Already exists, it’s called suicide ganking and comes with it’s own cost structure.
Tell that to destiny, not me, it is them who thinks that the engageability of those in highsec is not enough.
Nope, I don’t recall any official statements by CCP, except on the eve of the change via dev blog/patch notes, as is their modus operandi. The unspoken rule has always been that CCP stays silent on such debates, only throwing in an occasional “EVE is supposed to be a harsh game” here and there, until they decide that it shouldn’t be.
Some counterpoints:
-
A newbie character isn’t a practical awoxing risk. If you’re flying a blinged out CNR, and they attack you with a Merlin, what’s that going to do, exactly? How were most of these things done? The best examples I can name are someone taking out a bunch of AFK-mining barges, or skilled characters taking out high-profile targets by using advanced, skill-intensive PvP setups, and I don’t see a problem with either.
-
If you’re not sucking up everyone who bothers to throw an application your way, you should be able to glean some form of intent just by interacting with people for a while before letting them in. Listen, I was way more active back when awoxing was a thing, and my play style consists of flying expensive, bling-heavy ships specifically for PvP. And while my own corporations were always small, I’ve routinely let in newer players to teach them how to PvP. I’ve never had an issue with this, because any time I’ve felt that someone was yanking my chain, I’d tell them to piss off.
My proposed change does not affect the ability to engage others in any way. It merely closes off the potential for using holding corporations to be immune to wars like members of NPC corporations, without having any of the negative drawbacks (11% NPC tax, Upwell utility).
This proposal is not about increasing danger, just about closing a loophole.
Yet again:
- A significant benefit has not been established. Forcing newbies to learn when they are neither interested nor prepared is not acceptable. If PVPers want to engage PVE corpmates, they can do so via suicide gank or LS/NS - there doesn’t NEED to be awoxing in HS, nor would it significantly enhance the game if unrestricted awoxing became a thing again (excluding numerous downsides)
- The potential liability has not been addressed. We cannot Cherry-pick history and fail to acknowledge that the future could be worse than what has happened in history, particularly with Alphas being available now to generate 100x grief characters at a time.
- no significant issues have been identified with the status quo’s friendly fire mechanism. What gameplay is being deprived? Keeping friendly fire toggle as an option is not the same thing as removing suicide ganking and operations/groups like CODE from the game like carebears have called for since the dawn of time
Per my previously established criteria, this proposal fails to:
- lower the barrier to entry for carebears to access higher level content, including “academically” - carebears are more willing and will find it easier to learn these things in controlled environments (at least when suicide gankers appear, they have a limited window in which to succeed or fail)
- make higher level content more appealing to carebears (horrible experience = aversion)
- not be so overwhelming as to make them retreat further into carebear activities (■■■■ all the “benefits” of player corps: awox is the poison pill, revert to NPC corps, NPC corp tax worth it)
Paying a corp maintenance fee similar to an alliance maintenance fee might have some merit, but not “for the purpose of maintaining awox protection”, that’s just nonsense and not lore appropriate.
EVE Flight Academy Video on Player Corporations: There are many benefits for new players to join a player corp. Just watch out because your corpmates are allowed to kill you anytime, anywhere, so don’t trust them with anything you’re not willing to lose. If you’re not willing to take this risk, stick with NPC corps. They don’t have any social structure or player organization or activities, but you don’t need one in an MMO where the only person you can trust is yourself.
There is no risk, that’s the problem. There is risk with suicide ganks - you lose your ship and sec status. You lose nothing with legal awox. What? You get kicked out? Boo-hoo, roll another alpha, grief again. What? You’re worried about your reputation gamewide? I mean, you could already awox in LS/NS so just how bad could your reputation be tarnish now that you can awox more freely in HS?
Do you remember how grief groups would wardec carebear corps left and right before war immunity was a thing? I’ve known hundreds of players who ragequit because of them. Awoxing is sort of like bringing this back in a smaller-but-not-insignificant scale, except that instead of declaring war on a corp (which might not be war-eligible), you just slip in an Alpha and grief from within.
Doesn’t work like that. Two issues:
- Some griefers will spend a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time infiltrating groups - part of the experience for them isn’t just the kills but ruining the trust that was established within the community once they establish standing. I’ve encountered several of these.
- Some groups don’t want to process 20 minute interviews - they want to evaluate members by their actions and participation, not by their interviews. Rubber stamp the application, let’s see how they fit in once they’re in. Easier to kick out a member you know is bad then to filter ones you’re not sure are good or bad. Recruiters shouldn’t have to waste time using completely insecure “interview” methods to make a futile attempt to filter out awoxers just because they can no longer toggle awox flag.
