you don't dare join a corp for fear of being blown up, then why on earth would you even undock? I know a lot of people that have 1 man corps, but none of it is because they're afraid of being blown up, it's just that they want their own corps for whatever reason.
Maybe I'm just old school and am not in touch with the newbies coming into the game, but is making the game less risk averse the solution?
|
Soko99
Repercussus
Goonswarm Federation
74
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 17:36:30 -
[35] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:So whats the cost of the CEO turning FF on, thereby giving himself a corp full of free, legal targets?
GREAT question.
I can already see it.. Create corp, Advertise as FF OFF, bring in a bunch of shiny incursion runners/missioners. Bring in your buddies. turn FF ON and watch the tears.
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3133
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 17:41:20 -
[36] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:So whats the cost of the CEO turning FF on, thereby giving himself a corp full of free, legal targets? GREAT question. I can already see it.. Create corp, Advertise as FF OFF, bring in a bunch of shiny incursion runners/missioners. Bring in your buddies. turn FF ON and watch the tears.
You got it. The mitigation is the 24 hour notice. Of course, people need to actually check their notices.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
5861
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 17:42:29 -
[37] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote:Shailagh wrote:You left out that for new corps that "choose", the defaulted option is FF Off... Saying that the option is default off is not quite fair as it's simply a check-box in the 'Create Corporation' window and can be changed before the Corp is created. Here's the window for reference.
Um, yeah it is entirely fair. A checkbox that is presented unchecked is defaulted to off. If the checkbox defaulted to being checked when first presented, it would be fair to say the default is on.
In the spirit of Eve, you really ought to leave it checked by default and let them choose to turn it off. It's right there in their face at corp creation. The default status of any setting says a lot about the developers' intentions - and Eve was originally developed with that setting on.
.02
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
|
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys
Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
811
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 17:49:11 -
[38] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Soko99 wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:So whats the cost of the CEO turning FF on, thereby giving himself a corp full of free, legal targets? GREAT question. I can already see it.. Create corp, Advertise as FF OFF, bring in a bunch of shiny incursion runners/missioners. Bring in your buddies. turn FF ON and watch the tears. You got it. The mitigation is the 24 hour notice. Of course, people need to actually check their notices.
Two notices, if I read correctly: one when the 24 hour period begins and one when it ends.
Vote Sabriz!
|
|
CCP Lebowski
C C P
C C P Alliance
454
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 17:57:43 -
[39] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:The default status of any setting says a lot about the developers' intentions - and Eve was originally developed with that setting on. Saying that suggests that we also intend you to name your corporation after yourself & have a 0% tax rate!
In all seriousness though I do take your point regarding this, it's just that extrapolating developer intent from the default option is a dangerous game. We expect that many corps will take advantage of the option of concord intervention, whereas many others will want to have the convenience of legal friendly fire. Either option is fine with us, as long as we're sure the consequences of either option are clear.
Ned Thomas wrote:Two notices, if I read correctly: one when the 24 hour period begins and one when it ends. Correct!
CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0
@CCP_Lebowski
|
|
Shailagh
WTB Somalians
76
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 18:04:00 -
[40] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote:War Kitten wrote:The default status of any setting says a lot about the developers' intentions - and Eve was originally developed with that setting on. Saying that suggests that we also intend you to name your corporation after yourself & have a 0% tax rate! In all seriousness though I do take your point regarding this, it's just that extrapolating developer intent from the default option is a dangerous game. We expect that many corps will take advantage of the option of concord intervention, whereas many others will want to have the convenience of legal friendly fire. Either option is fine with us, as long as we're sure the consequences of either option are clear. Ned Thomas wrote:Two notices, if I read correctly: one when the 24 hour period begins and one when it ends. Correct!
Whats the consequence of turning FF off???
I get you guys dont want a tax, what about a wardec-esque fee? Say 50mill a month?
Give ANY consequence for turning it off please.
Any.
Also which one are you alluding to in your post? What consequences for turning it OFF? |
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys
Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
811
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 18:05:03 -
[41] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote:Ned Thomas wrote:Two notices, if I read correctly: one when the 24 hour period begins and one when it ends. Correct!
Since someone will ask this, I'll go ahead and be the one to do it: is there any thought to adding a similar second notification at the start and end of war decs?
Vote Sabriz!
|
Mag's
the united
19008
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 18:08:50 -
[42] - Quote
Just as I asked at EvE_NT.
Can we have a tax associated with this switch being active?
If you want it to be illegal to shoot corp members, then you should be paying Concord at least 10% tax.
**Destination SkillQueue:- **
It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Lord Battlestar
Faulcon de Lazy
206
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 18:19:47 -
[43] - Quote
Looks good, I think it is a great idea to make it optional. And the increased mailing list idea is great too.
I once podded myself by blowing a huge fart.
|
Desert Ice78
Gryphons of the Western Wind
447
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 18:24:08 -
[44] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:So whats the cost of the CEO turning FF on, thereby giving himself a corp full of free, legal targets? GREAT question. I can already see it.. Create corp, Advertise as FF OFF, bring in a bunch of shiny incursion runners/missioners. Bring in your buddies. turn FF ON and watch the tears.
CONFIRM QUIT CORPORATION - YES/NO?
I am a pod pilot:
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg
CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused.
|
Maenth
The Thirteen Provinces
16
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 18:33:12 -
[45] - Quote
I like this attention to detail! For the 'character' of my corp I would like to make FF Illegal (and seriously we should say it like that, because "ON" and "OFF" are too vague: does "ON" mean that FF is allowed, or does it mean the new feature is active?)
However, for the safety of my my corp members' ships I can't enable this with 100% comfort and therefore will not. To my knowledge, issuing the command for drones to attack overrides the 'safety' setting rules, and on some occasions we tap our repair targets with attack drones while the safety is green so if we apply this new FF-ILLEGAL rule, then occasionally someone may lose their ship during missions by accidentally drone-striking a friend.
Soooo is there any chance of that getting fixed here? Because for me, this is a deal breaker, and I can't use this new feature which I would love, while drones continue to disobey the safety setting
Drones. Drones are a means to an end. An end to the ruthless Caldari 'progress' machines. An end to the barbaric 'redemption' proposed by the Amarr. What they see as chaos shall be my perfect order, merely beyond their comprehension.
|
SeneschaI
Ordo Ministorum
Violent Society
16
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 18:34:11 -
[46] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Soko99 wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:So whats the cost of the CEO turning FF on, thereby giving himself a corp full of free, legal targets? GREAT question. I can already see it.. Create corp, Advertise as FF OFF, bring in a bunch of shiny incursion runners/missioners. Bring in your buddies. turn FF ON and watch the tears. You got it. The mitigation is the 24 hour notice. Of course, people need to actually check their notices.
sure it is the new way to grief play. course, it'll take effort, and we all know griefers just love their low effort, low risk (to themselves) playstyle.
Of course, there's already scammer corps out their already, so it'll just be another flavour to the mix.
FYI, there's a new thing out their called Zkillboard - great for spotting blue on blues in corp history.
BTW, personally, i'd welcome this new griefer corp flavour: it would make older corps more attractive |
SeneschaI
Ordo Ministorum
Violent Society
16
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 18:43:48 -
[47] - Quote
Maenth wrote:Soooo is there any chance of that getting fixed here? Because for me, this is a deal breaker, and I can't use this new feature which I would love, while drones continue to disobey the safety setting
really? that would take me all of 5 minutes to confirm on the test server. |
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys
Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
812
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 18:45:56 -
[48] - Quote
Maenth wrote:I like this attention to detail! For the 'character' of my corp I would like to make FF Illegal (and seriously we should say it like that, because "ON" and "OFF" are too vague: does "ON" mean that FF is allowed, or does it mean the new feature is active?)
However, for the safety of my my corp members' ships I can't enable this with 100% comfort and therefore will not. To my knowledge, issuing the command for drones to attack overrides the 'safety' setting rules, and on some occasions we tap our repair targets with attack drones while the safety is green so if we apply this new FF-ILLEGAL rule, then occasionally someone may lose their ship during missions by accidentally drone-striking a friend.
Soooo is there any chance of that getting fixed here? Because for me, this is a deal breaker, and I can't use this new feature which I would love, while drones continue to disobey the safety setting
I know drones do weird things sometimes, but I've never heard of them overriding a green safety.
Vote Sabriz!
|
SeneschaI
Ordo Ministorum
Violent Society
16
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 18:53:46 -
[49] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:I know drones do weird things sometimes, but I've never heard of them overriding a green safety. only thing i remember a long time ago was accidentally repairing NPC ships in a mission, using repair drones instead of attack. boom! haha...i shoulda read that warning popup closely.
|
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
234
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 19:03:16 -
[50] - Quote
I'm not against the whole stopping Friendly Fire in Player corps.. But I think there needs to be a consequence.
I suggest a Tax. Call it a "Concord Protection Fee". NPC Corps are what? 11% Tax? So they aren't NPC and are now player, so call it 7%. 7% tax on everything in exchange for Concord Protection.
NOW you have a choice to make. Do you want to live tax free, do you want protection, make your choice.
This seems like a fair way to enable the system. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3133
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 19:12:12 -
[51] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:I'm not against the whole stopping Friendly Fire in Player corps.. But I think there needs to be a consequence.
I suggest a Tax. Call it a "Concord Protection Fee". NPC Corps are what? 11% Tax? So they aren't NPC and are now player, so call it 7%. 7% tax on everything in exchange for Concord Protection.
NOW you have a choice to make. Do you want to live tax free, do you want protection, make your choice.
This seems like a fair way to enable the system.
But I can get both by making a one man corp; just me and my alts. No issues with FF, no tax. But now the consequence is solo play.
Do we really want the best min-max playstyle to be solo play?
