Awox in militia. CCP please fix it

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
1

upd: Since this topic was moved to this section, I feel the obligation to propose a specific solution.

The problem is described in the messages below.

Proposed Solution:

  1. reduce the standing to both allied factions equally for the murder of an allied militia.
    AND
  2. to divide the status of two allied militias into a “your militia ally” and “friendly faction militia”.
  3. For capturing beacons in the allied zone, give reputation with the allied militia, and not with the one in which you are.

Hello, I want to talk with you about the problem that exists in the Amarr-Matar space.

We are a smallscale caldari corporation. In the Caldari-Gallente zone, there was a situation where we cannot resist the Gallentes, because if we have one person, then there are 4 Gallentes, if there are 5 of us, then 10-15 Gallentes.

Therefore, we made a deploy to the Amarr zone. I must say that the Minmatars fight with more willingness in a smaller number. They give us adequate smallscale battles and try not to use the ultimate ships. In general, the guys can only be praised and we like what we do in the vicinity of Kourmonen. We are waiting for the situation in the Caldari space to recover and we will again be able to get solo fights there and 2 vs 2, rather than 2 vs 7.

But the problem in the Amarr space was unexpected. These are amarrs. Often they do awox. At the same time, they justify this to the Templis CALSF once awoxed (blue tackling) them, but our corporation has a completely different ticker. Moreover, we were in the Amarr militia. We have a good relationship with the Amarr Empire. We never killed the Amarr unless they attacked us first and became our enemies for this reason.

At the same time, awox is carried out by members of fairly well-known alliances from the top 10 Amarr militias, and not just NPC pilots.

And they explicitly do this on purpose. They approach us, taking advantage of the fact that they are not in our overview and only when they reach the distance they need, when they get the advantage, they only attack. That is, they understand that we will not attack them and use it.

When I write to their leadership, they begin to talk about some other caldari who did something there a year ago and make no attempt to improve relations.

I suggested putting blue plus between organizations. They simply ignore it, despite the fact that for a couple of months now we have been in the top 10 Caldari militia corporations in terms of the number of kills. Yes, for example, this is not a great achievement, but still, we are not some random people in the militia. For quite some time I was both in the Caldari and in the Amarra pilots.

We have to put a orange minus to these guys in order to leave on time and not encounter them, because we do not want to spoil our relations with the Amarr Empire because of them. If it weren’t for the standings, we would just shoot at them the same way as at any other pirates, but we are shackled by the standings.

What do the Amarr do? They give us a red minus for the fact that they themselves decided to awox us. I do not argue, this is at least honest.

But how to avoid losing standings? Previously, you could just declare war and the standing was not lost. But now the rules for declaring war have become more complicated. This requires a structure, and this may already be a problem.

I think this is a bad design.

If the Amarr Empire and the Caldari State are allies, and the Amarr militias kill the allies of the Empire, shouldn’t there be consequences for such militias from the Empire itself? After all, this is a diplomatic scandal.

Conversely, if the Caldari fired on their allies a year ago, shouldn’t the Caldari State have to kick them out of the ranks of the militia?

If this is the norm for empires, then why can’t we separate the status of the allied militia from ours militia? Then there would be no such problem, we would simply not display the status of allies and understand that there is a war of all against all.

However, the game mechanics tells us about some kind of union, which actually does not exist.

Maybe the CCP should deal with this, since they have paid attention to fw?

Years later, they finally guessed give the suspect timer to the neutrals that enter the beacons. How many years do we need to wait for a solution to the problems of standngs and avoxing in a militia that does not correspond to eve lore?

7 Likes
2

I feel the need to point out that being shot by another blue corp is not awoxing. And it’s always a possibility in low sec. Also it’s still an illegal action, so they’re taking a security status hit. Not that this likely matters to them.

This seems to be working as intended. What you’ve found is low sec piracy, and a group of players smart enough to use the fwar system to make you feel secure and give them an advantage.

That’s all this is; low sec piracy.

4 Likes
3

Everything @Brun_Warbear is correct. Piracy is is a completely unrelated mechanic from awoxing. There should not be a separate awox mechanic that prevents piracy just because you’re in the same corp, alliance, or militia when you’re in lowsec or nullsec (or even hisec since that’s what CONCORDokken is for).

Piracy is working as intended. If you have a problem with a militiaman attacking you, give him red standings, call him out in militia chat/militia discords, talk to their corp leadership, etc. CCP should not “fix” something that is not broken.

3 Likes
4

How not avoxing? How else to understand when the status of two different militias is on the same button? It seems that you are trying to justify a design error by the fact that it is so intended. Of course I know that the CCP says that about so much things, but … :slight_smile:

I do not think that the Amarr Empire or the Caldari State intended it this way. Of course, there is a difference between Lore and game mechanics. However, where possible, game mechanics should be logical. If so intended, then we should be able to capture the Amarr system for the State in this case.

5

Anyone can kill anyone at any time anywhere (except Abyssal space outside PVP arenas and while docked) for any reason. This is the first rule of EVE.

The question isn’t whether it is or should be possible, the question is what the consequences will be, if any.

In hisec, if you awox and friendly fire is toggled off, you get CONCORDed and lose sec status. In lowsec/nullsec, if you awox and the target in question is not legal (eg. suspect/criminal), then you go flashy and lose sec status. That is the punishment. Why should there be an additional punishment?

Let me revise my previous statement: Awoxing is a form of piracy, but it is not a form that deserves special treatment.

2 Likes
6

Awoxing is specifically when someone joins your corporation with the intention to troll its members by agressing them in high sec space/ganking them. It’s particularly noteworthy by the fact that historically so long as they never docked up, you could never kick them from your corp.

