Allow Friendly Fire Within a Fleet

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
, ,
1

Hello. There is a problem. In lowsec, and especially in Factional Warfare, it is quite common to encounter multiboxers using drone ships, for example Gilas. In nullsec, one of the most effective ways to counter such ships is the use of smartbombs. Unfortunately, in Factional Warfare this tactic unfairly punishes militia players by causing a loss of faction standings, which can eventually lead to being kicked out of FW.

If a fleet consists of members from the same corporation where friendly fire is allowed, activating smartbombs in the middle of friendly ships causes no issues. However, such fleets are rare. Much more often, militia fleets are composed of pilots from different corporations. Even if they belong to the same alliance ā€” and quite often there are also corporations with no alliance at all. When you activate smartbombs to clear enemy drones off your logistics ships or simply to create an area-denial effect, you inevitably hit many friendly militia members and suffer a severe standings loss.

My fellow militia pilots and I believe it is unfair to deprive players who play individually, using single accounts, of effective tools to counter multiboxers whose characters are more homogeneous, belong to the same corporation, and so on. This gives multiboxers an unfair advantage that stems from the fact that these characters are controlled by a single person rather than different players. As a result, this negatively affects the majority of players.

Therefore, I propose adding a fleet option called ā€œAllow friendly fireā€. Additionally, there should be a checkbox in the fleet menu for each individual member allowing them to opt out of this rule, similar to how fleet warp works, in order to prevent abuse.

It is also worth considering that in lowsec, under the new destabilization mechanics, it is now possible to launch bombs and deploy bubbles. Giving stealth bombers the ability to launch area-of-effect bombs at the moment when enemies are being held by a cheap tackle ship is also a good idea, and this can likewise be implemented through allowing friendly fire within a fleet.

This is a continuation of the trend of addressing the issue of unfair punishment for faction warfare participants. Previously, they were unfairly penalized by losing their security status the first time they attacked neutrals entering their complex. Now, to our delight, this issue has been resolved. Now we need to address the issue of fully exploiting tactics, especially when making low-sec half-null-sec (and this is particularly true for the behavior of multi-boxing players).

We, the participants in Factional Warfare, are eagerly looking forward to this change.

17 Likes
2

I would also like the fleet commander to have the ability to control who has the friendly fire option disabled, and to be able to set a flag when creating a fleet recruitment ad that says ā€œOnly pilots with friendly fire enabled will be accepted.ā€

5 Likes
3

ŠÆ Š“Š¶Š²Š°Ń†Š¾Ń‚ŃŒ Š»ŠµŃ‚ Š¶Š“Š°Š» эту Š¾ŠæцŠøю!

Im waiting this option more than 20 yrs

1 Like
4

Me too

5

с этŠ¾Š¹ фуŠ½ŠŗцŠøŠµŠ¹ Š¼Š¾Š¶Š½Š¾ Š±ŃƒŠ“ŠµŃ‚ Š³Ń€Š°Š±Šøть ŠŗŠ¾Ń€Š¾Š²Š°Š½Ń‹, Š¼Š¾Šµ ŠæŠ¾Ń‡Ń‚ŠµŠ½ŠøŠµ!

6

great!!

7

Iā€™m sure once your idea is implemented and FW devolves into smartboming multiboxers sitting on acceleration gates while the site is ran in complete safety, you wonā€™t be complaining about your inability to do anything because of this.

Did you not actually think of how anyone other than yourself would use your idea? Youā€™re whining about drones now, but how bad would you whine when youā€™re essentially getting pipe-bombed whenever you warp to a site?

8

Your message has no relation to the solution I proposed.
I ask you to carefully study what you are criticizing.

Or at least be clearer and provide a full scenario of what you mean so that everyone can see whether your scenario is relevant to the solution I am proposing.

First, pay attention to the topic title.

9

Try using basic reasoning and logic.

If you can use smartbombs against someone, they can be used against you as well. Right now, you canā€™t use smartbombs against drones, but that also means that parking a small fleet of smartbombing battleships on the acceleration gate into a site, while the ship allowed to enter the site does so and runs the site with zero risk, isnā€™t a valid tactic.

You clearly didnā€™t think on your idea for longer than it took to figure out how you alone would benefit. You certainly never stopped to think how your idea would be abused by others. Iā€™m just pointing out how your idea will be abused by others. Donā€™t get mad at me because you donā€™t understand the game enough to do this yourself.

10

It seems you didnā€™t understand anything even after I pointed out the topic title. I donā€™t know how else to explain it to you. Perhaps youā€™re out of context, although I tried to provide it.

Multi-boxers already have these capabilities, but a fleet of individual players does not. I explained why for those familiar with corporate mechanics.

Your abstract logic does not work in this very specific situation with my very specific proposal that balances the imbalance.

Right now, you canā€™t use smartbombs against drones

You are having a conversation without understanding what it is about.

Despite the fact that I outlined the full picture in the very first message of the topic

11

I would reach out to your csm rep (fw does have one iirc) and see what they think

12

Maybe donā€™t cry about drones in the first paragraph then. You should probably learn to write before accusing people of not understanding what you write.