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Soko99
Repercussus
Goonswarm Federation
74
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 19:18:08 -
[52] - Quote
SeneschaI wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:Soko99 wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:So whats the cost of the CEO turning FF on, thereby giving himself a corp full of free, legal targets? GREAT question. I can already see it.. Create corp, Advertise as FF OFF, bring in a bunch of shiny incursion runners/missioners. Bring in your buddies. turn FF ON and watch the tears. You got it. The mitigation is the 24 hour notice. Of course, people need to actually check their notices. sure it is the new way to grief play. course, it'll take effort, and we all know griefers just love their low effort, low risk (to themselves) playstyle. Of course, there's already scammer corps out there, so it'll just be another flavour to the mix. FYI, there's a new thing out there called Zkillboard - great for spotting blue on blues in corp history. BTW, personally, i'd welcome this new griefer corp flavour: it would make older corps more attractive
I don't know if I'd say it's the love of low risk playstyle.. it's more the effort and the outsmarting your enemy that makes people do it. As you said.. there's plenty of ways to identify blue on blue. And unless someone makes a new alt that's completely clean and does it with that, you can find out AWOXERs and corp thieves pretty quickly.. Just takes the effort to research. Now if it's a bran spanking clean toon, then the guy obviously put a lot of effort into making that character so he's just as entitled to be able to AWOX as the guy that is trying do defend himself from it.
but that's just my .02 cents. |
Soko99
Repercussus
Goonswarm Federation
74
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 19:19:55 -
[53] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Sniper Smith wrote:I'm not against the whole stopping Friendly Fire in Player corps.. But I think there needs to be a consequence.
I suggest a Tax. Call it a "Concord Protection Fee". NPC Corps are what? 11% Tax? So they aren't NPC and are now player, so call it 7%. 7% tax on everything in exchange for Concord Protection.
NOW you have a choice to make. Do you want to live tax free, do you want protection, make your choice.
This seems like a fair way to enable the system. But I can get both by making a one man corp; just me and my alts. No issues with FF, no tax. But now the consequence is solo play. Do we really want the best min-max playstyle to be solo play?
the drawback of that is that you're playing solo and have no friends to play with.
that option is there already.. so nothing changes, which makes it that this change is absolutely useless.. However, if there's absolutely no cost to turning FF OFF, then why even have the option. Just turn it off and be done with it. Since nobody in their right mind would turn it on anyways. |
|
CCP Lebowski
C C P
C C P Alliance
459
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 19:27:43 -
[54] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:the drawback of that is that you're playing solo and have no friends to play with. As mentioned in the quoted post from CCP Fozzie, this is really not the kind of drawback we want as part of the games mechanics.
Soko99 wrote:However, if there's absolutely no cost to turning FF OFF, then why even have the option. Just turn it off and be done with it. Since nobody in their right mind would turn it on anyways. There are definitely some reasonable reasons to keep it available. One example would be an any organization like RvB who have free-for-all fights with members of the same corporation.
CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0
@CCP_Lebowski
|
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3133
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 19:28:15 -
[55] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:
the drawback of that is that you're playing solo and have no friends to play with.
that option is there already.. so nothing changes, which makes it that this change is absolutely useless.. However, if there's absolutely no cost to turning FF OFF, then why even have the option. Just turn it off and be done with it. Since nobody in their right mind would turn it on anyways.
We agree the drawback of a one man corp is solo play. But if there was a ff tax, and you are a min-maxer, then you would say "The best way to min-max is be in a one man corp". For the health of eve, that is undesirable. Thus we should not have a game mechanic that encourages it in any way.
And there is a cost to turning FF off. You cannot have corp free for alls, tank testing is more annoying, and web slinging freighters is more annoying, and many players will shun you corp.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Soko99
Repercussus
Goonswarm Federation
74
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 19:34:58 -
[56] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:
We agree the drawback of a one man corp is solo play. But if there was a ff tax, and you are a min-maxer, then you would say "The best way to min-max is be in a one man corp". For the health of eve, that is undesirable. Thus we should not have a game mechanic that encourages it in any way.
I agreee.. but I also find that making the game safer is also not good for the health of eve as well.. I got can flipped my first 2 days.. got blown up trying to 1 steal my stuff back, and then when I went back to try and fight the guy.. I'm still playing. and paying. It's what makes EvE so different from other games.
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3133
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 19:44:30 -
[57] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:
We agree the drawback of a one man corp is solo play. But if there was a ff tax, and you are a min-maxer, then you would say "The best way to min-max is be in a one man corp". For the health of eve, that is undesirable. Thus we should not have a game mechanic that encourages it in any way.
I agreee.. but I also find that making the game safer is also not good for the health of eve as well.. I got can flipped my first 2 days.. got blown up trying to 1 steal my stuff back, and then when I went back to try and fight the guy.. I'm still playing. and paying. It's what makes EvE so different from other games.
You are, many others are not. The result is CCP cannot hire the devs needed to fix all the issues in this game.
Also, this change does not make the game safer. It is equally safe to be in a one man corp right now.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Soko99
Repercussus
Goonswarm Federation
74
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 19:49:13 -
[58] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Soko99 wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:
We agree the drawback of a one man corp is solo play. But if there was a ff tax, and you are a min-maxer, then you would say "The best way to min-max is be in a one man corp". For the health of eve, that is undesirable. Thus we should not have a game mechanic that encourages it in any way.
I agreee.. but I also find that making the game safer is also not good for the health of eve as well.. I got can flipped my first 2 days.. got blown up trying to 1 steal my stuff back, and then when I went back to try and fight the guy.. I'm still playing. and paying. It's what makes EvE so different from other games. You are, many others are not. The result is CCP cannot hire the devs needed to fix all the issues in this game. Also, this change does not make the game safer. It is equally safe to be in a one man corp right now.
but you had a risk in any other corp.. now you don't. thus safer |
Gorongo Frostfyr
106
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 20:00:13 -
[59] - Quote
Anyone else went to check out http://katrin.is/ ? |
Mynxee
Signal Cartel
EvE-Scout Enclave
66
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 20:22:37 -
[60] - Quote
Those are some really helpful changes...and *sigh* that last image...such a promise of more good stuff to come! After so many years of thinking these kinds of changes would never be addressed, it's great to see them getting some love.
Lost in space, looking for sigs...
Blog: Outlaw Insouciant
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P
C C P Alliance
5662
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 20:30:39 -
[61] - Quote
Mynxee wrote:Those are some really helpful changes...and *sigh* that last image...such a promise of more good stuff to come! After so many years of thinking these kinds of changes would never be addressed, it's great to see them getting some love.
GÖÑ EVE Brogrammer
GÖÑ Team Five 0 GÖÑ
@CCP_Punkturis GÖÑ
|
|
Nam Dnilb
Universal Frog
236
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 20:33:47 -
[62] - Quote
CCP Purple Tentacle is up to no good. I have that on good authority. NEVER grant that one any roles. |
Triffton Ambraelle
Deep Space Supply and Logistics Company
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 20:42:39 -
[63] - Quote
I don't know if this has been addressed yet, but this is the Internet. We don't read four pages of thread discussion anyway!
My question is, how is this going to affect wanted green-on-green "hostility"? Example:
When moving stuff (ore, etc), we use a corpmate in a frigate to Web our freighters for faster alignment. With ff flagged as Illegal for the corp, this would trigger crime watch and CONCORD, correct?
Also, would this affect in-corp logi support? |
Shailagh
WTB Somalians
82
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 21:22:04 -
[64] - Quote
Currently- If a corp is at war and an out-of-corp dude uses logi to rep, they get a suspect flag.
What if FF is off now, corp is at war and even an in corpmate uses logi? Suspect?
Also, if im in a risk-adverse FF-Illegal corp and convince a guy to start repping my frigate. I then shoot him (causing concords wrath) does this also concord him for repping a criminal? This is how it currently works, so guess it can still happen cuz now shooting him is a criminal act? This sounds cool |
Triffton Ambraelle
Deep Space Supply and Logistics Company
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 21:25:58 -
[65] - Quote
An obvious, though very restrictive, workaround is the Duel system. Effective, yes, but a pain in the ass. And it's truly only useful for this purpose in a very limited set of circumstances. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
Cosmic Consortium
5744
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 23:11:09 -
[66] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Just as I asked at EvE_NT.
Can we have a tax associated with this switch being active?
If you want it to be illegal to shoot corp members, then you should be paying Concord at least 10% tax.
Not a 10% tax. Remember that with wardecs you are paying for targets. The cost goes up as the corp size increases. Same thing for anti-wardeccing your own corp, which is how this festure works.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Prolapse.
2047
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 23:30:22 -
[67] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote:War Kitten wrote:The default status of any setting says a lot about the developers' intentions - and Eve was originally developed with that setting on. Saying that suggests that we also intend you to name your corporation after yourself & have a 0% tax rate! In all seriousness though I do take your point regarding this, it's just that extrapolating developer intent from the default option is a dangerous game. We expect that many corps will take advantage of the option of concord intervention, whereas many others will want to have the convenience of legal friendly fire. Either option is fine with us, as long as we're sure the consequences of either option are clear.
So, here's my idea - why not have a series of prompts when setting up a corp which pop up like windows when you are installing a program/app? A tickybox can be missed - a window which pops up, with an explanation, requiring an input and a decision by the budding CEO, is going to be more effective at making it an explicit choice than leaving it as a passive pre-selected choice.
Would you like to have an AWOXing corp, Y/N?
Secondly, I grok the whole send an invite thing - it will be useful for recruiters to send a quick invite to a prospective recruit. HOWEVER, can you please, like duel invitess, put in a tickybox which allows us to turn invites off? People are going to use this to send unsolicited invite spam to characters and clog up your day with notifications and bullschnitzel.
Finally, there's a lot of people complaining about the AWOX-off feature. Get over it, this is a good thing(tm) and will improve corp lives all round.