As this involves a totally different corporation, which has always and always will have the freedom to shoot you in low sec as they see fit, it is not even comparable to awoxing.

1 Like
7

You are wrong because additional punishment exists. If you are in the same militia and shoot at your people, then your militia status drops. And if you shoot too much at your people, then you are thrown out of the militia. In this case, the allied militias are displayed in the same overview with the same option. However, you do not get a decline in status for your militia if you shoot an ally from another militia. And I consider this a mistake.

Either the status of an allied militia should be divided into two different militias, or the punishment for attacking an ally should be the same for everyone who attacks people in the same status.

8

That I neglected to mention additional punishments does not invalidate the punishments I mentioned. Furthermore, the missing piece you’ve provided strengthens my point rather than weakens it. (Personally I was unaware of this and would need to corroborate your claim, though I’m inclined to believe you.)

You can always change your overview settings.

Given that allied militias cannot o-plex or d-plex at your warzone, the “allied militia” mechanic is almost entirely superficial. It’s mostly lore. There is virtually zero actual coordination between allied militias for this reason. Could CCP change FW to promote such cross-militia engagement? Separate issue.

This is interesting… losing sec status with the opposing militia if you awox an allied militiaman + your own militia… this might be a good idea. If this mechanic exists as you describe for awoxing within your own militia, I agree with you that it should exist for awoxing allied militiamen (using the term “awox” loosely here, mind you).

Not sure what you mean by this, but I do support the above idea.

1 Like
9

This is the same problem with neutrals that CCP solved. We all understand that the one who first started shooting gets an advantage in frigate battles. Finally, the militias were no longer punished for protecting the beacons when neutral characters came to them.

This problem has the same roots. If we are friends with the Amarr Empire and help her capture the beacon, why should we be punished by dropping the standing, putting us before the choice to either shoot first and lose the standing, or be defeated?

10

And again you are wrong. Allies can help each other capture beacons. The only thing that distinguishes one militia from another is the inability to attack the system’s infrasturcture hub. And we can bring the system to the 100% state for Amarr being in the Caldari militia. And the same is true for Amarr. They can d plex and o plex in a foreign zone in favor of their allies Caldari State.

Moreover, we receive rewards for this from our militia. That is, our militia is interested in helping our allies from another militia.

11

Ah yes, pardon, you are correct. My recollection was in error.

Having said that, I do agree with your proposal.

12

I would be glad, but I just can’t distinguish one militioman from another by status.
I mean I should not see those whom I cannot attack for fear of being expelled from the militia and I should see those whom I can attack. But this does not happen.

Thank you for asking questions that helped uncover the essence of the problem.

13

In my opinion, being on guard against -5s (or preemptively attacking -10s) is more important than pretending they’re on your side as fellow militiaman. If you are active in FW, you will increase your standing more quickly then you will decrease it. Besides - if they keep awoxing, they will get kicked out themselves. At the barest of minimums, if you let them fire the first shot (you’ll know to “get ready” if you gave them -5 or -10 standing) then you won’t need to worry about standing drops.

And in any FW fleet you could call intel - if you call out a -5 and -10 you can indicate why (“XYZ is an awoxer”) - you’d have that info in the “Notes” section of their character info window so your fleet doesn’t accuse you of being an awoxer.

Oh, and don’t hesitate to call them out as Awoxers on the forums in Crime & Punishment

14

And besides this, there is still a problem with the standings. If our militias are friends, then why should I attack Amarr friends first and lose the stand for my beloved Amarr Empire?

if they keep awoxing, they will get kicked out themselves

That is the problem. This does not work for allies. They have falling in Caldari standing, but the Amarr Empire turns a blind eye to this and they are not expelled from the amarr militia. and vice versa

Although all union militias have the same status in overview, everyone receives rewards for the capture beacons in ally space, and the game mechaniс and Lore demonstrate in every way that the Amarr Empire and the State of Caldari are united in the confrontation against Gallente and Minmatar.

If someone beat the Caldari militia, even if caldari captures the beacon for the Amarr Empire, he only lose the standing to the Caldari, but he will still be in the Amarr militia, as if the Empire doesn’t care, and he will still have the same status in the overview panels, which any allied militia has, regardless of which particular militia he belongs to.

Let me explain that when we capture beacons in the Amarr space, we get a standing with Caldari and not Amarr. And if we attack the Amarr militia, then we will lose the standing with the Amarr, which we are not replenishing in the same volume.

Exposing cons to everyone is simply inconvenient.
In the end, after all, the CCP solved this problem of the first shot when it came to neutrals. And it was elegant. Why not tighten the old gears now in this already boring question.

15

yes! any to any that’s right. But other side can’t protect itself without losing standing - that’s the point. There are no asks about stop plus killing - this is ridiculous (and ridiculous is thinking that Iv asks for that, look his ZKB) . There are one request I found - need mechanic. allows killing awoxers without losing standing, that’s all
this is about the lore as such as about possibility fighting plustakling without loosing standing

1 Like
16

This Topic has been moved to Player Features and Ideas Discussion

17

I think we need to add another point.
3) For capturing beacons in the allied zone, give reputation with the allied militia, and not with the one in which you are.

Otherwise, awoxers will still have a stand advantage over those who follow lore and game mechanics, as awoxers will be able to quickly raise their standing with their native militia back, but with a ally militia they still don’t need keep standings.

1 Like
18

That’s not a bad idea. I think it should be a major + minor gain kind of thing. But yes, you’re spot on.

19

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.