EVE Search - NPC corps are too safe. Risk/Reward hurfdurf

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

NPC corps are too safe. Risk/Reward hurfdurf

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Topic
Tippia Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.08.06 13:31:00 - [1] No. What needs to be reworked is how you find a decent PC corps to join. The current system sucks and keeps people in NPC corps longer than is necessary. Before anything is done to the NPC corps, the whole corp search mechanism needs a complete overhaul. Originally by: NeoTheo over 5 million SP, you become wardecable. however its achived. Personal wardecs? Hmmm… might be a solution. Throw in a change in the bounty system and attach it to that, and I think there might be some merit to that idea.
Tippia Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:05:00 - [2] Originally by: FlameGlow There are no rewards for being in NPC corp therefore there is no risc of wardec, looks ok Define "reward"…
Tippia Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:19:00 - [3] Originally by: FlameGlow Ability to put a POS and use it, entire corp having agro on loot thief? Those are available when it's just you and your alts in corp, real corps have other benefits too On the other hand, the tax rate and daily running costs for NPC corpers are zero. That would count as a reward.
Tippia Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:36:00 - [4] Originally by: Ruze Remove the invincibility of npc corps, and then you have to address the ease of running your own corp. I can corp hop all day. You don't have to be in an NPC corp to be invincible. …and on the other hand, as I keep mentioning in other threads that bring this up (I don't think I've done it here yet): to make NPC corps less enticing, you need to make it far easier to find a PC corp you might want to join. I don't stay in SAK to stay safe – I do it because I have no way of finding a corp I want to join that I also actually can join. Hopping around between fifty-eleven different corps only to discover that they're all run by megalomaniac numpties is not a solution. In the meantime, the longer I stay in SAK, the more people I get to know there and the less inclined I am to leave. …the question in my mind is just how it could be made easier – I really don't have any useful ideas.
Tippia Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:43:00 - [5] Originally by: Dirk Magnum I read in the Hello Kitty threadnought someone's suggestion that once somebody hits 5 million SP's they are automatically moved into their Empire's militia as a "global service". That might be a good solution to the problem of security in NPC corps. I can't really see how it would solve anything. You would still be undeccable by the people you annoy, and it's not particularly hard to stay away from the roaming gangs of the enemy factions. They'd only be a threat if they randomly happened to stumble across you (while being chased by navy NPCs in a hostile system). They'd have very little reason to actively hunt you down they way they would if you were subject to a real wardec, mainly because you'd go on missioning and mining and never draw any attention to yourself.
Tippia Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:56:00 - [6] Originally by: Ruze But is your intent to increase the RISK involved, or to make the target something you can wardec? I think the intent should be to increase the risk. If they get into the militia as an involuntary sign-up, they may start looking for an active corporation to move into. If not, they WILL have that inevitable risk of being caught in a system by a roving militia gang. True enough, I suppose. It does highlight the confused matter of the issue though: in the whole "risk vs reward" debate about NPC corps, exactly what risks are we talking about?
Tippia Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.08.06 15:36:00 - [7] Originally by: Minami Sayuri It seems that the solution to this problem is fairly simple. You can easily create incentive for a person to leave an NPC corp by doing one of the following: 1. Completely bar members of NPC corps from doing L3/L4 missions. 2. Limit the number of L3/L4 missions a person in an NPC corp can do per day. 3. Significantly reduce the rewards for doing L3/L4 missions while in an NPC corp. …never mind the fact that you can make far more money from non-mission activities. This means you must restrict every other game activity along the same lines, which makes your solution the same as reducing NPC corp players to the same level as trial members. As long as NPC corpers still pay for their subscriptions, that won't happen. Quote: Basically you want to make it so that it's not worth it for a player to stay for any given period of time in an NPC corp. As long as it's not dead-simple to find an alternative, people won't leave, no matter how "worth it" it is. Apparently, PC corps are not worth it at the moment – the question is: is this a fault of the game or the owners of those PC corps? Quote: If you implement any of the above options and also prevent players in NPC corps from fleeting with non-NPC corp players, you provide a safe starting corp for newer players while also making it fairly pointless for older players to remain in the said corp. …and as a bonus, you make it more or less impossible to build any connection outside the NPC corp, thereby further reducing the incentive (and ability) to ever leave the corp behind.
