The CEO controls in my feature if criminals have a place in the corporation. And they can do that on a more granular level than with your system. Your system only knows “Criminals allowed, everyone is screwed” or “No criminals and no fun allowed”. My system knows “Big time ciminals in, corp is screwed, but officials can take steps”, “Casual criminals in, but corp is not screwed until a certain level is reached”, “CEO can take steps to allow fun but not criminal acts, which allows PVP without harming the corp” and “No fun allowed”. Your system gives only a binary choice, my system provides a range of choices.
Let me exemplify. Suppose that we have two proposals:
- Corp setting for legality of friendly fire.
- Each player can set if he or she wants to attack other corp members without CONCORD intervention.
Both have 24hrs cooldown, of course.
The second proposal allows the CEO to control legality of friendly fire, but he needs to clean his corp from potential awoxers every day. It is also more granular and whatever.
However, first one is clearly better.
They are not hard to find. It is not like you have to comb through thousands of pages of members since the offenders are presented in the notifications. You’d have to go through those and are done.
However, in order to ease that excruciating burden, one could think about adding a new member state flag that automatically kicks members if they committed too many criminal actions in a given amount of time. These members could still navigate around that flag by pausing their nefarious actions every now and then but that would give corp officials more time to respond. Options and choices.
Friendly fire does not do what you think it does
Learn game mechanics before trying to make suggestions affecting them
Well, you ought to learn to read first. The FF toggle we talk about since you brought it up first is an expanded FF toggle that works like a Safety Switch for corps/alliances. This feature expansion is even mentioned in the first post of the topic. 
Then actually refer to it as such, don’t talk about “The FF toggle will do this”
As for your idea, yeah no.
You keep making it more and more complex to try and stop abuse, if an idea has to be that complex to stop abuse it’s a bad idea.
2 Likes
Well, if you could read and comprehend, you’d know what the FF toggle means in this context here. The meaning is clear if you pay attention to the topic. For people like you, I will try to keep in mind to call it “expanded FF toggle” in the future.
Complexity? Care to point to increased complexity? I have not added anything that makes the game more complex in an unreasonable manner. I have yet to add anything to the first mentioned 4 provisions to counter abuse in order to counter anything you throw at the feature suggestion and call it abuse.
In contrast, some of the suggestions even make life easier. The suggested auto-kick feature would take away work load from corp officials. The new notifications when someone commits a criminal act makes it easier for corp officials to know what is going on. The suggested expanded FF toggle would make it easier to manage the behavior of your corp members and allows for granular control with a click. None of these features are new, they are mere expansions of existing features (safety switch for characters, join/leave notifications for characters, wait timer is the same as war dec waiting period, flag thresholds are the system as sov indices).
Continually editing new information into the topic and expecting people to read it all is unreasonable.
You are literally suggesting 3 entirely new features just to try and manage abuse of your proposal, some of which are basically botting features, and are not
since they allow you to control other peoples behaviour directly.
So uh, yeah… Nope, not happening.
1 Like
It’s stupid.
The FF has a specific meaning in the game. If you want another mechanism, use another name.
No. Just use another name.
FF toggle prevent you from shooting your friends, that is your corpies at the level of corporation.
Yes you did.
You added a lot of complexishenanigans, for something that adds nothing and can lead to abuse.
Not really. The auto-kick feature already exists. You can flag a character for kick from corp when it is possible the next time, for instance, if they log off or dock.
The expanded FF toggle is just the Safety Switch expanded to corps.
The Notification is new but does not add complexity, it takes it away. Like notifications that were added for structure deployments and power states of structures, it simply provides more information and allows quicker access to certain functionalities, such as kicking people from corp via right click. That takes away complexity.
Oh really? Mind me if I remind you of the “Prohibit the deployment of structures” toggle or the “accept structure transfers” toggle for corps and alliances? That feature exists already, it directly influences the behavior of people and it is there to prevent war decs.
I did not propose that; maybe you just misunderstood.