You should have an intro, body, and outro. Intro is everything youā€™re writing about, body is details, outro is everything youā€™re writing about again. When you intro is based on idiocy, I see no point in the details.

Your post, based on your intro, is you whining that you canā€™t smartbomb the drones of multiboxing Gilas. No one outside your tiny little niche cares about this, so if you changed what this topic is about in the body, that means you donā€™t know how to write, and any misunderstandings are entirely your fault. No one is wasting their time reading the body of a bad idea on the off chance you changed what you were writing about.

13

If you claim I changed the thread title, youā€™re lying. I corrected typos. I didnā€™t change the thread title. If youā€™re not willing to spend your time reading, then donā€™t waste it complaining about someoneā€™s whining. This thread is for CCP to address the issue, and for experienced people who understand the topic to offer expert opinions and concrete scenarios.

This thread is not created for you to teach me how to create threads because you donā€™t feel like reading.

If someone more well-disposed gives me advice, I will listen.

14

Talk to your csm rep. Ccp wont pay attention to this and likely FW wont be touched for a while after the update they got

Whether someone is multiboxing or those are all players working together isnt the problem. Eve isnt meant to be solo especially FW. All you ā€œsoloā€ pilots should team up against the ā€œmultiboxersā€

Awoxxing should have severe punishment for hitting others in your same militia

15

I never said you changed the title, maybe you need to learn to read in addition to learning to write. Perhaps you need to start at Kindergarten all over again?

Youā€™re clearly incapable of following a line of reasoning, and just want to have your little b!tchfest.

Tantrum muted, good riddance.

1 Like
16

All you ā€œsoloā€ pilots should team up against the ā€œmultiboxersā€

As you may have noticed, the discussion is indeed about players forming fleets.

The issue I am describing concerns how individual players operate within a fleet.

By individual players, I mean real people with their own preferences and history. When you have many individual players running a small number of accounts (1ā€“2), the fleet is inherently non-homogeneous. It is unrealistic to expect everyone to be in the same corporation.

At the same time, a multiboxer fields a fleet of clones from a single corporation. Always. This gives them a clear advantage when using tools like smartbombs due to the corporate friendly fire mechanic.
When friendly fire is enabled at the corporation level, members of the same corporation can damage each other without penalties. As a result, a single-corp fleet (which is typically a multiboxer) can freely use smartbombs within their own fleet without any drawbacks.

In contrast, a group of solo players cannot do this even if they form a fleet together, because they do not benefit from being in the same corporation. And I can assure you that if a multiboxerā€™s fleet consisted of individual players, in the vast majority of cases they also would not all be in the same corporation.
Therefore, saying ā€œWhatā€™s the problem? Just join one corporationā€ is neither realistic nor a fair way to restore balance.

This problem began to surface with the introduction of pirate insurgencies. Lowsec became more profitable, and multiboxers started migrating from nullsec into Faction Warfare. Along with that, some nullsec mechanics effectively migrated into lowsec as well.

After explaining this in the opening post, I proposed a way to restore balance between individual players who band together in alliances and coalitions on one side, and multiboxers with nullsec-style mechanics on the other. In nullsec, after all, fleets are not penalized for using smartbombs.

Drone ships from a single corporation, controlled by one person, are a nullsec-born phenomenon. If that is the case, then individual players should be given the same tools that exist in nullsec to counter such groups.

This is a problem. And the solution is to allow friendly fire at the fleet level, with appropriate safeguards for new players in highsec. The concept of such a safeguard already exists and is implemented in the fleet warp confirmation/safety mechanic.

I hope this clarifies what the discussion is actually about. This is not about individual players being unable to group up ā€” they already do so in alliances. The issue lies elsewhere.

17

And ccp has been trying to discourage awoxxing. Hence the requirement for pirate FW went from -2 to 0

18

To prevent abuse, Iā€™m proposing a safety mechanism similar to the fleet warp safety toggle.

You would tick a checkbox indicating that you are not willing to accept a fleet rule with friendly fire enabled.
It would be great if, after that, you were automatically kicked from any fleet where friendly fire is turned on.

I think this should work.

19

Have you told the csm this. Third time Iā€™ve suggested this

20

Iā€™m a bit confused as to why youā€™re insisting on this so strongly. Isnā€™t this the official forum for sharing ideas?

Besides, how would writing this on the forum prevent a CSM representative from reading the proposal? If someone forwards this topic to a CSM member, I would be glad. Iā€™ve heard that something similar has already been discussed with them.

But I would like to speed up the implementation of these changes and draw more attention to the issue, which is why Iā€™m using an official public platform. Last time, CCP took three years to implement what I suggested: giving a suspect status to neutrals entering an FW complex. I think more channels need to be involved to increase the chances of getting this to them and achieving faster results.

This idea is supported by the community of pilots I interact with.

Unfortunately, I donā€™t know any CSM members personally.