Tippia Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:19:00 - [8] Originally by: Minami Sayuri Regardless of whether they pay for their subscriptions or not, there's no reason a person can't open their own 1-man player corp to do things. Currently the only reason people don't do so is because the NPC corp provides almost absolute safety. I assume you're in one, since you know this so well…? Regardless, you're wrong on both accounts: the ones I talk to (and of the two of us, at least we can be sure that I know what I'm talking about) don't open their own 1-man corps because they don't feel they know enough about the game yet; because they like the social aspects of a large corp; and because they like being able to ask people in corp chat. Are their others that I don't talk to, and who might fit your description? Sure, but I wouldn't know since I don't talk to (or, rather, they don't talk to me). Either way, your generalisation is flat-out wrong. Quote: Without limiting the activities NPC corp members can participate in, there's really no way to limit the potential for abuse without also hurting the newer players that may rely on that safety. …and reciprocally, by limiting the activities NPC corpers can do, you're forcing people to join corps they don't want to be in. Do you really want to trade something "potentially" bad for something actually bad? Quote: Again, if the changes I stated were implemented, it would obviously be "worth it" for people to leave those NPC corps and at very least form their own corp if they don't like others... It is never worth to join a corp if I have to endure the idiocies of some CEO I don't know. Quote: What's the big difference between doing things alone in a 1-man corp and doing things alone with an NPC corp? The difference is that I can choose. There is some some unfounded assumption floating around that NPC corpers do everything alone. That is false. That's also why the whole "make a 1-man-corp" argument is completely misguided and misinformed. Quote: I don't see why a person needs to remain in an NPC corp while he builds outside connections. Because the suggestion was that I wouldn't be able to fly with them. If I can't fly with them, how am I to figure out if I want to play with them? Quote: Rarely do I see them interact with people outside of the NPC corp with the exception of chatting unless they're an alt. Interesting. My experience is the exact opposite (and again, I am on an NPC corp, so I would say that I know this with some certainty): the alts sit quiet and do their own thing; the mains socialise quite a lot.
Tippia Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:38:00 - [9] Originally by: Kruntologist Why not make your own corp with the people you've gotten to know in SAK? If you don't run your corp like a 'megalomaniac numpty' then it should be a raving success. Not if I lead it – that's for sure. I'd far rather join than lead. Anyway, attempts have been made, but gaining critical mass and getting the fun ones to join is a fairly large hurdle. Also, the pessimist in me looks at previous attemps and how poorly they fared. That said, I actually agree: that is the best solution, but also the one with the least chance of success. If (when?) it crumbles, I'll be back in an NPC corp and the problem hasn't gone away. What needs to be solved is the problem of being able to quickly and easily find interesting and worth-while corps. Quote: You can also join public channels of prospective corps and chat with them for abit before joining to see if they're closer to your desires in a corp. Also a good suggestion, but hinges on knowing where to look to begin with, and (if I may derail the thread into another UI whine) getting to that point isn't exactly easy with the tools currently at our disposal… The forums is another way, but everyone's nuts around here (never mind the fact that those are usually the kind of people I've ended up joining in other MMOs)!
Tippia Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.08.06 17:01:00 - [10] Originally by: Minami Sayuri While I'm sure there are plenty of legit NPC corp players, I don't think that you can deny that the VAST majority of them are alts/spies/scouts/farmers/etc. I can't – and certainly won't — deny that there are a lot of them; whether they are a vast majority or not is something I can't say for certain. Like I said, the ones I interact with are the ones who… well, interact, and I know what they do. Some of them are alts; most are not. Quote: Nobody's trying to force you to be in a corp that you don't want to be in. The issue at hand is trying to figure out how to make this game fair and sensible for the general populace. Would you then be opposed to players being allowed to war-dec NPC corporations? Agreed – that is the problem. However, discussion on the topic so often descent into the "kick them out" line of arugmentation, which leads nowhere. Quote: If you have a better way to address the situation at hand, then I would love to hear it, but so long as a person in an NPC corp can do everything a person in a player corp can and with less risk, I don't see a fix to the problem. One idea that at least I have no problems signing is to slap some pretty nasty the tax rates onto NPC corps. I can just look at the silly amounts of available cash I have laying around and see that the cost of living could be increased quite a bit before it even started to hurt. IMO, that would pretty much do what's required: people who want to stay safe pay a hefty price; people who want to farm will leave; people who don't care either way… well, by definition, they won't care. Another idea mentioned elsewhere (don't remember where now) was to rework the bounty system to more or less become single-person wardecs. No mass-griefing of n00bs, but you can still go after the really annoying buggers and the farmers. To turn it into a carrot for joining PC corps, make sure aggression is corp-wide (same as how stealing works now, basically) so they can come and help you. Suggestions? Counterpoints?