You may think that AWOX-on is stupid and no one would join the corp. However, we will be keeping AWOX-on because you cannot web your freighters off gates in highsec if there's CONCORD intervention.
hashtagTF4CSMX
http://www.localectomy.blogspot.com.au
|
Justa Hunni
State War Academy
Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 23:43:19 -
[68] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:
Now if it's a bran spanking clean toon, then the guy obviously put a lot of effort into making that character so he's just as entitled to be able to AWOX as the guy that is trying do defend himself from it.
but that's just my .02 cents.
Yeah that whole 15 minutes to create a clean account and toon is just SOOOO much work.  Ever check out the "10 hour hero"?
http://www.themittani.com/features/eve-scams-schemes-10-hour-hero?page=0%2C3
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1907
|
Posted - 2015.02.09 23:53:09 -
[69] - Quote
Shailagh wrote:Currently- If a corp is at war and an out-of-corp dude uses logi to rep, they get a suspect flag.
What if FF is off now, corp is at war and even an in corpmate uses logi? Suspect?
Also, if im in a risk-adverse FF-Illegal corp and convince a guy to start repping my frigate. I then shoot him (causing concords wrath) does this also concord him for repping a criminal? This is how it currently works, so guess it can still happen cuz now shooting him is a criminal act? This sounds cool
Does repping a corp mate in a war fight currently cause suspect?
And as for your second example, if his safety is green or yellow, then his repping stops. Since that is how it currently works. If he has a red safety for some reason, then yes he'll get concorded, but you could have just convinced him to shoot you instead and saved your own ship in that case. |
Meta2
Meta Holdings Corporation
5
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 00:17:26 -
[70] - Quote
Sounds like some more useless changes... how about some useful changes?
1. Even my Buick Lucerne has lo-jack... and a security system that prevents unauthorized access.
How about starships from the future having the same thing? Prefix code anyone? Sure make it hackable by people with the hacking skill but no one not even in the future wouldn't have a lock on their ship.
2. Make anyone with fuel access to towers have the option to receive e-mails... regardless of what role.
I enjoyed losing my billions of isk Marauder in the wormhole because I received no notice the tower was low on fuel and the corporation hadn't given me fuel rights so I never received any notice. They said I could of used the redneck method of checking the tower but whatever.
3. Alliance Bookmarks - Their time has come! I complained bitterly and years ago we got corporate bookmarks.
4. FFS fixing the access roles SHOULD BE TOP PRIORITY above all the rest of this.
There my rant is satisfied. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3139
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 00:18:20 -
[71] - Quote
For everyone talking about web-slinging freighters:
Remember you can always have the freighter pilot accept a duel from the webber. With an active duel, you can keep the safety set to green and still web your corp mate's freighter. Once you web the freighter, you will have a limited engagement going and the ability to safely web the freighter will persist, as long as you actually web the freighter once in awhile.
Yes, it is less convenient, but that is the cost of setting FF off.
You can also use duels for tank testing.
Also: With FF off you can still remote rep corp-mates, it is still legal. In fact, right now under present rules, you can fly up to any random person and remote rep them, without penalty. (It can really freak them out.) Just keep the safety set to green to prevent any accidents. (Oops, I activated the negative repair module. Oh, look there is CONCORD. What they do...... oh.)
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
112
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 01:42:46 -
[72] - Quote
Thank you CCPeeps for not giving in to risk-averse AWOXer tears and giving us this change as it were announced.
My FF would never be legal again.
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.
|
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys
Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
819
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 02:10:28 -
[73] - Quote
Basil Pupkin wrote:Thank you CCPeeps for not giving in to risk-averse AWOXer tears and giving us this change as it were announced.
My FF would never be legal again.
So you'll be recruiting brand new players left and right after the 17th, correct?
Vote Sabriz!
|
Soko99
Repercussus
Goonswarm Federation
74
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 02:37:50 -
[74] - Quote
Justa Hunni wrote:Soko99 wrote:
Now if it's a bran spanking clean toon, then the guy obviously put a lot of effort into making that character so he's just as entitled to be able to AWOX as the guy that is trying do defend himself from it.
but that's just my .02 cents.
Yeah that whole 15 minutes to create a clean account and toon is just SOOOO much work. Ever check out the "10 hour hero"? http://www.themittani.com/features/eve-scams-schemes-10-hour-hero?page=0%2C3
Oh just noticed you're a Goon. Yeah no agenda in that post
Just cause I'm a goon doesn't mean I AWOX.. still it was part of the game that added risk and made people learn to trust each other.
Also.. what shiny ships do you intend to AWOX with that 10 hour toon? People AWOX for the glory, awoxing a t1 fitted cruiser isn't going to make the news.
|
Shailagh
WTB Somalians
86
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 04:07:34 -
[75] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:Basil Pupkin wrote:Thank you CCPeeps for not giving in to risk-averse AWOXer tears and giving us this change as it were announced.
My FF would never be legal again. So you'll be recruiting brand new players left and right after the 17th, correct?
Lmao god its so funny ccp thinks this is gonna make corps recruit noobs therefor increasing retention== money
Wardecs are the broken mechanic you are looking for devs.
FIX WARS |
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys
Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
820
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 04:59:38 -
[76] - Quote
Shailagh wrote:Ned Thomas wrote:Basil Pupkin wrote:Thank you CCPeeps for not giving in to risk-averse AWOXer tears and giving us this change as it were announced.
My FF would never be legal again. So you'll be recruiting brand new players left and right after the 17th, correct? Lmao god its so funny ccp thinks this is gonna make corps recruit noobs therefor increasing retention== money Wardecs are the broken mechanic you are looking for devs. FIX WARS
A) Shhhh.....
B)"fixing" wars wont make a difference
Vote Sabriz!
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1361
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 05:02:41 -
[77] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:Basil Pupkin wrote:Thank you CCPeeps for not giving in to risk-averse AWOXer tears and giving us this change as it were announced.
My FF would never be legal again. So you'll be recruiting brand new players left and right after the 17th, correct?
My understanding was that this was supposed to enhance the ability to securely recruit, not the desire to do so in all cases. Have you determined otherwise? |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
886
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 05:11:03 -
[78] - Quote
I would be pretty much fine with the ability to turn off player corporation friendly fire, if there were significant drawbacks. Such as, perhaps, the inability to join an alliance, the inability to anchor corporate structures, the inability to have more than a certain number of members, etc... or even all of the above.
However, I am extremely put off by the fact that there are quite literally no drawbacks at all to disabling friendly fire among corpmates. Flying in a player corporation with other people has always been an exercise in trust, one of the more significant aspects of which is the fact that you aren't wantonly blowing each other out of the sky for a minor profit. It's not as if highsec AWOXing is all that common, but until now it could happen to almost anyone, and was one of the unique challenges EVE presents to its players, challenging them to improve themselves and their play to succeed.
I'm sure I'll be dismissed as a piratical bittervet who hates newbies and fun, but the truth of the matter is the game is really losing something important here. Soon free-fire between corp members may well be a thing of the past, any degree of required care or meaningfulness in the practice of highsec recruiting gone, yet another formerly game-defining characteristic of EVE that future players may look back on in confusion, unable to imagine the advantages that came along with such a system and unaware of what they're missing out on.
Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
|
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
112
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 08:28:22 -
[79] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote:I would be pretty much fine with the ability to turn off player corporation friendly fire, if there were significant drawbacks. Such as, perhaps, the inability to join an alliance, the inability to anchor corporate structures, the inability to have more than a certain number of members, etc... or even all of the above.
Thanks for your tears contribution, your level of pain in the rear shows in how much you wanted to gut every good change in eve.
Iam Widdershins wrote:However, I am extremely put off by the fact that there are quite literally no drawbacks at all to disabling friendly fire among corpmates. Flying in a player corporation with other people has always been an exercise in trust, one of the more significant aspects of which is the fact that you aren't wantonly blowing each other out of the sky for a minor profit. It's not as if highsec AWOXing is all that common, but until now it could happen to almost anyone, and was one of the unique challenges EVE presents to its players, challenging them to improve themselves and their play to succeed.
This change is not in its own league, it's a fix to dumbmode awoxing, and it can't be judged out of context of dumbmode awoxing.
Within that context, the change is net positive, without a doubt.
If you want to keep your "exercise in trust" you are free to turn FF to legal and keep having it, your "unique challenge EVE presents", as long as you prefer. Who's stopping you?
Iam Widdershins wrote:I'm sure I'll be dismissed as a piratical bittervet who hates newbies and fun, but the truth of the matter is the game is really losing something important here. Soon free-fire between corp members may well be a thing of the past, any degree of required care or meaningfulness in the practice of highsec recruiting gone, yet another formerly game-defining characteristic of EVE that future players may look back on in confusion, unable to imagine the advantages that came along with such a system and unaware of what they're missing out on.
The only thing the game is losing is dumbmode awoxing. It was not game-defining, unless you were even more risk-averse than average suicide wanker (is that even possible?), in which case, eve is not the game for you.
If you think dumbmode awoxing and safari in newbie corps (you may pretend all you want, but most awoxers were just spamming apps and killing whoever they can, with no regard to ship or age) is "game-defining" or "unique challenge", then indeed, eve will only gain if it drops both those things and you.
Ned Thomas wrote:Basil Pupkin wrote:Thank you CCPeeps for not giving in to risk-averse AWOXer tears and giving us this change as it were announced.
My FF would never be legal again. So you'll be recruiting brand new players left and right after the 17th, correct?
I will recruit some people my mates recommended to me, whom I rejected due to lack of trust. Now that I know that orcas and freighters my mates have are safe from one-man certain death scenarios of total dumbmode awox.
I might offer helping hand to genuinely new players, but then again, I always did, and never requested them to join my corp, so no changes here - I guess I'm still not recruiting newbies without recommendation.
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.
|
Udonor
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
65
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 08:55:59 -
[80] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote:I would be pretty much fine with the ability to turn off player corporation friendly fire, if there were significant drawbacks. Such as, perhaps, the inability to join an alliance, the inability to anchor corporate structures, the inability to have more than a certain number of members, etc... or even all of the above.