I proposed one setting: “Criminal acts: Allowed/Disallowed”. First position makes all corp members suspects, and second forbids changing safety switch to red.
A quick look at ZKillboard stats (which, I will fully admit, are not the most reliable data, but it’s the data I have) shows the following numbers:
All kills involving CONCORD drones: ~2.1 million
All capsules killed: ~2.3 million
I don’t have an easy way to sort out pod kills by security status of the system involved (the tools exist, but I don’t have the time to teach myself to use them just for this discussion) but based on a rough distribution of systems in New Eden (losec makes up ~15% of known space), I think it’s safe to say that the majority of criminal acts are not poddings in losec, which means the majority impact would be to hisec ganking corps, not losec PvP corps.
Which isn’t necessarily a hit against your idea, but it’s something to keep in mind when considering its impacts.
If that’s your intent then your statement needs some clarifying. The way war declarations work is that after you trigger one, they go live after 24 hours, period, full stop, no chance to abort. People in the involved corps have time to respond and prepare, yes, but not time to stop them. So, by extension, I interpreted that as after a corp hits the criminal threshold, it gets flagged in 24 hours, period, full stop, no chance to abort. Can you see how your statement could be confusing?
If what you truly intend is to give corporations time to boot characters for bad behavior before a criminal flag trigger, this changes two things:
- The potential abuses I outlined earlier would become harder to execute, but not impossible. (And, in this context, I understand why you took my ideas as silly.)
- This level of consequence avoidance would be unprecedented in EvE. You’re asking to hold corporations accountable for criminal activity, yet at the same time you’re giving corporations a “get out of jail free” card so they don’t have to take responsibility for their pilots actions. That’s hugely contrary to how EvE generally works.
Along the lines of consequence avoidance, giving a corporation a permanent criminal flag does absolutely nothing to make them easier to engage, especially in losec. All it does is remove a slight consequence for engaging them. If they are slippery and don’t want to be caught, you won’t catch them no matter how they’re flagged. I’ll retract my concerns of abuse based on your clarification, but I still oppose this change because all it is is a move to reduce or eliminate the consequences of player actions, and that should never be the norm in EvE.
Also, it seems quite convoluted (if A, then B, but only after a period of time C during which corp leadership can kick offending players), and I generally oppose overly complicated gameplay unless it brings an oversized benefit.
So…still a no from me. For different reasons, yes, but no nonetheless.
You can generally already shoot at the people you’re targeting. Undock and go shoot them.
Technically yes because it does not contain the full information. However, it is a discussion and work in progress. I do not claim that I have worked out everything to the very last tiny little detail. It helps if people like you point out issues or missing aspects.
And that is the entire point of it. This feature removes the penalty for shooting someone that lives together with criminals in the same organization.
Right now it the consequences are bad in my opinion. You have criminals in your organization but EVE still treats you as a saint. Even though you live and profit from criminals, there are no consequences for that life style. If someone shoots you, the game treats the attacker as a criminal and punishes you with security status loss instead of allowing you to engage the members of the criminal organization. We may live in a dystopian future but this feels very backwards.
I accept that. I am happy that I could clarify some misunderstandings and that you pointed out some things I missed.
1 Like
Ditto. Forum-ing at its finest.
No it treats you like you had not.
Meaning, people can’t change the way you are treated. Which is good.
JFC you do not get it. They have those -5 players in the corp under the current rules. If you change the rules so that having -5 players flags the entire corp everyone will just put their -5 characters into an alt corp (where nobody cares about the flag because they’re -5 anyway) and remain un-flagged everywhere else. You will not get any additional targets to shoot at because nobody is going to be dumb enough to do their crime in the same corp as characters they don’t want flagged.
As for the rest, it’s pointless to try to discuss the flaws in your proposed mechanics when you are constantly moving the goalposts and changing the way the flagging is supposed to work. But I think it says a lot that you need to implement all of these secondary changes just to prevent your idea from being massively exploited.
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.