@Destiny_Corrupted you’re one of the smartest forum regulars on here and you generate a lot of great ideas; your time is better spent on proposals that have greater impact and lower liability relative to the stated objective.
You gotta decide whether you’re trying to protect new players or carebears by arguing against removing the FF toggle. A new player can be a carebear, but a carebear isn’t necessarily a new player. Also, some key points here are that newbies having to “learn” things isn’t a bad thing in itself (that’s what being a new player is all about), and that awoxing doesn’t affect players’ ability to engage in high-end content, because all high-end content with the exception of incursions is in other areas of space.
I find this to be the only valid argument, and it implicitly reinforces my point that newbies getting awoxed in the past wasn’t actually an issue.
The dangers inherent in social engineering have been weakened. It’s also now impossible to assassinate someone in high-sec, which is another form of immunity.
They will either way. I’ve interacted with hundreds, if not thousands of these players, and I can attest that carebearism is a personality trait, and not merely a lack of experience.
You lose your reputation.
Using your logic, we can also say that there’s no risk to scamming, therefore CCP should eliminate scamming from the game.
Of course; I was one of them (and still am). I believe this is working as intended. The only way those players would have ever stayed in the game is if they were perfectly safe.
Then those groups shouldn’t field expensive ships in space. Risk versus reward, just like any other aspect of the game (that hasn’t yet been ruined by CCP).
Keep in mind this debate wasn’t part of the original proposal. I can do a different thread for that if you want, though I know that that proposal wouldn’t really go anywhere.
In fact, I know that this proposal won’t go anywhere either; the ayes are outnumbered by the nays three to one. Carebears have been winning all of the changes favorable to them because there’s so many more of them, and they whine so much harder. I’ll eat my Hyperion if CCP actually implements something in line with my proposal.
It’s very easy to abuse anyone who disagrees with you as a carebear, and it makes all your arguments stupid because you are so prepared to take disagreement as ‘The enemy’ rather than consider that maybe your idea with regards to friendly fire is a bad idea.
The corp tax, sure, I argued for that to exist the whole time. I don’t super care either way though, it doesn’t actually break the game having tax free wardec immune corps, because they existed prior to this as well because people just rerolled one man corps. All it does now is add socialising into the mix.
But if you are going to invest your energy into pressing for stuff that wasn’t in your initial post, of course people are going to counter and take that as your main intent to this thread, and the initial post being a stepping stone to allow you to introduce the ‘secondary’ topic.
High-sec aggression mechanics have always been an “us-versus-them” debate. One side wants to keep EVE the game it was promised to be, and one side wants to change it into a game where you can grind PvE content in perfect safety and isolation.
The existence of one issue doesn’t mean that another similar issue shouldn’t be addressed.
I very clearly said in my very first reply, and then reiterated later, that that’s not the intent of this thread, and that I would prefer to discuss it elsewhere.
Then stop being the one pushing for it in this thread.
That’s on you.
I haven’t been. I only replied to others. I really don’t understand where you’re going with this.
1 Like
I’ll stop discussing changes to friendly fire toggle in THIS thread… 
Getting players to do something is one thing, while getting corporations to do something complementary is another.
While I certainly like the idea of npc corporations being a lot less generous to capsuleers, I also think that a carrot and stick approach is necessary to get players to make themselves more reliant upon citadels.
You see plenty of player groups dividing their memberbase between corps which are vulnerable to decs and those which are not. A tax is a reasonable way to address this, and any other activity that involves avoiding opportunities for player interaction.
A nice change to complement this would be to impose costs or hard limits on other uses of NPC stations. For example, the NPC station managers could put a cap on inventory, and charge rent on additional warehouses. That obliges players to make assessments about many different opportunity costs.
Players that are in NPC corps should be subject to the management of those corps, and those managers don’t have much rationale to maintain positive ties with hostile organizations. It would be quite reasonable for players in NPC corps to be denied access to non-aligned stations.
That said, the sanctioned conflict system is still an unwieldy thing. It would be much more tractable if war decs became hyper-localized, allowing groups of players to fight over assets in a finite amount of space. It would give them focus and further incentive to consider opportunity costs.
Boy, it’s a pity that CCP just nerfed Citadels in a way which makes people not want to use them.
It’s about 15 years too late for CCP to implement that.
It is. Instead of having them function as bargaining chips in conflicts as a means of some kind of pseudo-sovereignty territorial control in high-sec, they made conflict resolution dependent on their destruction. CCP always takes the easiest way out, just like they did when they made kill rights function as suspect flag toggles instead of something more intricate like an actual contract-based bounty-hunting system.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.