However, I am extremely put off by the fact that there are quite literally no drawbacks at all to disabling friendly fire among corpmates. Flying in a player corporation with other people has always been an exercise in trust, one of the more significant aspects of which is the fact that you aren't wantonly blowing each other out of the sky for a minor profit. It's not as if highsec AWOXing is all that common, but until now it could happen to almost anyone, and was one of the unique challenges EVE presents to its players, challenging them to improve themselves and their play to succeed.
I'm sure I'll be dismissed as a piratical bittervet who hates newbies and fun, but the truth of the matter is the game is really losing something important here. Soon free-fire between corp members may well be a thing of the past, any degree of required care or meaningfulness in the practice of highsec recruiting gone, yet another formerly game-defining characteristic of EVE that future players may look back on in confusion, unable to imagine the advantages that came along with such a system and unaware of what they're missing out on.
Totally Agree.
First of all wrongs assumptions. Small Fleets are where socializing occurs NOT corps. Corp membership is irrelevant to fleets and EVE socializing. Most importantly most of the best social groups are fleets with members coming from a variety of player and non-player corps.
IMHO EVE player Corps are merely a quick way to identify fat targets that need shooting. Corps themselves are not social but just blind financial framework that enable special operations like POS and trading connections. No need to go interact just because you are in a corp. Some corps have good fleets but those fleets usually are small cliches that leave a lot of corpmates out or are giant faceless mob of strangers.
This measure practically kills off one of the most well loved ambush scam ganks in EVE.Joining corps then seeking out their most valuable ships and shipment for destruction and looting.
The ability to kill new corpmates with impunity provides an essential opportunity to provide a public service education on why only born-victims fly without PVP being their first and only consideration. Also good remedial training for carebears as to why
they should never trust anyone in EVE that you don't personally know and trust in the real world.
EVE needs more opportunities for "inside" gank jobs and theft, not less. Real life is not fair and EVE should be either.
|
Udonor
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
65
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 09:21:27 -
[81] - Quote
IMHO fleets are where people socialize. What you have actually identified is how unpleasant the mandatory EVE corp experience is. Like open bay prison or military barracks or homeless shelters. The player corp is particularly odious as people maybe forced to join with other incompatible strangers just to access certain features of the game like POS.
So how do you improve the EVE socialization experience if we remove corps as a necessity?
#1 Well fleets need a better "dating service". Some way for people to better and more quickly find the closest people who either are or expect to be logged on at the same time -- AND who are interested in pursuing the same goals in the same manner in the immediate future. (Closest can be by current location, jump clone locations or a specified target system.)
#2 Long term player socialization needs an in game (EVE only) facebook like facility with better contacts/friends facility such that they can remain in contact with people that continue to share long term interests and styles of play. Something with good calendar to record expected logon times and planned activities. Also a way to share fuzzy or precise location info for potential meetups. BY fuzzy location I mean region, constellation or number of shortest path jumps. |
Ender Sai
Perkone
Caldari State
42
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 10:05:35 -
[82] - Quote
Came looking for reason to complain, left disappointed. 10/10 |
Katrina Bekers
Rim Collection RC
Sorry We're In Your Space Eh
236
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 10:44:27 -
[83] - Quote
The space invader alien is just awesome.
*Golfclap* Katrin!
<< THE RABBLE BRIGADE >>
|
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
112
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 11:01:19 -
[84] - Quote
Udonor wrote:
...(nonsense snipped)....
This measure practically kills off one of the most well loved ambush scam ganks in EVE.Joining corps then seeking out their most valuable ships and shipment for destruction and looting.
The ability to kill new corpmates with impunity provides an essential opportunity to provide a public service education on why only born-victims fly without PVP being their first and only consideration. Also good remedial training for carebears as to why
they should never trust anyone in EVE that you don't personally know and trust in the real world.
EVE needs more opportunities for "inside" gank jobs and theft, not less. Real life is not fair and EVE should be either.
It's not an ambush, not a scam, and not a gank, and it's definitely NOT loved.
It's dumb, even my dog can do it, 0/10 on content scale, abuse mechanics that deters all recruiting and makes hisec corps almost meaningless (grief decs make them completely meaningless, but that's another topic I'm not going to discuss, because if I do, butthurt devil pussies are going to come and derail it).
First of all, combat pvp in eve is poor, it's a mystery to me why should anyone ever want to do it, except he found an exploitable strategy which makes it profitable, in which case he's no different from a miner, or any other carebear in grind. Considering such a poor thing is just stupid, so no wonder no carebear worth his bear paws will never do it - it's just a boring mini-game you have to do occasionally, yawning and trying not to fall asleep while you're at it. Watching all them gankbears go "omgomgomg I'm so excited my ship is gonna pew there be boom omgomgomg" really reminds me of a dinnertime excitement I saw in the small monkeys cage in a zoo when bananas were served, it will never excite me or anyone smarter than the said cage inhabitants, because there's simply nothing exciting going on - some numbers will be tossed, some assets would disappear, so what?
Secondly, with this change eve is getting MORE opportunities for "inside" gank job and theft. It's just transited from "yay they accepted time to pew some barges for free" stupid zero-content past-time to actually being a job, where you have to infiltrate and be creative with your scams - this will be content. Why more? Because more corps will be willing to accept your entries. You got a new world opening for you. Just gotta stop being sore and start being creative, but all you do is crying.
Discussing tax and drawbacks is fundamentally wrong here, because this isn't a standalone change, but a fix to dumbmode awoxing, which opens unmatched opportunity to creative awox, which, unlike dumbmode awox, is content. So, I'm expecting more content, more opportunities, and more tears from people who told others to HTFU on a daily basis, and crying like little girls they are now, instead of following their own advice.
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.
|
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys
Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
822
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 13:31:35 -
[85] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Ned Thomas wrote:Basil Pupkin wrote:Thank you CCPeeps for not giving in to risk-averse AWOXer tears and giving us this change as it were announced.
My FF would never be legal again. So you'll be recruiting brand new players left and right after the 17th, correct? My understanding was that this was supposed to enhance the ability to securely recruit, not the desire to do so in all cases. Have you determined otherwise?
My point was more that someone like Basil, who will applaud this change more than anyone, will gain the least benefit from it.
For the record though, no, I don't expect this change to make recruitment any more safe than it already is. I also don't expect it to change anyone's recruitment practices in any significant way and I don't expect it will change anyone's willingness to join a corp in the first place.
Vote Sabriz!
|
Celly S
Concord Attraction Services
The Ditanian Alliance
358
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 13:37:48 -
[86] - Quote
I'm not sure if it has been mentioned, and if so, I apologize for being redundant.
You guys are aware that there's a bug in your picture right?
o/
Celly
Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal.
Perception is unique in that it can be shared or be singular.
Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself.
A sandwich can be a great motivator.
|
Virella d'Artan
Inner Circle Exploitation
1
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 13:56:02 -
[87] - Quote
@Punkturis
You really would love the tiles on the wall in our bathroom.
Three of the walls have an invaders in 10x10 tiles pixeled (and the 4th all 7 tetris blocks XD) |
Celly S
Concord Attraction Services
The Ditanian Alliance
358
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 14:20:26 -
[88] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:For the record though, no, I don't expect this change to make recruitment any more safe than it already is. I also don't expect it to change anyone's recruitment practices in any significant way and I don't expect it will change anyone's willingness to join a corp in the first place.
I can tell you right now that you are probably spot-on.
aside from the folks who recruit just to have bigger numbers of taxpayers to fatten their corp wallet in a safer manner, its likely that "most" recruiting will continue the way it has been in the past.
In the corps that "I" lead on my various toons, recruitment is done 99% of the time by invite only, and the remaining 1% would be a case where a friend referred a person to me(us) and vouched for that person.
Otherwise?, no one sets foot inside my corp, nor do they get access to my assets, ect ect ect.
If we still lived in high sec, this change might make "fight night" a little more difficult in the sense of preparation, but outside of that, very little is bound to change because of it in the recruiting area of the game if a person already has recruitment standards in place.
just my thoughts on it ofc
o/
Celly Smunt
Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal.
Perception is unique in that it can be shared or be singular.
Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself.
A sandwich can be a great motivator.
|
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
886
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 15:48:30 -
[89] - Quote
I don't know who this guy is to go making declarative statements about what is and isn't loved. If someone says it's loved, it probably is.
To me, it's not the corp AWOXing that really makes friendly fire important -- it's the practices and emergent dynamic from its avoidance.
A lot of people are commenting on this as a minor change from their perspective as players who only come to highsec to buy things or maybe run some missions, and otherwise live and die in low and null. That's not at all what this change is aimed at, and it's not who's really getting affected. Many corporations start out in high security space and many more stay there entirely. Step by step, the challenges that drive these people to become better, to learn to fit their ships well and pay any degree of attention to their surroundings and compatriots, are being removed. Certainly there are people who are just loners already right now, sitting in their own corporation and missioning by themselves... but simply allowing these people to join a corp with other players in it without risking being shot isn't going to bring them out of their shell any more. It's the people who DO want to be involved in the game, to some extent, that now have it easier for longer.
Think of it like a beach, perhaps. It starts out shallow, and gradually gets deeper and scarier until the waves are high and the water continues down you know not how deep. This change is mostly just shoring up the initial gradual deepening so you can wade farther out into the game without losing your footing, but at the expense of making it even steeper when you finally want to dive into Nullsec Majeure.
Perhaps someone today might think hey, I already fly with these people all the time, they don't shoot me even though they totally could and we're cool. It's already as easy as possible to kill each other, but we're not, because we're a unit. Let's go to lowsec or nullsec and see what we can do together. With Friendly Fire Off as the new de-facto standard setting for corporations, how much harder would it be for such a person to overcome their reluctance to try going the next step deeper into the game, like stepping from knee deep into treading cold water up to your neck?
Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
|
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys
Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
823
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 16:14:46 -
[90] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote:Perhaps someone today might think hey, I already fly with these people all the time, they don't shoot me even though they totally could and we're cool. It's already as easy as possible to kill each other, but we're not, because we're a unit. Let's go to lowsec or nullsec and see what we can do together.
This is the part that really grinds me on this. The fact that you can do horrible no good very bad things to people in this game makes choosing not to do those horrible no good very bad things to someone a significant choice. It adds meaning to a playstyle, or at the very least it adds meaning to mine as I try very hard to be a decent fellow towards my corp mates and would rather work with them than against them. On the other hand, knowing that people can do horrible no good very bad things to me makes finding people I trust to fly with a meaningful effort. It all adds up to a guy like me feeling more invested in the game and the people I play it with.
I can understand all the reasoning behind making friendly fire an optional thing, but I still disagree with it. It removes impact from an individual's choices and degrades the idea of building trust, however slightly. And I'm not so sure it will add to the overall health of the game as it will now take new players longer to grasp the importance of building trust, which I believe is a key factor in player retention. It was certainly a part of the game that attracted me here in the first place.
But hey, what do I know?
Vote Sabriz!
|
Soko99
Repercussus
Goonswarm Federation
74
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 17:44:47 -
[91] - Quote
You make it sound as if AWOXING was so rampant that it needed to be stopped.
What your comments seem to overlook, is that sure, a player can OPT-IN to the challenges, but most people are risk averse and therefore will not. It was a forced RISK thrown onto people whether they wanted it or not. Now, it's only going to exist in a select few corps. What brought people to EvE and what keeps bringing people in, is the complexity of the game. CCP should not forget that the people that kept it going for the past 10 years were not the ADD instant gratification PS3-PS4 players, but those that planned ahead, schemed ahead, figured ways around the mechanics and basically created the stories and the legends that brought in others.
Now there's talk of removing attributes because it's too hard for newbies to learn to maximize with it, requests for an SP pool for newbies to allocate so that they can train the core skills, AFK tickers in local... |
Soko99
Repercussus
Goonswarm Federation
74
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 17:52:43 -
[92] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:Iam Widdershins wrote:Perhaps someone today might think hey, I already fly with these people all the time, they don't shoot me even though they totally could and we're cool. It's already as easy as possible to kill each other, but we're not, because we're a unit. Let's go to lowsec or nullsec and see what we can do together. This is the part that really grinds me on this. The fact that you can do horrible no good very bad things to people in this game makes choosing not to do those horrible no good very bad things to someone a significant choice. It adds meaning to a playstyle, or at the very least it adds meaning to mine as I try very hard to be a decent fellow towards my corp mates and would rather work with them than against them. On the other hand, knowing that people can do horrible no good very bad things to me makes finding people I trust to fly with a meaningful effort. It all adds up to a guy like me feeling more invested in the game and the people I play it with. I can understand all the reasoning behind making friendly fire an optional thing, but I still disagree with it. It removes impact from an individual's choices and degrades the idea of building trust, however slightly. And I'm not so sure it will add to the overall health of the game as it will now take new players longer to grasp the importance of building trust, which I believe is a key factor in player retention. It was certainly a part of the game that attracted me here in the first place. But hey, what do I know?
These 2 quotes sum up perfectly how I see this change.
Thanks for being able to articulate it better than I. |
Rapscallion Jones
Omnibus Solutions
82
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 19:09:50 -
[93] - Quote
I am shocked I say, Shocked! Five pages of comments and no grrr C.O.D.E. buffed comments! |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars
Khanid's Legion
218
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 21:08:17 -
[94] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:
Also.. what shiny ships do you intend to AWOX with that 10 hour toon? People AWOX for the glory, awoxing a t1 fitted cruiser isn't going to make the news.
The 10 hour hero in a Gnosis with neutral logi can do considerable amounts of damage. |
BadAssMcKill
ElitistOps
957
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 07:44:37 -
[95] - Quote
Make ganking and scamming illegal too thx |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
3737
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 07:54:03 -
[96] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote:I don't know who this guy is to go making declarative statements about what is and isn't loved. If someone says it's loved, it probably is.
To me, it's not the corp AWOXing that really makes friendly fire important -- it's the practices and emergent dynamic from its avoidance.
A lot of people are commenting on this as a minor change from their perspective as players who only come to highsec to buy things or maybe run some missions, and otherwise live and die in low and null. That's not at all what this change is aimed at, and it's not who's really getting affected. Many corporations start out in high security space and many more stay there entirely. Step by step, the challenges that drive these people to become better, to learn to fit their ships well and pay any degree of attention to their surroundings and compatriots, are being removed. Certainly there are people who are just loners already right now, sitting in their own corporation and missioning by themselves... but simply allowing these people to join a corp with other players in it without risking being shot isn't going to bring them out of their shell any more. It's the people who DO want to be involved in the game, to some extent, that now have it easier for longer.
Think of it like a beach, perhaps. It starts out shallow, and gradually gets deeper and scarier until the waves are high and the water continues down you know not how deep. This change is mostly just shoring up the initial gradual deepening so you can wade farther out into the game without losing your footing, but at the expense of making it even steeper when you finally want to dive into Nullsec Majeure.
Perhaps someone today might think hey, I already fly with these people all the time, they don't shoot me even though they totally could and we're cool. It's already as easy as possible to kill each other, but we're not, because we're a unit. Let's go to lowsec or nullsec and see what we can do together. With Friendly Fire Off as the new de-facto standard setting for corporations, how much harder would it be for such a person to overcome their reluctance to try going the next step deeper into the game, like stepping from knee deep into treading cold water up to your neck?
CCP hard data own your points.
And yet they are short of fixing the issue with how one-man corps are the only sensible option for an amazingly large group of subscribers who get all risk and no reward from playing with others.
The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! Ingame chat channel: The Greater Fool Bar
|
Devil Seven
Corporation4523243523
4
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 08:55:40 -
[97] - Quote
I don't like the FF BS but if CCP wants to make eve more safe and WOW like which sucks and is failing. star citizen is going to have easier time getting players but that's not why I'm here die to the FF BS it coming to reality there needs to be 2 things that happen. 1.) There need a to be a monthly fee for concord support since they are safer and can make more isk and which limits the risk vs reward. 2.) NPC Corps need higher tax and be able to be war deced (as cost for the war would be high) I think that would make a lot of players happy as I know many that are planning to kill off many corps in protest to this |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
889
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 11:33:18 -
[98] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:CCP hard data own your points.
Nice anecdote, I'm totally convinced.
Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
|
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
889
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 11:42:11 -
[99] - Quote
Devil Seven wrote:I don't like the FF BS but if CCP wants to make eve more safe and WOW like which sucks and is failing. star citizen is going to have easier time getting players but that's not why I'm here die to the FF BS it coming to reality there needs to be 2 things that happen. 1.) There need a to be a monthly fee for concord support since they are safer and can make more isk and which limits the risk vs reward. 2.) NPC Corps need higher tax and be able to be war deced (as cost for the war would be high) I think that would make a lot of players happy as I know many that are planning to kill off many corps in protest to this
Making it possible to declare war on NPC corps, as fun as that sounds to me, is an awful idea.
And a simple ISK fee for friendly-fire-off (FFO?) corporations isn't going to be nearly enough, either. Time and again it's been proven that simple barriers like ISK are simultaneously way too easy to overcome and discouraging to people who are starting out. Plus, if the idea is to make it easier for new players to ease into the game, forcing them to have the more dangerous type of corporation off the bat because they're new and poor is exactly the opposite of what they're trying to achieve here.
No, there should be hard restrictions on the functionality of a corporation that is set to FFO. If they want to be a mover and shaker, make big money, and get things done they should have to turn the setting off. As I suggested earlier, perhaps you should be unable to anchor POSes and POCOs in a FFO corporation. You should certainly not be able to declare war on others. These are the kinds of restrictions that will have a meaningful impact; just setting some soft boundary like ISK paid isn't going to change anything or make the situation any better.
Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
|
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
114
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 15:03:54 -
[100] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote:Devil Seven wrote:I don't like the FF BS but if CCP wants to make eve more safe and WOW like which sucks and is failing. star citizen is going to have easier time getting players but that's not why I'm here die to the FF BS it coming to reality there needs to be 2 things that happen. 1.) There need a to be a monthly fee for concord support since they are safer and can make more isk and which limits the risk vs reward. 2.) NPC Corps need higher tax and be able to be war deced (as cost for the war would be high) I think that would make a lot of players happy as I know many that are planning to kill off many corps in protest to this Making it possible to declare war on NPC corps, as fun as that sounds to me, is an awful idea. And a simple ISK fee for friendly-fire-off (FFO?) corporations isn't going to be nearly enough, either. Time and again it's been proven that simple barriers like ISK are simultaneously way too easy to overcome and discouraging to people who are starting out. Plus, if the idea is to make it easier for new players to ease into the game, forcing them to have the more dangerous type of corporation off the bat because they're new and poor is exactly the opposite of what they're trying to achieve here. No, there should be hard restrictions on the functionality of a corporation that is set to FFO. If they want to be a mover and shaker, make big money, and get things done they should have to turn the setting off. As I suggested earlier, perhaps you should be unable to anchor POSes and POCOs in a FFO corporation. You should certainly not be able to declare war on others. These are the kinds of restrictions that will have a meaningful impact; just setting some soft boundary like ISK paid isn't going to change anything or make the situation any better.
You people have the wrong perspective on this whole issue. Since you think that the default is "FF legal", you think some extra protection has been added, however, it was clearly stated that it was made optional ONLY because RvB wanted their hisec free-for-alls. The default if "FF illegal", "FF legal" is self-wardec mode, while "FF illegal" is the default intended behavior, which should've been that way ever since crimewatch, but got delayed due to hurr-durr freighter webbing I-cant-manage-my-safety derpettes. Once again, treating the default intended mode as "extra" is wrong, and the fact it were broken before doesn't justify this mistake in thinking.