Tippia Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.08.06 17:23:00 - [11] Originally by: Kruntologist If it was easy then EVERYONE would do it. However, I often find that NPC corps are filled with "too many indians, not enough chiefs" syndrome (ie too many followers, too few leaders). No doubt, but that's also why I lean more towards improving the "discovery" mechanics (technical and social limtations aside). Also, just to be clear: I certainly don't expect CCP to magically turn people into leaders – I'm more looking for ways of finding the leaders that already exist. This can range from corp rankings to activity metrics to more granular corp descriptions to whoknowswhat. Quote: I'm honestly not trying to be harsh but I do think you're expecting way too much out of CCP here. You're not being harsh, but I think you might overestimate what I expect. I don't mind making an effort to hunt down a corp, but right now, there's so little to go on even if I do make that effort. Also, you alude to a different, but somewhat related, problem: right now, it's easier to put up a recruitment post and hope someone wants to recruit you (an almost completely passive process) than it is to be proactive about it and find the corp yourself. I do think that this could be improved.
Tippia Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.08.06 21:34:00 - [12] Originally by: Webster Carr You can't war dec them and they can't war dec you, they can't fight you and you can't fight them except in low sec (barring suicide ganking) it seems balanced so what's the issue? That is the issue. People shouldn't be able to avoid PvP in a PvP-centric game.
Tippia Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.08.07 08:08:00 - [13] Originally by: Webster Carr People have different ways of playing the game, for some people it is NOT a PVP-centric game. Playstyle makes no difference. There isn't a single part of ≡v≡ that isn't PvP in some form – not even missions. You're always competing with other players. You're always running the risk of being beaten to the punch (or just being plain old beaten). Ignoring this fact means you don't understand why things happen in the game. ≡v≡ is a PvP-centric game no matter how much these players are trying to ignore it.
Tippia Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.08.07 18:05:00 - [14] Edited by: Tippia on 07/08/2008 18:06:28 Originally by: Cassandra Beckinsale What I see is that people want to gank and kill only. EVE has a PVP feature yes, but its no 100% PVP (TAN TAAN!). Actually, it is 100% PvP Do you use the market? If so, you're competing with other players for best price – PvP. Do you run missions? If so, you're competing with other players for the loot and salvage – PvP. Do you mine? If so, you're competing with other players for the best spots and the juiciest 'roids – PvP. Do you produce stuff? If so, you're competing with other players for the production slots and/or trying to be more efficient than they are – PvP. You also need to sell the stuff you produce, leading back to market-PvP. Everything in ≡v≡ involves competition with other players. You're always PvP:ing.
Tippia Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.08.07 18:17:00 - [15] Originally by: Cassandra Beckinsale I play EVE for fun and socialization and I need ISK to both explore and enjoy all its features, I don't compete with anyone nor the survival issue applies to my gaming style. This is proof that EVE's gameplay is much more dynamic then people think. How do you make that ISK? Where do you get the equipment you use to explore? What features are you enjoying?
Tippia Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.08.07 18:31:00 - [16] Originally by: Cassandra Beckinsale I meant PVP physical war affairs, where both your ship and capsule pops. …and that's why you don't get the PvP nature of ≡v≡. Quote: EVE works even if you are playing alone in the server. That's why its not 100% PVP. By that token, CounterStrike isn't a PvP game either – it works if you're alone on the server too. The problem is that the instant you add other players, the game immediately becomes a competition over the resources (soft competition as it may be if there's only two of you in the whole galaxy). Some parts of ≡v≡ works without other players – most do not. Without those elements, you're not really playing ≡v≡ – you need to add players to get the full game. The moment you add other players, you add PvP.
Tippia Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.08.07 19:45:00 - [17] Originally by: Durzel Your average players experience of PvP in Eve therefore (i.e. not the epic 0.0 alliance warfare) is players looking to kill others by means that limit their risk whilst guaranteeing almost certain victory. Blobbing, gatecamping, Loftying (until recently), nano'ing, canflipping - all examples of PvP where the fight isn't "fair" but instead designed to ensure that the protagonist wins with little/no risk to themselves. Even wardecs where one PvP-centric corp wages war on a corp they already know to be no match for them is another example of PvP "carebearism". Brings to mind the basic proverbs of ≡v≡: "If you're in a fair fight, the other guy's backup just hasn't arrived yet." "If you're in a fair fight, you're doing it wrong."

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.