I'm glad CCP gets it done right.
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.
|
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
115
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 15:25:58 -
[101] - Quote
I will try to put it even simpler: the "FF legal" mode we have before was a BUG.
It was broken on purpose, as a dirty hack to allow people in the same corp to web freighters, test tanks, and do other homosexual things, which corps with "FF legal" will keep doing after Tiamat goes live.
However, as crimewatch rolled out, the hack were no longer needed. The plan, as stated in the OP post, were to remove that hack completely and equalize this behavior with NPC corps for consistency.
But you cried. And you were listened to. You were allowed to keep this bug if you wanted it, you got an option for it.
And now you cry that others owe you something for using one option differently. For playing the game differently, due to removal of the hack you, and only you, liked. You're allowed to keep it, others get it fixed, nobody owes you anything, and no extra protection has been granted - the things were FIXED.
It is not optional because it was worthy to keep it - it was supposed to be non-optional "FF illegal". It was because some people asked for an exception to the general rule, they got it, nobody owes anything to you, CCP, NPC, CONCORD, or anyone else, for not using that exception.
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.
|
Lucas Quaan
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
86
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 15:36:40 -
[102] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:CCP hard data own your points. Nice anecdote, I'm totally convinced.
"I was abused by unintuitive game mechanics as a new player, this awesome challenge totally made me want to go play with sov structures!"
pot, meet kettle |
Celly S
Concord Attraction Services
The Ditanian Alliance
358
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 19:17:15 -
[103] - Quote
BadAssMcKill wrote:Make ganking and scamming illegal too thx
There are already ways to address those things, no need to change anything.
* most Gankers get concorded and a person has the ability to defend themselves from scammers by merely paying attention.
Don't get me wrong, I can't stand either lot and have personal opinions of them that are not fit conversation for mixed company, but, they have the right to play those roles in the game if they want to, just like folks who counter those type people in various ways have a right to do that as well.
o/
Celly
Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal.
Perception is unique in that it can be shared or be singular.
Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself.
A sandwich can be a great motivator.
|
Celly Smunt
Concord Attraction Services
The Ditanian Alliance
358
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 19:17:15 -
[104] - Quote
BadAssMcKill wrote:Make ganking and scamming illegal too thx
There are already ways to address those things, no need to change anything.
* most Gankers get concorded and a person has the ability to defend themselves from scammers by merely paying attention.
Don't get me wrong, I can't stand either lot and have personal opinions of them that are not fit conversation for mixed company, but, they have the right to play those roles in the game if they want to, just like folks who counter those type people in various ways have a right to do that as well.
o/
Celly
Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal.
Perception is unique in that it can be shared or be singular.
Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself.
A sandwich can be a great motivator.
|
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
246
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 19:19:12 -
[105] - Quote
I said it before (in this thread noless) and I'll say it again.
I'm mostly a Highsec Carebear. I live in an NPC Corp (though I've had an alt that did the whole Player corp stuff).
While I love the idea of a no-friendly fire option. There NEEDS to be a drawback. There needs to be a reason to take the Risk of AWOXing.
My suggestion eariler I still believe is the best one. Tax. A 'Concord Protection Fee' that would act like the tax in an NPC Corp. NPC Corps have an 11% Tax, so I say 7% for the Player Corps, + whatever corp tax they set themselves.
This saves them money vs just staying NPC, and still allowes for an AWOX free corp. At the same time, it still offers a reason for hardcore who want every little isk to chose the option that allows Friendly Fire.
Another thing. One Man Corps. Used to get out of NPC Tax's, but still not really social. I'd seriously consider adding the TAX on those. Say until you get 4 members? (So you can't just put your 2 other toons in it and call it good..).
A little Tax isn't the end of the world, and at the same time would give an incentive to join actual corps. |
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1452
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 19:51:51 -
[106] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:The fact that you can do horrible no good very bad things to people in this game makes choosing not to do those horrible no good very bad things to someone a significant choice.
Absolutely.
Ned Thomas wrote:On the other hand, knowing that people can do horrible no good very bad things to me makes finding people I trust to fly with a meaningful effort.
And this is the problem in a nutshell: how to make people more willing to open their doors to abject newbies without removing the meaning and consequence. It's not an easy problem, and I don't begrudge CCP fumbling a few times as they figure out how to thread that particular needle.
"Just recruit people you know!" is not the solution, it's the problem.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
|
Keras Authion
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
172
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 20:07:30 -
[107] - Quote
That last picture... Is it a teaser of a drifter carrier?
The friendly fire change seems like it could make a change but then again corporations in high sec are functionally just glorified chat rooms as long as you don't want a pos. We'll have to see what kind of effect it has.
This post was rated "C" for capsuleer.
|
Indahmawar Fazmarai
3737
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 21:07:00 -
[108] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:I said it before (in this thread noless) and I'll say it again.
I'm mostly a Highsec Carebear. I live in an NPC Corp (though I've had an alt that did the whole Player corp stuff).
While I love the idea of a no-friendly fire option. There NEEDS to be a drawback. There needs to be a reason to take the Risk of AWOXing.
My suggestion eariler I still believe is the best one. Tax. A 'Concord Protection Fee' that would act like the tax in an NPC Corp. NPC Corps have an 11% Tax, so I say 7% for the Player Corps, + whatever corp tax they set themselves.
This saves them money vs just staying NPC, and still allowes for an AWOX free corp. At the same time, it still offers a reason for hardcore who want every little isk to chose the option that allows Friendly Fire.
Another thing. One Man Corps. Used to get out of NPC Tax's, but still not really social. I'd seriously consider adding the TAX on those. Say until you get 4 members? (So you can't just put your 2 other toons in it and call it good..).
A little Tax isn't the end of the world, and at the same time would give an incentive to join actual corps.
The first step to pretend being what you're not, is to learn the basics of what you want to pretend.
Free tip: Hisec carebears stay in one-man corps and they will not bother to turn FF off.
The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! Ingame chat channel: The Greater Fool Bar
|
Intar Medris
Viziam
Amarr Empire
222
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 00:24:59 -
[109] - Quote
Give it till this time next year, and PVP inside high sec space will be all but dead because CCP will have nerfed it out of existence . Every little cry the poor wittle carebears make CCP is more than happy to oblige. Yet outside of FW lowsec remains a ghost town, and null sec is more stagnant than a bucket filled with mosquito larva filled water. Risk VS Reward no longer exist.
I try to be nice and mind my business just shooting lasers at rocks. There is just way too many asshats in New Eden for that to happen.
|
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
115
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 01:27:58 -
[110] - Quote
Intar Medris wrote:Give it till this time next year, and PVP inside high sec space will be all but dead because CCP will have nerfed it out of existence . Every little cry the poor wittle carebears make CCP is more than happy to oblige. Yet outside of FW lowsec remains a ghost town, and null sec is more stagnant than a bucket filled with mosquito larva filled water. Risk VS Reward no longer exist.
"Oh no, they fixed a bug, hisec pvp is dead! qqqqqqqqq"
Remind me, why Uedama is beating B-R5RB and Asakai with HED-GP combined in amount of ISK destroyed annually? Probably because hisec pvp is soooooo dead... I don't even mention Jita or other hubs, RvB's favorite systems, and Osmon.
Suicide wanking is receiving buff after buff, now with the otherwise-useless Bowhead (it just doesn't have sufficient tank to be useful as a machariel hauler and costs too much to haul barges) used for hyperdunking. They even call this obvious use "emergent", bleh...
The best change would be taking those "leet PvF (player vs freighter)" players and putting them to use in those ghost towns and stagnant space, if you need to change "hisec PvF" for it, so be 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.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1361
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 02:15:26 -
[111] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:I said it before (in this thread noless) and I'll say it again.
I'm mostly a Highsec Carebear. I live in an NPC Corp (though I've had an alt that did the whole Player corp stuff).
While I love the idea of a no-friendly fire option. There NEEDS to be a drawback. There needs to be a reason to take the Risk of AWOXing.
My suggestion eariler I still believe is the best one. Tax. A 'Concord Protection Fee' that would act like the tax in an NPC Corp. NPC Corps have an 11% Tax, so I say 7% for the Player Corps, + whatever corp tax they set themselves.
This saves them money vs just staying NPC, and still allowes for an AWOX free corp. At the same time, it still offers a reason for hardcore who want every little isk to chose the option that allows Friendly Fire.
Another thing. One Man Corps. Used to get out of NPC Tax's, but still not really social. I'd seriously consider adding the TAX on those. Say until you get 4 members? (So you can't just put your 2 other toons in it and call it good..).
Why should being asocial be taxable? And what prevents dual account holders from breaking this restriction? |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
177
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 04:51:59 -
[112] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:I said it before (in this thread noless) and I'll say it again.
I'm mostly a Highsec Carebear. I live in an NPC Corp (though I've had an alt that did the whole Player corp stuff).
While I love the idea of a no-friendly fire option. There NEEDS to be a drawback. There needs to be a reason to take the Risk of AWOXing.
My suggestion eariler I still believe is the best one. Tax. A 'Concord Protection Fee' that would act like the tax in an NPC Corp. NPC Corps have an 11% Tax, so I say 7% for the Player Corps, + whatever corp tax they set themselves.
This saves them money vs just staying NPC, and still allowes for an AWOX free corp. At the same time, it still offers a reason for hardcore who want every little isk to chose the option that allows Friendly Fire.
Another thing. One Man Corps. Used to get out of NPC Tax's, but still not really social. I'd seriously consider adding the TAX on those. Say until you get 4 members? (So you can't just put your 2 other toons in it and call it good..).
A little Tax isn't the end of the world, and at the same time would give an incentive to join actual corps.
Trial accounts. |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
889
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 07:12:51 -
[113] - Quote
Basil Pupkin wrote:It is not optional because it was worthy to keep it - it was supposed to be non-optional "FF illegal". It was because some people asked for an exception to the general rule, they got it, nobody owes anything to you, CCP, NPC, CONCORD, or anyone else, for not using that exception.
I'm mostly just impressed that anyone even thinks of it this way. So totally closed-minded and convinced that there could not possibly be any advantages to the clearly intentional design the way it's been for the last 12 years, and unwilling to consider any arguments to that end.
Your point that FFO is clearly the new default isn't something that I am 'not getting,' it's my whole problem with the change. I think the system as it has been is just fine and I'm already pretty satisfied with my prior explanation of why that is.
Luas Quaan wrote:"I was abused by unintuitive game mechanics as a new player, this awesome challenge totally made me want to go play with sov structures!"
I have no idea how you got this impression. I always liked the fact that corp members can freely kill each other and don't see how that could be called 'unintuitive.'
Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
|
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
247
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 18:16:43 -
[114] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Why should being asocial be taxable? And what prevents dual account holders from breaking this restriction?
There's never gonna be a solution that solves everything and makes everyone happy.
But this is a MMO.. Saying no social is like the people demanding that ganks be banned cause they don't want to ever engage in combat.. too bad.
As for Trial and such, make it active toons or something.. Or not.. if they put in any effort, congrats, you deserve to be a loner. So much better than finding half a dozen that also like to run SOE Missions and getting together in a corp to help eachother with sites and how best to avoid the outside world :) |
Dalilus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
95
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 04:25:41 -
[115] - Quote
Why is null so boring, a song for nullbears courtesy of Eiffel 65:
"Blue (Da Ba De)"
Yo listen up here's a story
About a little guy that lives in a blue world
And all day and all night and everything he sees
Is just blue like him inside and outside
Blue his house with a blue little window
And a blue corvette
And everything is blue for him and himself
And everybody around
'Cause he ain't got nobody to listen to
I'm blue da ba dee da ba die...
I have a blue house with a blue window.
Blue is the colour of all that I wear.
Blue are the streets and all the trees are too.
I have a girlfriend and she is so blue.
Blue are the people here that walk around,
Blue like my corvette, it's in and outside.
Blue are the words I say and what I think.
Blue are the feelings that live inside me.
I'm blue da ba dee da ba die...
I have a blue house with a blue window.
Blue is the colour of all that I wear.
Blue are the streets and all the trees are too.
I have a girlfriend and she is so blue.
Blue are the people here that walk around,
Blue like my corvette, it's in and outside.
Blue are the words I say and what I think.
Blue are the feelings that live inside me.
I'm blue da ba dee da ba die...
Inside and outside blue his house
With the blue little window
And a blue corvette
And everything is blue for him and himself
And everybody around
'Cause he ain't got nobody to listen to
I'm blue da ba dee da ba die...
I'm blue (da ba dee da ba die)
If CCP wanted to fix null all they have to do is be creative and stop listening to the nullbear BWAAAAAAAAAmbulance when it makes the rounds because, you now, nullbears do not want their income from ISK botfarms interrupted. Here's a couple of ideas on what could be done:
-cosmic strings pass through nullsec creating havoc. Pack and go away and come back to reclaim what you had or be seriously damaged or even destroyed by gravitational waves as you keep a watch over your stuff so it might weather the waves. Oh the horror, having to reconquer or guard what nature can and will destroy.
-computers are not infallible. there is a minuscule 1 in XXX chance that your ship/fleet will jump somewhere, not where you wanted to but SOMEWHERE in null inside a xxxx sized sphere. remember to get rid of the jump penalties imposed a few months back because they are so much fun. this is not a new idea.
-nullbears claim to be the fly's knees of pvp so make warp inhibitors 'pulse'. if the enemy times it right they have a small window, figure out how long, when they can jump into a system to pillage and ****. But if they time the 'pulse' wrong they are stuck in enemy space without being able to warp out or get hot dropped reinforcements. tidi is an unforgiving mistress.
-bring back the titan disco. BWAAAA, BWAAAAA I hear nullbears whine, they would be overpowered and the blob and all our blobbing doctrines would no longer work! the problem with nullsec are nullbears who have no interest in fighting each other unless they have the winning hand. if too many supercaps show up and fire up their disco a rift in space could open up and transport your ships and those nearby somewhere in wormhole space. or even worse, lowsec.
-like i've said many times no one wants to be a nullbear bish and that's what pets are, nullbear bishes. imagine telling your friends...i play eve, it's awesome! i mine, i pvp, i rat, i explore, i can get a cta at 3:00am!! i have a great time in the most dangerous areas of the game with my corpies and alliance buddies....but i have to pay rent/protection money to do so. ha, ha, ha you finish. your friends look at you with pity and have you buy their drinks. at home you make the sandwiches. once a bish always a bish.
i see the blue pvp crowd is in love with ganking high sec carebears, of which i'm one, but casual players now have multiple venues where to spend our money and many have been grazing new pastures or returned to old ones. there was a survey a while back that said, if i'm not mistaken, that eve players had lots and lots of disposable income. if CCP does not figure out how to make the game enjoyable where one can have a sense of accomplishment, of skin in the game and 'ownership' without paying extortion ISK or losing in a gank in the blink of an eye the rewards of hundreds of hours of in game time, eve will continue to spiral and have the numbers it does right now. unless of course if that is the endgame.
one last thought - why pay for a subscription or even recommend a game that's akin to getting mugged in an inner city ghetto hourly/daily/monthly/yearly/whenever you undock when you don't have to? |
Celly S
Concord Attraction Services
The Ditanian Alliance
358
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 06:03:11 -
[116] - Quote
Dalilus wrote:Why is null so boring
cute song..
you know, I read that post, and re-read that post, and I live in null and its nothing like that where I live, in fact that post seems like a regurgitation of a multitude of posts I've seen where people complain about null, but never describe the null sec I live in.
Does that null exist?, maybe, does that null make game-play less fun for someone?, maybe, is it CCP's fault that some people stagnate?... nope!
if you want to change your game-play, then undock and change it, CCP can't fix it for you, in fact, they can't fix it for anyone.
Can they address some of the underlying causes?, maybe, but only you can change your gameplay, CCP can't. (unless you're going for the theme-park thingy and if so, i hear WoW is that way ----> )
sorry you don't have fun and sorry that you have such a dismal view of things...
o/
Celly
Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal.
Perception is unique in that it can be shared or be singular.
Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself.
A sandwich can be a great motivator.
|
Celly Smunt
Concord Attraction Services
The Ditanian Alliance
358
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 06:03:11 -
[117] - Quote
Dalilus wrote:Why is null so boring
cute song..
you know, I read that post, and re-read that post, and I live in null and its nothing like that where I live, in fact that post seems like a regurgitation of a multitude of posts I've seen where people complain about null, but never describe the null sec I live in.
Does that null exist?, maybe, does that null make game-play less fun for someone?, maybe, is it CCP's fault that some people stagnate?... nope!
if you want to change your game-play, then undock and change it, CCP can't fix it for you, in fact, they can't fix it for anyone.
Can they address some of the underlying causes?, maybe, but only you can change your gameplay, CCP can't. (unless you're going for the theme-park thingy and if so, i hear WoW is that way ----> )
sorry you don't have fun and sorry that you have such a dismal view of things...
o/
Celly
Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal.
Perception is unique in that it can be shared or be singular.
Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself.
A sandwich can be a great motivator.
|
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
115
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 15:22:16 -
[118] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote:Basil Pupkin wrote:It is not optional because it was worthy to keep it - it was supposed to be non-optional "FF illegal". It was because some people asked for an exception to the general rule, they got it, nobody owes anything to you, CCP, NPC, CONCORD, or anyone else, for not using that exception. I'm mostly just impressed that anyone even thinks of it this way. So totally closed-minded and convinced that there could not possibly be any advantages to the clearly intentional design the way it's been for the last 12 years, and unwilling to consider any arguments to that end. Your point that FFO is clearly the new default isn't something that I am 'not getting,' it's my whole problem with the change. I think the system as it has been is just fine and I'm already pretty satisfied with my prior explanation of why that is. Luas Quaan wrote:"I was abused by unintuitive game mechanics as a new player, this awesome challenge totally made me want to go play with sov structures!" I have no idea how you got this impression. I always liked the fact that corp members can freely kill each other and don't see how that could be called 'unintuitive.'
It was a hack, placed to let people test tanks, web freighters, do free-for-alls, nos each other for cap, etc.
With crimewatch and dueling, there was no more reason for this hack to be kept - you can duel to test tank and web freighters, you couldn't do free for alls in hisec because there was nullsec for that, and you could duel to nos each other.
However, your "arguments" were considered. Each of them were weighted. The switch you got resulted in more than a year delay for removing this hack. It covered all, however crazy, use-cases mentioned.
The system were not fine due to obviously being a hack. NPC corps were free of that hack, and it were unintuitive 100% to go from NPC corp to player corp and get shot there.
The switch was the gift for you, instead of just doing things right and removing the hack without any kind of special treatment. It's not a change - it's a FIX, and a GIFT to you, who liked that hack, so you can optionally apply it back at yourself.
Speaking about "extra safety" and "tradeoffs" for not using the hack is stupid, period. Nothing of value were lost with this change, every valid use case is covered with a switch. That's why I am unwilling to listen, because your logic about this change is extremely flawed and is on the "because I said so" level.
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.
|
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
889
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 18:36:41 -
[119] - Quote
Basil Pupkin wrote:It was a hack, placed to let people test tanks, web freighters, do free-for-alls, nos each other for cap, etc.
I almost feel bad for you.
Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
|
Esmanpir
Revenent Defence Corperation
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
36
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 19:36:06 -
[120] - Quote
Intar Medris wrote:Give it till this time next year, and PVP inside high sec space will be all but dead because CCP will have nerfed it out of existence . Every little cry the poor wittle carebears make CCP is more than happy to oblige. Yet outside of FW lowsec remains a ghost town, and null sec is more stagnant than a bucket filled with mosquito larva filled water. Risk VS Reward no longer exist.
Even if this was true, how is that an issue for you? I keep reading in the post people whining about how bad changes are when they don't even effect them. Are you upset that this will effect your game play or that someone else gets a better experience? I personally don't care if High Sec Care Bears get loving from CCP. I'm losing ships in LowSec and having fun. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1361
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 23:57:39 -
[121] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Why should being asocial be taxable? And what prevents dual account holders from breaking this restriction? There's never gonna be a solution that solves everything and makes everyone happy. But this is a MMO.. Saying no social is like the people demanding that ganks be banned cause they don't want to ever engage in combat.. too bad. As for Trial and such, make it active toons or something.. Or not.. if they put in any effort, congrats, you deserve to be a loner. So much better than finding half a dozen that also like to run SOE Missions and getting together in a corp to help eachother with sites and how best to avoid the outside world :)
How does having a asocial corp structure translate into an inability to be ganked or unwillingness to accept ganking? Aren't those measure taken in response to awoxing meaning those who do so are aware of it and are taking measure to mitigate the risk? Also how does taking a corp in any way resolve that? And finally, if I can avoid combat within the rules of the game and do so because I don't want to engage in it, how am I in any way wrong? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1361
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 00:03:27 -
[122] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote:Luas Quaan wrote:"I was abused by unintuitive game mechanics as a new player, this awesome challenge totally made me want to go play with sov structures!" I have no idea how you got this impression. I always liked the fact that corp members can freely kill each other and don't see how that could be called 'unintuitive.' It was called unintuitive because without exception, players go from a state of not being able to engage corp members legally in the NPC corp they started in to being able to do so in a player corp.
|
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
889
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 23:32:59 -
[123] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Iam Widdershins wrote:Luas Quaan wrote:"I was abused by unintuitive game mechanics as a new player, this awesome challenge totally made me want to go play with sov structures!" I have no idea how you got this impression. I always liked the fact that corp members can freely kill each other and don't see how that could be called 'unintuitive.' It was called unintuitive because without exception, players go from a state of not being able to engage corp members legally in the NPC corp they started in to being able to do so in a player corp.
God forbid something should be different in one situation than it is in another. We'd better make everything exactly the same post haste. 6 more weeks and nullsec will have CONCORD.
Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
|
India99
Belo Bender Broma Corporation
21
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 03:01:46 -
[124] - Quote
good change, I dont like it tough |
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
115
|
Posted - 2015.02.15 06:27:41 -
[125] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Iam Widdershins wrote:Luas Quaan wrote:"I was abused by unintuitive game mechanics as a new player, this awesome challenge totally made me want to go play with sov structures!" I have no idea how you got this impression. I always liked the fact that corp members can freely kill each other and don't see how that could be called 'unintuitive.' It was called unintuitive because without exception, players go from a state of not being able to engage corp members legally in the NPC corp they started in to being able to do so in a player corp. God forbid something should be different in one situation than it is in another. We'd better make everything exactly the same post haste. 6 more weeks and nullsec will have CONCORD.
You got your switch to be different, why are you still crying?
And yes, there is a difference between "different" and "stupid", "unintuitive", "needlessly complicated". Free corp aggression were all 3 of the latter.
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.
|
Celly S
Concord Attraction Services
The Ditanian Alliance
358
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 20:01:41 -
[126] - Quote
Basil Pupkin wrote:Intar Medris wrote:OMG OMG OMG High sec PvP is about to die, the end is near, we're all DOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMEEEEEDDDDDD!!!. "Oh no, they fixed a bug, hisec pvp is dead! qqqqqqqqq" and other good stuff.
I remember years ago hearing the same doom and gloom cries... sort of like chicken little and the sky falling crap.
how easily these doom-sayers forget the story of the jet can, and the things like duels and wars.
the fact is, CCP has made it easier to have high sec PvP with the recent mechanic changes and in reality, all these "high sec is going to die" waaaaambulances are saying over the past few years is "we want to force PvP on people who don't want it", that's all, nothing more, nothing less.
At least intar got a better answer from you Basil than I would have given him..
my answer would have been similar to "Bull hockey".
o/
Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal.
Perception is unique in that it can be shared or be singular.
Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself.
A sandwich can be a great motivator.
|
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
115
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 02:02:03 -
[127] - Quote
Celly S wrote: my answer would have been similar to "Bull hockey".
Actually, my first one was "Cry me a retriever", so I guess I can't claim the praise.
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.
|
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys
Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
902
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 02:39:39 -
[128] - Quote
Basil Pupkin wrote:Celly S wrote: my answer would have been similar to "Bull hockey". Actually, my first one was "Cry me a retriever", so I guess I can't claim the praise.
I'm pretty sure you're both taking his post too literally.
Vote Sabriz!
|
OverlordY
Interspan
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 03:19:46 -
[129] - Quote
They said in the video.
" People are basically stuck with the choice of join a corp and get shot at, or stay in NPC corp"
and that you didn't like them not having a choice.
Well sorry to burst this bubble, but there still is NO CHOICE..
You either stay in an NPC corp, or join a player corp and watch the war decs roll in for no reason.... So yeh, no change at all. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1365
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 04:58:18 -
[130] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote:God forbid something should be different in one situation than it is in another. We'd better make everything exactly the same post haste. 6 more weeks and nullsec will have CONCORD. You stated you didn't see why it wasn't intuitive, I explained. No need to lash out with false equivalencies.
Different securities intuitively handle security differently. Corps don't have the same clear distinction in concept.
OverlordY wrote:They said in the video.
" People are basically stuck with the choice of join a corp and get shot at, or stay in NPC corp"
and that you didn't like them not having a choice.
Well sorry to burst this bubble, but there still is NO CHOICE..
You either stay in an NPC corp, or join a player corp and watch the war decs roll in for no reason.... So yeh, no change at all.
There is some difference between a limited time engagement with 24 hours warning and a temporary lapse in judgement that can manifest itself as a threat with impunity at any time. |
Sabrina Scatterbrain
United Souls Research And Development
29
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 20:01:37 -
[131] - Quote
One more step towards EVE becoming My Little Pony Online. |
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
116
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 13:50:36 -
[132] - Quote
Sabrina Scatterbrain wrote:One more step towards EVE becoming My Little Pony Online.
Hear, hear! Removing old hacks once issues requiring them are resolved is turning EVE into MLP.
Logic, mothershipper, do you speak it?
P.S. 2 more apps are on my corp's approval board, 8 hours till FF goes illegal and those apps get accepted. Yes, both applicants are under 2m SP. Gj CCP, we would've never done that with the hack in-place.
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.
|
Celly S
Concord Attraction Services
The Ditanian Alliance
359
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 18:50:19 -
[133] - Quote
oooohhhh, forgot about this till I started going through tabs in my browser to close.
http://prntscr.com/66shw3
Nothing has changed except for an added line in my corp screen.
Thanks for the chats all.
o/
Celly
Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal.
Perception is unique in that it can be shared or be singular.
Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself.
A sandwich can be a great motivator.
|
Wyllow Black
Yulai Heavy Industries
The Serenity Initiative
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.22 23:20:58 -
[134] - Quote
Webifying is a hostile action. If my corp sets hostile actions to illegal, webifying my cargo ships will damage my standings.
Please add a corp role that exempts stasis webifying from illegality, or add varying degrees of hostility to corp legality options that will allow us to maintain our supply lines.
Otherwise corps will not utilize this feature, unless they NEVER plan to move things through low or highsec in large volume. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
185
|
Posted - 2015.02.23 04:11:36 -
[135] - Quote
Wyllow Black wrote:Webifying is a hostile action. If my corp sets hostile actions to illegal, webifying my cargo ships will damage my standings.
Please add a corp role that exempts stasis webifying from illegality, or add varying degrees of hostility to corp legality options that will allow us to maintain our supply lines.
Otherwise corps will not utilize this feature, unless they NEVER plan to move things through low or highsec in large volume.
its called start a duel. wham you can now web the other person without any issues |
Anonymous Forumposter
State War Academy
Caldari State
201
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 05:23:39 -
[136] - Quote
Not specifically a corp thing, but comes into play in a lot of corp play.
Can we get a 3 or 5 second delay when clearing the broadcast history in fleets?
To be more specific, when you press the clear button, can it ignore anything broadcast in the last 3 or 5 seconds? It can be easy to clear a split second after receiving a broadcast, and then have to scramble to identify who it was, and find them, then lock them. |
Wyllow Black
Yulai Heavy Industries
The Serenity Initiative
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 21:21:49 -
[137] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:Wyllow Black wrote:Webifying is a hostile action. If my corp sets hostile actions to illegal, webifying my cargo ships will damage my standings.
Please add a corp role that exempts stasis webifying from illegality, or add varying degrees of hostility to corp legality options that will allow us to maintain our supply lines.
Otherwise corps will not utilize this feature, unless they NEVER plan to move things through low or highsec in large volume. its called start a duel. wham you can now web the other person without any issues
I'm supposed to start a duel 2 times per system, for 20-30 jumps? First of all, that would require opening myself up to duels. PITA. Then consider that I'm managing my cloak at the time that I'm fiddling with inviting myself to a duel? It's already enough of a pain to triple-box. Thank you no, this feature is crap for webbing. |
Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
215
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 02:50:55 -
[138] - Quote
Wyllow Black wrote:I'm supposed to start a duel 2 times per system, for 20-30 jumps?
This clearly shows that you've never tried. A duel starts a 5 minute limited engagement. A limited engagement is refreshed by any aggressive action between the two parties, such as... webbing. You only have to duel the webber once for an entire trip. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |